Humanitarian intervention
Chris Burford wrote: A Google search for [Ian Bruce Herald] produced a number of articles suggesting to me that his sources have included a KLA insider, and someone close to George Robertson, now Nato Secretary General. = MK: He does appear to be well connected alright. It's not so clear to me, however, to what end he's pursuing these leads. It was always obvious where the likes of Pincher was coming from, for example. = The French position in this article seems less mysterious if you accept that they were always more pro-Serbian even than the British Foreign Office under Hurd. Clinton therefore stood back and let them take responsibility for the Szrebenica massacre in the eyes of the informed upper echelons of NATO. = MK: I don't buy your take on Clinton, whatever the truth of your preamble. The Clinton era saw the engineering of a new role for NATO, from officially defensive to an emergent policing role. For NATO to accomplish this it would require the backing of its main member, whose own interests would be served by this development via the sharing of the military/logistical/financial burdens but retaining overall command. The NATO apparatus itself, of course, wishes to extend its life and role, but has been able to accomplish this only with the approval, tacit or otherwise, of the US. Palming Srebrenica off onto the French might be good politics (esp. in the wake of the revelations concerning Chirac's holiday expenses and the pall this casts over his re-election prospects: see yesterday's Independent), but it's disingenuous, at best. It ignores the integral role played by the security services of Britain, the US, and Germany (see Robert Fisk also in yesterday's Independent). The latter, remember, was also the first to recognise the independence of Croatia, thereby legitimising the anti-semite and bloodthirsty Tudjman. = The Herald is the former Glasgow Herald. Glaswegian would not necessarily accept that Glasgow is the second city of Scotland. Among its interesting speculations is that if Scotland were to declare independence, it would have Britain's Trident nuclear weapons system or England would have to spend several billion building a new site after overcoming public controversy about its location. With Britain's nuclear weapons, plus the Secretary General of Nato its confidant, why should the Herald consider itself a provincial paper? = MK: It doesn't. That's why it became The Herald, dropping the Glasgow bit. But its aspirations and its position in the UK press pecking order do not necessarily match. In the UK (i.e. London/Whitehall) scheme of things, Scotland's newspaper (as it has long sold itself) is, by definition, provincial, because Scotland is a mere region of the UK. Michael K.
Re: oil predictions
In respect to oil there are some observations that were made about the nineties, and these are: World demand is increasing, with third world demand increasing at 2 percent yearly. Refineries are operating at 98 percent capacity, with little new investments. The ratio of new find to reserves was decreasing. The OPEC supply jolt lifted and trebled prices such that new prices would revert to a mean of 25$ per barrel ( backwardation). Fossil fuel substitutes are only foreseeable in the medium term and costly, particularly, in the developing world. Some argue for a partial but sizeable contribution of cheap nineties oil prices possibly contributing to above-average economic performance. Another relevant observation is that developing countries experiencing a foreign exchange crunch (the majority) tend to suffer tremendously from oil price hikes. The depletedness cum limitness of the resource seem to arise from the falling ratio of new finds to number of digs when better exploration and digging technology exists. When that is the case than predatory politics kicks in major time and the politics of oil tend to be humanely ugly. With the above observation holding: there are probably two interesting scenarios and these are: 1) The developed world splitting on the division of energy resources in the third world ( sort of the US and Europe differing on strategy in canaille manner) 2) The developed world closing ranks behind the US to secure energy continuous energy resources with the US calling the shots. At first, the first outcome seems less probable given Europe's vulnerability and security concerns. The US policy on oil follows very strict colonial patterns: stable oil prices and stable flows at a high human and economic cost to the producers. --- Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/10/01 05:19PM (( CB: I didn't know about the chemically bonding contamination. How much is contaminated ? Sounds like a small percentage . How about taking a bunch of hydrogen and oxygen and combining it to make new water ? === That's where the Star Trek technology comes in. You'd need a quantum computer capable of synthesizing probability amplitudes from the Planck scale; it's not even decidable whether it's possible yet, let alone if it would ever be technically and economically feasible. Ian CB: This undecidability IN PRINCIPLE stuff is weird. I mean does physics have to turn into the complete opposite of its exacting self , from hard to totally soft science ? Social science need no longer have an inferiority complex. What gives ? __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: Re: Crap alert!
Greetings Econo Mitts, Tom Walker, Too late, Doyle. Rob put in a contender. And we still haven't heard from Jim three bears Devine and Max the tax Sawicky. Doyle Curses thanks Doyle
Re: Re: oil predictions
It seems that my first message did not go through: In respect to oil there are some observations that were made about the nineties, and these are: World demand is increasing, with third world demand increasing at 2 percent. Refineries are operating at 98 percent capacity, with little new investments. The ratio of new find to reserves was decreasing. The OPEC supply jolt lifted or trebled prices such that new prices would revert to a mean of 25$ per barrel (backwardation). Fossil fuel substitutes are only foreseeable in the medium term and costly, particularly, in the developing world. Some argue for a partial but sizeable contribution of cheap nineties oil prices possibly contributing to above-average economic performance. Another relevant observation is that developing countries experiencing a foreign exchange crunch (the majority) tend to suffer tremendously from oil price hikes. The depletedness cum limitness of the resource seem to arise from the falling ratio of new finds to number of digs when better exploration and digging technology exists. When that is the case than predatory politics kicks in major time and the politics of oil tend to be humanely ugly. With the above observation holding: there are probably two interesting scenarios and these are: 1) The developed world splitting on the division of energy resources in the third world ( sort of the US and Europe differing on strategy in canaille manner) 2) The developed world closing ranks behind the US to secure energy and continuous energy resources with the US calling the shots. At first, the first outcome seems less probable given Europe's vulnerability and security concerns. The US policy on oil follows very strict colonial patterns: stable oil prices and stable flows at a high human and economic cost to the producers. __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: Re: Speaking of volatility
Once again, I have to remark on how weird it is that a bunch of friends of the working class are getting all excited about the prospects for recession, which means the disemployment of millions and lower wages for everyone else. Does the ghost of Andrew Mellon lurk over PEN-L? Doug
Re: Rats abandon ship... pundits spin like mad
The spinmeisters have more work ahead, I reckon. Argentina has slowed its economy to crisis-point by slicing public expenditure in response to a national credit rating that wouldn't allow it to borrow at rates it could afford. Yesterday we heard capital was bolting, and that Brazil has caught the cold. Both are now in the basketcase category, with poor ol' Turkey. Now the Beeb tells us Poland is in big trouble, and that Italy has just announced a budget deficit three times that allowed by the stability pact. Worried Eurosuits are being told Italy will privatise its way out of trouble (at firesale prices into very soft markets). Reckon that might keep the Euro down a bit, which should keep European demand down a bit. And I hear China is about to open its equity markets, thus probably consigning many of its productive assets to the dustbin of history. Anyone got a view on how that before the spinmeisters chime in and muddy the waters? Cheers, Rob.
Political Voyeurism (was Re: Speaking of volatility)
Once again, I have to remark on how weird it is that a bunch of friends of the working class are getting all excited about the prospects for recession, which means the disemployment of millions and lower wages for everyone else. Does the ghost of Andrew Mellon lurk over PEN-L? Doug I think it wouldn't be weird to get excited about the prospects of recession *if* the leftists in question had (A) a *clear political strategy* to exploit it and (B) the *organizational wherewithal* to make the strategy real, not utopian. The same should be said about getting all worked up about the prospects of declining oil reserves, progress of globalization (aka free-trade Empire), oil deals for East Timor, anything. Minus A B, getting turned on by any prospect, major or minor, is just an act of political voyeurism. Yoshie
Re: Re: Re: Speaking of volatility
G'day Doug, Once again, I have to remark on how weird it is that a bunch of friends of the working class are getting all excited about the prospects for recession, which means the disemployment of millions and lower wages for everyone else. Does the ghost of Andrew Mellon lurk over PEN-L? My superannuation, over the disposition of which I have no control, is somewhere in that mess, too, you know. As are all our futures. I just think it quite rational to react to something about which one can do nothing, no matter how ghastly, by looking for the silver lining. And the silver lining is that lots of smug suits get burned, lots of smug experts get loudly contradicted by the facts, (the sensuous schadenfreude component) and people might start thinking twice about surrendering their material, social and political agency to unaccountable Big Finance and 'shareholder value' (the virtuous political component) - geez, some might even think deeper than that. And, as you're a pal, I'm happy that the reservations you expressed in *Wall Street* might be vindicated at the expense of the credibility of rude critics like that chap on the book's jacket. Gotta go now - the Beeb is talking about how Japan's zero interest rates are not stopping unemployment and bankruptcies rising at unprecedented rates. Oh, and Beijing has the Samarympics, apparently. Cheers, Rob.
Re: RE: Re: Re: Speaking of volatility
Mark Jones wrote: Doug Henwood: Once again, I have to remark on how weird it is that a bunch of friends of the working class are getting all excited about the prospects for recession, which means the disemployment of millions and lower wages for everyone else. Does the ghost of Andrew Mellon lurk over PEN-L? I hope we can raise the level of debate above this. Actually I think it's quite relevant to the intellectual and political marginalization of left political economy - it has no analytical vocabulary for talking about good times, and overtly or covertly roots for crisis to do the hard political work of discrediting capitalism. It's temperamentally doomy and gloomy, and therefore has little emotional appeal to an audience broader than a hardy band of miserablists. Doug
Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Speaking of volatility
Nobody is salivating over the prospect of the working class suffer, but it did not do that well during the Clinton boom. But I do relish the downfall of many highly leveraged businesses. I recall your glee at the demise of some of the dot.coms -- a pleasure,which I shared with you. Although workers suffered during the Depression, the working-class probably benefitted in the long run -- of course, that long-term perspective smacks of Andrew Mellon. More important, the continuation of the boom has fueled the triumphalism of neo-liberalism, which has brought untold damage to the rest of the world. A crisis might free other countries to pursue their own course. On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 10:28:06AM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote: Mark Jones wrote: Doug Henwood: Once again, I have to remark on how weird it is that a bunch of friends of the working class are getting all excited about the prospects for recession, which means the disemployment of millions and lower wages for everyone else. Does the ghost of Andrew Mellon lurk over PEN-L? I hope we can raise the level of debate above this. Actually I think it's quite relevant to the intellectual and political marginalization of left political economy - it has no analytical vocabulary for talking about good times, and overtly or covertly roots for crisis to do the hard political work of discrediting capitalism. It's temperamentally doomy and gloomy, and therefore has little emotional appeal to an audience broader than a hardy band of miserablists. Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Speaking of volatility
Hi again Doug, Actually I think it's quite relevant to the intellectual and political marginalization of left political economy - it has no analytical vocabulary for talking about good times, If the times are usually good for most people, and sustainably so, well, I wouldn't be a lefty. That's not to say you don't have a big point. 'The end is nigh' is empty and lousy politics in the long term. Unless it is, of course ... and overtly or covertly roots for crisis to do the hard political work of discrediting capitalism. Not only wouldn't that be a political strategy, I reckon it'd be wrong. More xenophobia, demagoguery, fragmentation, belligerence, and maybe even crassly dangerous protectionism is what I expect. But then, I'm an industrial strength miserablist in my very atoms - optimism being more an American thang. It's temperamentally doomy and gloomy, and therefore has little emotional appeal to an audience broader than a hardy band of miserablists. You'd have to be hardy indeed to be anything else, I reckon. The world is actually in recession, I reckon - and good cheer is hard to find as I trail my questing finger around my little globe ... Cheers, Rob.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Speaking of volatility
Rob... And, as you're a pal, I'm happy that the reservations you expressed in *Wall Street* might be vindicated at the expense of the credibility of rude critics like that chap on the book's jacket. Alan Abelson, early in his journalistic career, dissed (deliberately misunderstood? or is he just dense?) a speech by Martin Jay at a late 60's session of the original Socialist Scholars Conferences in NYC (see, The Revival of American Socialism, ed. by Fischer, Oxford Univ. Press, 1970. Texts by Genovese, Birnbaum, Lasch, Jay...), entitled, Dear Herbert. As in Marcuse. Jay, was criticizing the New Leftish alienation from Amerikkkan Kultur. Abelson thought he was endorsing it. Michael Pugliese P.S. A grad student from UCB, an ex-girlfriend of an old chum, told me yrs. ago, after a study group on Deleuze Guattari, told me sourly, that Martin Jay drives a Porsche! An enemy of the people! Heh, S.M. Lipset, drives a beat up socdem Volvo, as I saw with my eyes once at UCSC after he talked on the hardy perennial, Why No Socialism In America? pen-l http://csf.colorado.edu/pen-l/ - Original Message - From: Rob Schaap [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 5:12 PM Subject: [PEN-L:15090] Re: Re: Re: Speaking of volatility G'day Doug, Once again, I have to remark on how weird it is that a bunch of friends of the working class are getting all excited about the prospects for recession, which means the disemployment of millions and lower wages for everyone else. Does the ghost of Andrew Mellon lurk over PEN-L? My superannuation, over the disposition of which I have no control, is somewhere in that mess, too, you know. As are all our futures. I just think it quite rational to react to something about which one can do nothing, no matter how ghastly, by looking for the silver lining. And the silver lining is that lots of smug suits get burned, lots of smug experts get loudly contradicted by the facts, (the sensuous schadenfreude component) and people might start thinking twice about surrendering their material, social and political agency to unaccountable Big Finance and 'shareholder value' (the virtuous political component) - geez, some might even think deeper than that. And, as you're a pal, I'm happy that the reservations you expressed in *Wall Street* might be vindicated at the expense of the credibility of rude critics like that chap on the book's jacket. Gotta go now - the Beeb is talking about how Japan's zero interest rates are not stopping unemployment and bankruptcies rising at unprecedented rates. Oh, and Beijing has the Samarympics, apparently. Cheers, Rob. Hi again Doug, Actually I think it's quite relevant to the intellectual and political marginalization of left political economy - it has no analytical vocabulary for talking about good times, If the times are usually good for most people, and sustainably so, well, I wouldn't be a lefty. That's not to say you don't have a big point. 'The end is nigh' is empty and lousy politics in the long term. Unless it is, of course ... and overtly or covertly roots for crisis to do the hard political work of discrediting capitalism. Not only wouldn't that be a political strategy, I reckon it'd be wrong. More xenophobia, demagoguery, fragmentation, belligerence, and maybe even crassly dangerous protectionism is what I expect. But then, I'm an industrial strength miserablist in my very atoms - optimism being more an American thang. It's temperamentally doomy and gloomy, and therefore has little emotional appeal to an audience broader than a hardy band of miserablists. You'd have to be hardy indeed to be anything else, I reckon. The world is actually in recession, I reckon - and good cheer is hard to find as I trail my questing finger around my little globe ... Cheers, Rob. - Original Message - From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 7:28 AM Subject: [PEN-L:15091] Re: RE: Re: Re: Speaking of volatility Mark Jones wrote: Doug Henwood: Once again, I have to remark on how weird it is that a bunch of friends of the working class are getting all excited about the prospects for recession, which means the disemployment of millions and lower wages for everyone else. Does the ghost of Andrew Mellon lurk over PEN-L? I hope we can raise the level of debate above this. Actually I think it's quite relevant to the intellectual and political marginalization of left political economy - it has no analytical vocabulary for talking about good times, and overtly or covertly roots for crisis to do the hard political work of discrediting capitalism. It's temperamentally doomy and gloomy, and therefore has little emotional appeal to an audience broader than a hardy band of miserablists. Doug
Re: Speaking of volatility
Doug Henwood wrote, Once again, I have to remark on how weird it is that a bunch of friends of the working class are getting all excited about the prospects for recession, which means the disemployment of millions and lower wages for everyone else. Does the ghost of Andrew Mellon lurk over PEN-L? What is weird is your construal of the so-called excitement. Anti-socialist propaganda stands on two legs -- there is no alternative and the best of all possible worlds. The best time to advance the economic interests of workers is during an economic expansion. It so happens that during the good times such gains are likely to be attributed to the expansion itself, rather than to class struggle. On the other hand, the struggle to defend previous gains during a recession is more clearly recognized by everyone as a struggle. This creates the illusion that struggle is always a negative, defensive activity. Thus all the fun stuff comes from capitalism and the hair shirts are worn by the left. The catch is that the form in which gains have been secured during an upswing will have an important bearing on how defensible they will be during a downtown. Capital would prefer to give something to workers during the good times that it can readily take back during the bad times. That is, to provide the gains as much as possible in the form of purely economic individualistic 'utilities' -- stock options, say, rather than collective agreements. It is incumbant on friends of the working class to point out repeatedly during the good times that they won't last forever (and why) and to remind workers that the forms in which gains are taken now -- and the political and economic content of those forms -- will largely determine whether those gains will be transitory or enduring. Of course, when we do so we will be mocked incessently because there is no pressing, overt need for, say, protection against unemployment when the unemployment rate is at a 20 year low. Why would anyone want to build their foundations out of anything but sand when there is so damn much sand around and at such reasonable prices, eh? There happens to be a reason why I write and study so much about working time. The reason is not that I am a one-trick pony. The reason is that historically, reductions in working time -- which, by the way, almost invariably include wage gains as a component -- have proven to be more defensible than strictly monetary wage gains. Karl Marx noticed this. The founders of the American Federation of Labor noticed it. The 1902 report of the Industrial Commission appointed by the U.S. Congress noticed it. The early 20th century National Association of Manufacturers USA noticed and abhorred it. Organized labour in the U.S. seems to have forgotten it and has been in decline for several decades. Employers' organizations, right-wing think tanks, the financial press and mainstream economists seem to have remembered it all too well and are quick to respond with ridicule and hostility to comprehensive proposals to restrict and/or redistribute working time. Coincidentally (or not), neo-liberalism has been in ascendency for several decades. Leftists seem to take the issue for granted, as if it is all too obvious a good thing to be worth investing much effort in. Maybe leftists secretly prefer the drama of struggling against insurmountable odds to defend indefensible gains. Allow me the indulgence of quoting from the 1902 Industrial Commission report (perhaps this passage was authored by John R. Commons?). In my opinion it is the most succinct summary ever of the dialectic of hours, wages and business cycles: A reduction of hours is the most substantial and permanent gain which labor can secure. In times of depression employers are often forced to reduce wages, but very seldom do they, under such circumstances, increase the hours of labor. The temptation to increase the hours of labor comes in times of prosperity and business activity, when the employer sees opportunity for increasing his output and profits by means of overtime. This distribution is of great importance. The demand for increased hours comes at a time when labor is strongest to resist, and the demand for lower wages comes at a time when labor is weakest. Once again, I have to remark on how weird it is that a cosmopolitan left observer of business gets alternatively blasé about the irrelevance of raising the issue of unemployment during the upswing when unemployment is low and indignant about the supposed glee of friends of the working class at the prospects for recession, which means the disemployment of millions and lower wages for everyone else. There is hope, Doug. There IS a cure for blasé indignation. It is called beginner's mind. In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's there are few. Tom Walker Bowen Island, BC 604 947 2213
Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Speaking of volatility
Michael Perelman wrote: Nobody is salivating over the prospect of the working class suffer, but it did not do that well during the Clinton boom. But I do relish the downfall of many highly leveraged businesses. I recall your glee at the demise of some of the dot.coms -- a pleasure,which I shared with you. I'd like to see some Wall Street oinkers and their apologists take a hit, and have to do something useful, like cleaning bedpans. But I don't relish the fact that 410,000 U.S. workers are filing first claims for unemployment insurance every week, and that slacker labor markets will be bad news for wages. The working class didn't do that well during the Clinton years, but it did better than it did during the Carter, Reagan, and Bush years. And the U.S. slowdown hasn't been great news for Latin America; Argentina, which already had plenty of problems, is going through the wringer now in part because of what's going on here. It's not so great for Southeast Asia either. Doug
Openness and Honesty in Left Politics
Justin: I think that you and I have different views on how socialists and radicals of all stripes should participate in large mass movements. I think that openness and honesty is essential, and that it is the failure to be open and honest that leads to trouble, not red baiting. Red baiting has the power it does only when it catches people in deception. In the context of contemporary American politics, if someone's politics are of the sort that they have to hide them, then they need to change their politics, IMHO; we are not exactly living in a police state. As for the TDU and _Labor Notes_, I said that the founders and leaders were, for the most part, Trotskyists. You say, that is wrong, and then go on to point out, in your view, which ones are Trotskyists and which ones are not. You may have some difficulty showing how what you offer for evidence is in any way inconsistent with what I said. As I see it, it is common knowledge among those who have participated in and know the history and current structure of left politics and American trade unionism that TDU and _Labor Notes_ were born out of the efforts of key cadre in the International Socialists some twenty years ago, and that the main players in that effort are now members of Solidarity. It is also common knowledge that Solidarity was created by the merger of various remnants of the Trotskyist movement, and that while it does not require adherence to Trotskyism from its members, it is a soft 'Trotskyist' organization. This is really not any different than the knowledge that the Reuther leadership of the UAW came out of the Socialist Party and defeated a faction aligned with and led by the Communists, that the AFL-CIO's international operations pre-Sweeney was run by a series of vociferous anti-Communists who were Lovestonites [members of the 'right opposition'/Bukharinites of the Communist Party] and Shachtm! an! ites ['Third Camp' Trotskyists], and so on. Pretending that this is not true, in the name of avoiding 'red baiting,' is, in my view, engaging in the type of deception which has haunted the work of the left in the American trade union movement. This was a lesson I learned very quickly on in my participation on the American left. As a working class teenager from Queens who opposed the war in Vietnam, I invited a representative from the Student Mobilization Committee Against the War to speak at my high school. At the meeting, someone accused the SMC of being a front group for the Socialist Workers Party and Young Socialist Alliance. The speaker adamantly denied that this was the case, and then told me after the meeting that although he was a member of YSA, they were under instructions not to admit such matters. As soon as anyone raised the question, cry 'red baiting.' Is it any wonder that an organization which worked in that way lacked all credibility? Leo Casey
Re: Openness and Honesty in Left Politics
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pretending that this is not true, in the name of avoiding 'red baiting,' is, in my view, engaging in the type of deception which has haunted the work of the left in the American trade union movement. My understanding is that Solidarity people are extremely coy about revealing their affiliation, to the point where people whose names appear on the masthead of Against the Current don't want their membership mentioned in the context of their union work. I won't name names, because the last time I did, I got a heated email from a Soli person saying I was undermining the union work by mentioning this. Doug
Re: East Timor
Michael Keaney posted: (Thanks to Alan Bradley on the Marxism list for the following.) The following article appears in the current issue of Green Left Weekly (http://www.greenleft.org.au/): Who gains most from New Timor gap treaty? On July 5, representatives of the East Timor Transitional Cabinet, the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor and the Australian government met in Dili and signed the Timor Sea Arrangement, concluding 10 months of negotiating and wrangling over a new deal to replace the Timor Gap treaty. The new agreement represents a moral and political victory for East Timor, with the Howard government finally conceding to the demands pushed by UNTAET representative Peter Galbraith and East Timorese negotiators Mari Alkatiri and Jose Ramos Horta that East Timor receive at least a 90% share of the royalties from oil and gas developments in the area currently covered by the joint zone of co-operation. The new agreement will mean East Timor will receive an estimated $7 billion in revenue from royalties over a 20-year period, providing a crucial source of income for the devastated and newly independent nation. From the outset, the Howard government negotiating team - headed by foreign minister Alexander Downer, resources minister Nick Minchin and attorney-general Daryl Williams - have sought to obstruct East Timor from asserting its rights under international law. The back down by the Australian government was not motivated by concerns of helping East Timor. It was primarily motivated by the desire to safeguard the interests of oil and gas companies operating in the Timor Gap and the financial windfall for itself and the Northern Territory government ensuring that Darwin becomes the transit port for the export of East Timorese oil and gas. On top of this, the Howard government was also keenly aware that with East Timor gaining a better royalty deal, this offered another justification not to provide more humanitarian aid and assistance to East Timor. Both the Coalition government and the Labor opposition want to diminish as much as possible responsibility (and any notion of compensation) for the part played by Australia in supporting the 24-year-long Indonesian military occupation. How generous really is this new agreement? Certainly the royalties will make a big difference for East Timor, but the spin-off for US and Australian oil companies operating in the Timor Sea (and for the Northern Territory and Australian governments) is enormous by comparison. Some $13 billion is expected to be invested in new pipelines and downstream processing in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory treasury department estimates that these projects will generate $50 billion in economic activity in the NT over the next 20 years. Downer asserts that the new deal is a fair and just agreement, an agreement with a true basis in international law. An article by Alkatiri and Galbraith in the July 6 Sydney Morning Herald gives a more accurate appraisal of the agreement. They wrote: The new Timor Sea treaty is a fair deal for East Timor and an even better deal for Australia and the companies developing oil and gas in the Timor Sea ... [the agreement] also rights a historic wrong. It will not make East Timor rich. However, if the money is well spent, it will give the people of East Timor the opportunity to escape the grinding poverty that is the legacy of occupation and war. They added that: Under international law, East Timor is entitled to a seabed boundary at the mid-point between East Timor and Australia. This would give East Timor not 90 per cent, but 100 per cent of the oil and gas in the Timor Sea. Thus while it may look like Australia is making a major concession in moving from the 50/50 revenue sharing it had under the Indonesia treaty to the 90/10 split in this new treaty, it is more than fair for Australia. And, as Galbraith noted following the signing of the agreement, it provides a hell of a lot more certainty than they [energy companies] had under a treaty with Indonesia in which they were in effect making investment in stolen property. The Green Left Weekly is quite right to point out that Australia is not being generous in signing the new Gap deal. As the Vancouver Sun says below, there is even more: * The Vancouver Sun July 7, 2001 Saturday FINAL EDITION SECTION: BUSINESS, Pg. B6 Jonathan Manthorpe HEADLINE: Minority oil interest means hope for E. Timor BYLINE: Jonathan Manthorpe ...When Australia negotiated the first treaty with Indonesia in 1989, it included a requirement that Jakarta give financial incentives to the oil companies because of the risks involved. Canberra insisted on the same incentives -- $2.27 US back to the companies for every $1 US invested -- in the new agreement. East Timor's negotiators were forced to agree, but have promised they will tax the incentive payments * What's missing altogether from the GLW perspective
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Speaking of volatility
Doug, I don't entirely disagree with you, but part of the problem w/ the Asian crisis was that it was localized -- leaving the neoliberal juggernaut relatively unaffected. It was the worst of both worlds -- a crisis with a neoliberal solution. On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 12:34:44PM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote: Michael Perelman wrote: Nobody is salivating over the prospect of the working class suffer, but it did not do that well during the Clinton boom. But I do relish the downfall of many highly leveraged businesses. I recall your glee at the demise of some of the dot.coms -- a pleasure,which I shared with you. I'd like to see some Wall Street oinkers and their apologists take a hit, and have to do something useful, like cleaning bedpans. But I don't relish the fact that 410,000 U.S. workers are filing first claims for unemployment insurance every week, and that slacker labor markets will be bad news for wages. The working class didn't do that well during the Clinton years, but it did better than it did during the Carter, Reagan, and Bush years. And the U.S. slowdown hasn't been great news for Latin America; Argentina, which already had plenty of problems, is going through the wringer now in part because of what's going on here. It's not so great for Southeast Asia either. Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Speaking of volatility
Michael Perelman says: Doug, I don't entirely disagree with you, but part of the problem w/ the Asian crisis was that it was localized -- leaving the neoliberal juggernaut relatively unaffected. It was the worst of both worlds -- a crisis with a neoliberal solution. The 70s was a period of general crisis, so to speak, general enough to affect both the West the USSR, in response to which neoliberalism arose. So, a general crisis isn't necessarily in the interest of the Left. The next general crisis, which should come out of the contradictions of neoliberal capitalism (including contradiction between accumulation and social conditions for accumulation [like infrastructure investment]), may put an end to neoliberalism without ending capitalism, especially if the only proposal on which a large number of leftists can agree is global Keynesianism of sorts. Yoshie
Re: Re: Speaking of volatility
The 70s were interpreted as a failure of the left, opening the way for a move to the right as a solution. The failure of this decade will be seen as the responsibility of the right. On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 01:53:01PM -0400, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Michael Perelman says: Doug, I don't entirely disagree with you, but part of the problem w/ the Asian crisis was that it was localized -- leaving the neoliberal juggernaut relatively unaffected. It was the worst of both worlds -- a crisis with a neoliberal solution. The 70s was a period of general crisis, so to speak, general enough to affect both the West the USSR, in response to which neoliberalism arose. So, a general crisis isn't necessarily in the interest of the Left. The next general crisis, which should come out of the contradictions of neoliberal capitalism (including contradiction between accumulation and social conditions for accumulation [like infrastructure investment]), may put an end to neoliberalism without ending capitalism, especially if the only proposal on which a large number of leftists can agree is global Keynesianism of sorts. Yoshie -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
New text in Environmental Econ
Colleagues, Apologies for the self-promotion. The third edition of my text Economics and the Environment is now out. It has a four-chapter section on the political economy of regulation and also features back-to-back chapter-length presentations of neoclassical and ecological approaches to sustainability. New to this edition is a version of Palmini's game theoretic model of the safe minimum standard, and a discussion of the Sky-trust hybrid tax and permit proposal for controlling carbon emissions. To order a review copy, head to: http://www.wiley.com/Corporate/Website/Objects/Products/0,9049,34163,00 .html at Wiley. regards, Eban + + + + + + + Eban Goodstein Associate Professor, Economics Lewis and Clark College Portland, OR 97219 v 503.768.7626 / f 503.768.7611 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- End Forwarded Message -- + + + + + + + Eban Goodstein Associate Professor, Economics Lewis and Clark College Portland, OR 97219 v 503.768.7626 / f 503.768.7611 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: Re: Speaking of volatility
Mark Jones wrote: Tom Walker wrote: There IS a cure for blasé indignation. It is called beginner's mind. In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's there are few. Good stuff, however I fear a return right back to the womb may be necessary in the case of some lapsed and possibly born-again Republicans. A fine excuse to pull Ferenczi's Thalassa off the shelf again. It'll make fine reading on my plane flight to Australia on Monday. I was going to sign off PEN-L just before I left, but I think I'll do it now, so I don't say anything intemperate that annoys Michael. See you all at the beginning of August, comrades. Doug
Re: Speaking of volatility
Michael Perelman says: On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 01:53:01PM -0400, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Michael Perelman says: Doug, I don't entirely disagree with you, but part of the problem w/ the Asian crisis was that it was localized -- leaving the neoliberal juggernaut relatively unaffected. It was the worst of both worlds -- a crisis with a neoliberal solution. The 70s was a period of general crisis, so to speak, general enough to affect both the West the USSR, in response to which neoliberalism arose. So, a general crisis isn't necessarily in the interest of the Left. The next general crisis, which should come out of the contradictions of neoliberal capitalism (including contradiction between accumulation and social conditions for accumulation [like infrastructure investment]), may put an end to neoliberalism without ending capitalism, especially if the only proposal on which a large number of leftists can agree is global Keynesianism of sorts. Yoshie The 70s were interpreted as a failure of the left, opening the way for a move to the right as a solution. The failure of this decade will be seen as the responsibility of the right. You think so? I believe it is not just coincidence that the second wave of neoliberalism has been generally implemented by the electoral Left -- the Third Way in the core post-dictatorship/post-apartheid democrats in the periphery. Left Right after all are just relative terms in the dominant political discourse, so it won't surprise me if the failure of neoliberalism too gets interpreted as the failure of the Left. In the USA, recession may become blamed on Bush, but that doesn't necessarily help us here, if folks just look to the Dems. If we are to exploit any crisis, what we need is a political program that goes beyond capitalism the organizational wherewithal to bring about it in reality, independent of the electoral Left. Yoshie
Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Gold
Ditto. - Original Message - From: Michael Pollak [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 9:20 PM Subject: [PEN-L:15076] Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Gold On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Michael Perelman wrote: David, I am not sure that anybody but you and Jim are following this discussion. Actually I'm enjoying Jim's responses a lot. Michael __ Michael PollakNew York [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Gold
It is helpful to get some [not too much] feedback about what people find useful. Thanks. On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 01:22:50PM -0700, Christian Gregory wrote: Ditto. - Original Message - From: Michael Pollak [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 9:20 PM Subject: [PEN-L:15076] Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Gold On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Michael Perelman wrote: David, I am not sure that anybody but you and Jim are following this discussion. Actually I'm enjoying Jim's responses a lot. Michael __ Michael PollakNew York [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Speaking of volatility
Of course, you are correct. No problem with what you are saying. All too often, liberals are left to implement the final stages of austerity. On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 02:20:15PM -0400, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: If we are to exploit any crisis, what we need is a political program that goes beyond capitalism the organizational wherewithal to bring about it in reality, independent of the electoral Left. Yoshie -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Glendale to Drink Posioned Water
Glendale will begin using chromium water Level of chemical, at one part per billion, is within all federal and state health standards. Los Angeles Times - 7/13/01 By Alex Coolman, staff writer GLENDALE -- The city will soon begin delivering to residents drinking water containing minute amounts of chromium 6, a move that comes after months of wrangling with environmental officials and local water regulators. Glendale plans to start using the water on July 23, City Manager Jim Starbird said. The water will come in part from the San Fernando aquifer, which contains low levels of chromium 6, a substance that can be carcinogenic when inhaled. The health effects of ingesting chromium 6 are not known. Under a plan announced Thursday, water drawn from the aquifer will be blended with water from the Metropolitan Water District. What eventually comes out of customer's taps, Starbird said, will have about 1 part per billion of chromium 6. That level of the chemical is well within the California standard for total chromium in drinking water -- which is set at 50 parts per billion -- and is lower than the California health goal of 2.5 parts per billion. The health goal is considered an extremely strict standard. The decision to take water from the aquifer comes after months of discussion with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the San Fernando Valley water master over the best way to address the chromium in the water. Glendale has for months elected to deal with the chromium problem by dumping the aquifer water in the Los Angeles River, but neither regulatory agency has been pleased with the situation. The EPA pushed Glendale to keep pumping water out of the aquifer. The city entered into a 1998 agreement to take the water as part of a Superfund cleanup of volatile organic compounds in the aquifer water, and the EPA has been eager to see the city follow through on its commitment. David Stensby, EPA project manager, characterized Glendale's latest plan as a positive step toward dealing with that cleanup. I think everybody will benefit in terms of the progress that's being made, he said. Mel Blevins, the water master for the San Fernando Valley, has fought Glendale on its water dumping because of his legal obligation to prevent waste of the resource. He said he was not satisfied with Glendale's new approach because it will still require some high-chrome water to be dumped. Glendale plans to spend about $800,000 in the months to come on treating water from wells that pull up high levels of chromium 6. Once treated, Starbird said, the water can be used for irrigation and industrial purposes rather than being dumped. But until that happens, Blevins said, Glendale will be wasting water. The bottom line is, it's safe to drink 50 parts per billion [of chromium 6], he said. In addition to immediate spending on treatment for high-chrome wells, Glendale also plans to spend between $6 million and $9 million over the next three years on a plant that will be able to treat all of the aquifer water, Starbird said. Water rates will be affected by the new treatment plan. Though the price of water service is not expected to rise during the three years of treatment plant construction, Starbird said the price will stay steady when it would have otherwise decreased. Over the long term, officials expect the treatment plan to economically benefit the city by reducing its dependence on purchases made from the Metropolitan Water District.# = Check out the Chico Examiner listserves at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DisorderlyConduct http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChicoLeft Subscribe to the Chico Examiner for only $40 annually or $25 for six months. Mail cash or check payabe to Tim Bousquet to POBox 4627, Chico CA 95927 __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Fw:Re:Openness and Honesty in Left Politics
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marxist/message/4888 Duh, forget to add the URL link this time to pen-l like I did here, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marxist/message/4886 http://csf.colorado.edu/pen-l/2001III/ http://csf.colorado.edu/pen-l/2001III/msg00629.html Get some lateral communication going comrades. I'm not the nodal point! Though I do like to fwd. stuff along to various left fora. I thought the internut was supposed to facilitate non-hierachical discourse mongering...Could throw in some postmodernist lingo ala Hardt and Negri Empire but I'll give that thread a rest... Context? Ask Leo, it was probably started offlist between Leo from DSA and Justin from Solidarity. Leo is at a AFT convention in Washington, D.C. so don't expect an immediate reply. Michael Pugliese Original Message- From: Chris Kutalik-Cauthern [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 12:26 PM Subject: Re: [marxist] Fw:Openness and Honesty in Left Politics I suppose as a member of Solidarity's National Committee I should answer these remarks. First the standard disclamer, my remarks are meant as my remarks as an individual and in no way are the intended as the collective expression of Solidarity. To put it bluntly Solidarity's relationship to TDU and Labor Notes is no great secret. This theme has popped up at many times and places especially on the internet and there is this kind of implied notion that Solidarity secretly and nefariously controls these organizations. Yes it is true that Solidarity members have played leading roles in both groups since their inception and probably will continue to. As a matter of principle though we do not set policy in these groups; we don't look on them as recruiting grounds or in any other way treat them as front organizations. Our political work inside of movements flows from our perspective that the US Left needs to build a broad new layer of working class activists and that this can only be accomplished by a sincere committment to building these movements on their own terms. We are thus glad that TDU and LN have lives of their own with many diverse participants from all over the political milieus (and yes ordinary rank and file workers) and value their autonomous growth over the subjective needs of our group. As far as a few members holding back their identities it is also no real mystery. Labor work is a real touch-and-go situation in this country and in this period. The analogy made to front groups in the Vietnam anti-war movement is simply not equivalent -- movements and mileus predominately composed of left-wing activists are much safer spaces for open radicals than the labor movement. Labor work takes a careful and reasoned approach that in organizational terms translates to a need for differing levels of openly claiming that you are a socialist. This decision is made flexibly on a local or individual basis and leaves a great deal of wiggle room. I for one, while not banging people over the head with it, have always been an open socialist in my several years of serving in various offices in my local union (Amalgamated Transit Union) and there are a number of our members who do the same. The charge that we are not honest or open is totally senseless and really absurd given that our internal regime is one of the most pluralistic,open and tolerant in the US. As specifically regards our work and perspectives on labor activism you can see where we are coming from ourselves in our literature, most of which is posted on our website: www.solidarity-us.org. In fact in a couple of weeks were are coming out with a large pamphlet called Radicals at Work that includes a section of first-narratives on how radicals can work in the unions. Salud, Chris Kutalik BTW I would be curious to know where this post orginates from (PEN-L maybe) and what their context was/is on this list. - Original Message - From: Michael Pugliese [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 1:00 PM Subject: [marxist] Fw:Openness and Honesty in Left Politics - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 10:03 AM Subject: [PEN-L:15097] Openness and Honesty in Left Politics Justin: I think that you and I have different views on how socialists and radicals of all stripes should participate in large mass movements. I think that openness and honesty is essential, and that it is the failure to be open and honest that leads to trouble, not red baiting. Red baiting has the power it does only when it catches people in deception. In the context of contemporary American politics, if someone's politics are of the sort that they have to hide them, then they need to change their politics, IMHO; we are not exactly living in a police state. As for the TDU and _Labor Notes_, I said that the founders and leaders were, for the most part, Trotskyists. You say, that is wrong, and then go on
Gold and the standard of price
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000
From: Akira Matsumoto
Subject: Gold
http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/OPE/archive/0001/0130.html :
*-*-*-*
I argued in the previous letter that
The purchasing power index of gold = the value index of a unit gold/the
commodity value index-(D)
Consequently, if we abstract the alienation problem of the commodity price
from its value with the business cycle, what is the purchasing power index
of gold is the ratio between the fluctuation of the gold value and the
fluctuation of the ordinary commodity value.
Roy W. Jastram calculated the purchasing power index of gold both for about
400 years (1560~1976) in England and for about 170 years (1800~1976) in the
USA (The Golden Constant, John Wiley Sons,1977). According to it the long
term trend of the purchasing power index of gold keep 100 stably during
the gold standard before 1930, however we can identify the fluctuation of
the purchasing power index of gold somewhat. This fact points out that the
fluctuation of gold value kept pace with the fluctuation of the commodity
value as the formula (D) mentioned.
We have to observe the problem of the unconvertible system in turn. Under
the unconvertible system the standard of price wasn't fixed. When a excess
currency circulate, the standard of price is devaluated virtually. Thereby
the price of the ordinary commodity should be the followings.
The price of the commodity = (the commodity value / the value of a unit of
gold )*the price of a unit of gold (as a reciprocal number of the de facto
standard of price)(E)
Moreover the market price of gold doesn't always consist with the de facto
standard of price. Therefore the purchasing power index of gold could be
the formula (F).
The purchasing power index of gold = the price (market price) index of a
unit gold/the commodity price index = the price (market price) index of a
unit gold/{(the commodity value index/the value index of a unit gold)*the
price index of a unit gold(as a reciprocal number of the de facto standard
of price)}-(F)
Consequently we cannot identify the price of a unit of gold as the
denominator with the price of a unit gold as the numerator. Here we
should look at the relation between the commodity value index/the value
index of a unit gold under the unconvertible system. But we cannot confirm
this relation as such. So we try to compare the increasing rate of gold
productivity with the increasing rate of the productivity in the ordinary
commodity instead of it.
Socialism Study Group in West Germany (SOST; Sozialistischen
Studiengruppen) calculated the changing of the labor productivity in the
gold product department form the ratio between the outputs of gold and the
total labor volumes of gold production in the South Africa during 1940 and
1976 (Gold, Preise, Inflation, VSA Verlag,1979). When we compare these data
with the index of the labor productivity of the manufacturing industries in
West Germany and the USA, then we can see that both data kept pace with
each other in the long term roughly. Eventually the commodity value
index/the value ind ex of a unit gold should be close to 1 in the rough.
According to the mentioned consideration, we can accept the following
formula under the unconvertible system.
The purchasing power index of gold = the price index of a unit gold(market
price)/the price index of a unit gold (as a reciprocal number of the de
facto standard of price)-(G)
Moreover we have to proceed to the calculation of the de facto standard of
price and the problem of the cost price of gold. But I cannot afford any
time now.
*-*-*-*
Date: Thu Jan 20 2000
From: Akira Matsumoto
Subject: Gold and the standard of price
http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/OPE/archive/0001/0252.html :
*-*-*-*
The cost price of of gold is the price in gold volumes to represent the
total sum of values of both the constant capital and the valuable capital
which are invested in gold productions. We can show the price of ordinary
commodity in the following formula.
a commodity price = (the commodity value /the value of a unit gold)*the
price of a unit of gold ---(1)
Therefore the output cost of a unit of gold can be formularized in the
followings.
the output cost price of a unit of gold = {(values of the constant capital
/ values of a unit of gold)*the price of a unit of gold} + {(values of the
valuable capital / values of a unit of gold)*the price of a unit of
gold}={(values of the constant capital + values of the valuable capital)/
values of a unit of gold) * the price of a unit of gold (2)
Values of a unit of gold is an individual value in the marginal mine of
gold (C+V+M (=Surplus value)). Consequently, the output cost in the
marginal mine of gold is the followings.
the output cost price of a unit of gold = {(C+V)/(C+V+M)}* the price of a
unit of gold
EU must curb riots
The cost is being factored in: Senior European Union ministers are meeting to discuss ways to curb riots that have disrupted international conferences recently. Friday's special session of interior ministers from the 15 member states was called in the wake of last month's rioting at the EU summit in Gothenburg, Sweden. Street battles between police and anti-globalisation protesters marred the summit, sparking calls for better security coordination between the bloc's member states. About 560 demonstrators were detained, more than 90 people were injured and damage was estimated at more than $4.1 million. The EU already has measures in place aimed at preventing violent football hooligans from attending major sports events. But diplomats said it would be difficult to use the same measures against political protesters without violating civil liberties. The ministers' meeting in Brussels is likely to adopt conclusions that call for the use of existing rules on EU police and judicial cooperation. It is expected to allow member states to exchange information on known offenders. The conclusions are also likely to call for Europol, the European law enforcement agency, to be involved in gathering intelligence and analysing the problem. Member states with recent experiences of violent riots, including Sweden, will present reports on security. Austria will report on the recent economic summit held in Salzburg, which also saw violent protests. Italy will inform ministers about its security preparations ahead of the Group of Eight (G8) summit in Genoa next week. Pressure for tough measures against protesters has come primarily from Germany and its interior minister, Otto Schily. But EU leaders are said to be anxious to avoid measures that would hinder the public's right to protest peacefully. That would open the door to allegations that European governments -- already widely criticised as unresponsive to public opinion -- are violating human rights while condemning repressive measures elsewhere in the world. Schily has proposed a European-wide computer databank to identify violence-prone activists and travel restrictions on those who have taken part in violent demonstrations. EU sources said the proposals will be discussed at the Friday meeting. Finland, Ireland and Greece are among the strongest critics of the Schily proposals, the sources said. France, Austria, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands are said to be undecided. Any binding, EU-wide measures would require the consent of all 15 EU member governments. The conclusions adopted by the ministers will take immediate effect and could be used in preparing the next EU summit in October in Ghent, Belgium.
Re: [ASDnet] Fw:Openness and Honesty in Left Politics
Tarpinian from LRA here Teamsters Enter New Era With 26th Convention (Jul. 9, 2001) By Greg Tarpinian http://csf.colorado.edu/pen-l/2001III/msg00442.html M.Pugliese - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 2:18 PM Subject: Re: [ASDnet] Fw:Openness and Honesty in Left Politics Michael: Please indicate the following to the lists where you have forwarded my posting, so as to avoid confusion. This thread began with an e-mail of mine, available in the LBO-Talk and PEN-L archives, in which I addressed a report on the recent Teamsters Convention by Greg Tarpinian of Labor Research Association [LRA] that has been circulated on left listservs on the Internet. Tarpinian's report was full of the highest praise for Hoffa Jr., announcing that the Teamsters were now the most democratic and progressive of American international unions. My point was that whatever flaws the TDU might have, it is clearly the best hope for cleaning up and democratizing the Teamsters in the near future. I further pointed that the LRA has been a primary front vehicle for the Communist Party in the labor movement, and that its fondness for Hoffa Jr., a fondness that goes back to before Hoffa's election, was based on its hostility to a rank-and-file movement which had a rather strong Trotskyist presence among its founders and leaders, a presence that went back to the old International Socialists an! d continues today with Solidarit y. In my original post, I called this hostility to the TDU and support for Hoffa Jr. rank opportunism. A response was sent to my post on PEN-L by an individual member of Solidarity which maintained that it was red baiting to suggest that the TDU or _Labor Notes_ had any connection to Solidarity, or that Solidarity [!] had any special Trotskyist history or connections. It was in response to that post that I penned the one you forwarded, which spoke of common knowledge on the left regarding these ties. Leo Casey
Radosh, the Rosenbergs and DSA
As long as I letting the fur fly today, let me add a few comments about Radosh and the
Rosenbergs. With the promiscuous cross-poster Michael P. around, this e-mail will get
back to Radosh himself, one way or another.
I am waiting for my copy of Radosh's autobiographical tome _Commies_ to appear on my
doorstep, but it is apparent, from various reviews I have read, that one of Radosh's
contentions is that Michael Harrington and other DSA leaders, as well as Irving Howe
and the _Dissent_ editors, were not prepared to support the text he and and Joyce
Milton had written on the Rosenberg case, The Rosenberg File_. As the reviews have
Radosh's account of it, Harrington told him that while he believed _The Rosenberg
File_ was correct, he was not prepared to alienate the former Communists that were
part of DSA.
Now, neither Michael nor Irving are now here to defend themselves against this charge.
But I do have a distinct memory of an incident which sheds some light on it, and which
presents Radosh's account in a different context.
DSOC had a much beloved staff person, Selma Lenihan, who was sick with lung cancer at
the point that it and NAM merged. Fairly early on in DSA's life, in the early 1980s,
she passed away. A memorial was held for her at an Upper West Side funeral home, and
many of us retired, after the ceremony, to a nearby bar for an Irish wake. I do not
remember all that were present [I think that Jack Clark, Joe Schwartz and Bogdan
Denitch were also present, but I wouldn't swear in a court of law on it], but Ron
Radosh and Mike Harrington were certainly part of the circle. A rather heated
discussion ensued on the topic of the Rosenberg book. Radosh was of the view that DSA
should somehow endorse the book's findings. [I must say, paranthetically, that I
believe, along with historians such as Maurice Isserman and the authors of what had
been the classic defense of the Rosenbergs, Walter and Miriam Schneir {Invitation to
An Inquest}, that the Radosh book was correct in its main conclusions: t!
ha!
t Julius Rosenberg was guilty of
minor espionage, that Ethel Rosenberg was innocent and that Judge Irving Kaufman had
engaged in unethical conduct at their trial.] What Radosh did not understand then was
that democratic political organizations had no business deciding scholarly questions
of historical interpretation, philosophy, etc., that it was
Leninist/Trotskyist/Stalinist organizations which believed that the party was the
arbitrer of truth, and should pronounce on such questions. The argument that one
should not have to agree with him on the Rosenbergs to be a member of the DSA has
apparently been translated, in his memoirs, into an argument that it was more
important to mollify old ex-reds than stand up for the truth. It is a self-serving
account, and not one, if I may say so yself, that accords with what Michael Harrington
was saying.
When I read of Radosh's memoirs, I immediately thought of this event, and of how I
came away convinced that if there was not already a phrase an anti-Stalinist
Stalinist, we would have had to make on up to describe Radosh's insistence that DSA
take a stand on the Rosenberg Trial.
Leo Casey
URPE circular letter about Andrew Kliman
Dear Friend, I am writing to you because I'm concerned about what I consider to be a serious injustice being committed by URPE, the Union for Radical Political Economics, which publishes the Review of Radical Political Economics (RRPE). I believe fundamental issues of principle are involved: pluralism, freedom of speech, the intellectual integrity of the left, and the quality of its theoretical output. You may recently have received, or learned about, URPE's solicitations for funds to fight a lawsuit brought by Andrew Kliman. I am convinced that these solicitations misrepresent what the case is about -- defamation of Andrew by an employee of URPE. Within constraints that arise in any legal action, I would like to inform you of the real nature of the case and other facts which impressed themselves on me, which I think you should be aware of. URPE brought the lawsuit, and its expenses, on itself. Andrew repeatedly tried to settle the case, both before and after he was compelled to bring the suit. The sole reason this dispute goes on is that URPE refuses to accept his settlement offers. The best advice URPE's friends can urge on it is to respond seriously to Andrew's attempt to settle. The case began when the managing editor of the RRPE, Hazel Dayton Gunn, falsely accused Andrew of unethical professional conduct. She and the RRPE ed board used this accusation as a reason for a ban against ever publishing anything by him in that journal. After learning about the accusation and ban in May, 2000, Andrew denied the accusation and asked the managing editor to retract it. She responded, instead, by publicizing the false accusation further. For legal reasons, Andrew cannot divulge the substance of the accusation. I can report that the RRPE editorial board characterized it as a serious violation of professional ethics. Indeed, the accusation is so serious that its dissemination threatened Andrew's professional reputation and gravely jeopardized his ability to earn a living in academia. It is because -- and only because -- URPE and its agents refused to retract this accusation and lift the ban imposed against him that Andrew was compelled to seek relief in court. Although they refuse to retract the accusation, it is -- I repeat -- false. Hazel Dayton Gunn admitted in papers filed with the court that Andrew did not engage in the behaviour of which she accused him. This is in the public record. So the case is not, as URPE alleges, that a disgruntled author sued because the RRPE rejected a paper of his -- they say the case is about a paper submitted to RRPE and rejected for publication. Andrew is not suing to get a paper published, nor to receive compensation for its rejection. Were that the case, his suit would undoubtedly have been thrown out. Nor is he interested in the money -- he has informed me he will donate to good causes all money in excess of expenses that he receives in compensation. Andrew repeatedly tried to settle the case. In October of last year, he offered to waive all claims for monetary compensation, asking only for a public retraction and a lifting of the publishing ban. URPE and its agents consistently rebuffed these offers of settlement. That is why URPE incurred, and continues to incur, its legal expenses, and that is why it may have to pay compensation. Prior to this case, Andrew and many others (myself included) criticized RRPE policy and called for a renewal of its one-time commitment to theoretical pluralism. The fact that URPE's leadership has responded by trumping up a damaging charge, and by banning him from ever publishing in its journal, shows that pluralism and freedom of expression are indeed the fundamental issues at stake in this case. There are more comradely and principled ways of conducting theoretical and political disputes than trying to stifle dissent and injure ones critics. Please ensure both sides of this story are heard, and do not hesitate to contact me to discuss how you can help Andrew clear his name. Yours truly, Alan Freeman
Re: Openness and Honesty in Left Politics
Leo, we do have different ideas about left organizing. You think is appropriate to spread unsubstantiated, untrue, and potentially damaging rumors, and to call people who call you on it, in effect, liars who want to run subterranean entrist campaigns in mass movements. It may be common knowledge that Solidaity is a soft Trotskyist organization, but like many things which are common knowledge it is not true. Soli came out of the Trotskyist movement, true. That was a long time ago. The formaton of Solidarity marked an abandonment of Trotskyism as a political strategy. Soli does not hold up Trotsky as an icon; it does not teach his ideas, or those of Cannon or Schachtman, as the key to political organizing. It is not Trot. The activists in Soli in Labor Notes and TDU, some of whom are long timers who came out of the original groups, are not Trots. As far as I know, there are no Trots in Soli--well, maybe one. The overwhelming majority of the members have never been in any other left organization; and many who were, like me, have no Trot history. If you care to very, we have open meetings. Come and participate; hand out with the people, watch them work. You see see: no Trotskyism. Maybe instead of making insinuations and slurs, you could learn from people who know more than you about things you are talking about. You should be ashamed of yourself. --jks From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:15097] Openness and Honesty in Left Politics Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 13:03:59 EDT Justin: I think that you and I have different views on how socialists and radicals of all stripes should participate in large mass movements. I think that openness and honesty is essential, and that it is the failure to be open and honest that leads to trouble, not red baiting. Red baiting has the power it does only when it catches people in deception. In the context of contemporary American politics, if someone's politics are of the sort that they have to hide them, then they need to change their politics, IMHO; we are not exactly living in a police state. As for the TDU and _Labor Notes_, I said that the founders and leaders were, for the most part, Trotskyists. You say, that is wrong, and then go on to point out, in your view, which ones are Trotskyists and which ones are not. You may have some difficulty showing how what you offer for evidence is in any way inconsistent with what I said. As I see it, it is common knowledge among those who have participated in and know the history and current structure of left politics and American trade unionism that TDU and _Labor Notes_ were born out of the efforts of key cadre in the International Socialists some twenty years ago, and that the main players in that effort are now members of Solidarity. It is also common knowledge that Solidarity was created by the merger of various remnants of the Trotskyist movement, and that while it does not require adherence to Trotskyism from its members, it is a soft 'Trotskyist' organization. This is really not any different than the knowledge that the Reuther leadership of the UAW came out of the Socialist Party and defeated a faction aligned with and led by the Communists, that the AFL-CIO's international operations pre-Sweeney was run by a series of vociferous anti-Communists who were Lovestonites [members of the 'right opposition'/Bukharinites of the Communist Party] and Shachtm! an! ites ['Third Camp' Trotskyists], and so on. Pretending that this is not true, in the name of avoiding 'red baiting,' is, in my view, engaging in the type of deception which has haunted the work of the left in the American trade union movement. This was a lesson I learned very quickly on in my participation on the American left. As a working class teenager from Queens who opposed the war in Vietnam, I invited a representative from the Student Mobilization Committee Against the War to speak at my high school. At the meeting, someone accused the SMC of being a front group for the Socialist Workers Party and Young Socialist Alliance. The speaker adamantly denied that this was the case, and then told me after the meeting that although he was a member of YSA, they were under instructions not to admit such matters. As soon as anyone raised the question, cry 'red baiting.' Is it any wonder that an organization which worked in that way lacked all credibility? Leo Casey _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: Fw:Re:Openness and Honesty in Left Politics
the internut was supposed to facilitate non-hierachical discourse mongering...Could throw in some postmodernist lingo ala Hardt and Negri Empire but I'll give that thread a rest... Context? Ask Leo, it was probably started offlist between Leo from DSA and Justin from Solidarity. Leo is at a AFT convention in Washington, D.C. so don't expect an immediate reply. Michael Pugliese I wish it had started off list, maybe it would have stayed that way. Leo feel impelled not only to spread misimformation, but to accuse me, and us, of lying and sneaking. He's a right wing social democrat, so what do you expect. He and I have had a touchy relationship, but this just about tears it. --jks _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: Re: [ASDnet] Fw:Openness and Honesty in Left Politics
Leo, you are a liar or a fool. I never dedied that Soli had any serious Trot history. I don't know what connections are. What I said was that we are not a Trot group and that the specific people imvolved in LN and TDU are not Trots. You either deliberately misrepresented or could not understand my post, which is archived for all to see. You owe Soli, TDU, LN, and me an apology. --jks A response was sent to my post on PEN-L by an individual member of Solidarity which maintained that it was red baiting to suggest that the TDU or _Labor Notes_ had any connection to Solidarity, or that Solidarity [!] had any special Trotskyist history or connections. It was in response to that post that I penned the one you forwarded, which spoke of common knowledge on the left regarding these ties. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Hillary Clinton's magic
http://www.ea1.com/CARP/tiller/index.html Here's a somewhat dated story in the AgBiz Tiller that gives a clear explanation of insider trading in cattle futures, circa 1978, in which Hillary Clinton did her bit of magic. It strikes me that this is exactly what Gene Coyle is talking about when he discusses manipulation of undifferentiated commodity vis-a-vis energy production. tim = Check out the Chico Examiner listserves at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DisorderlyConduct http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChicoLeft Subscribe to the Chico Examiner for only $40 annually or $25 for six months. Mail cash or check payabe to Tim Bousquet to POBox 4627, Chico CA 95927 __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: Re: Re: [ASDnet] Fw:Openness and Honesty in Left Politics
Whoa. Nobody needs to attribute views to others here; nor to call anybody a liar or a fool. On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 11:25:03PM -, Justin Schwartz wrote: Leo, you are a liar or a fool. I never dedied that Soli had any serious Trot history. I don't know what connections are. What I said was that we are not a Trot group and that the specific people imvolved in LN and TDU are not Trots. You either deliberately misrepresented or could not understand my post, which is archived for all to see. You owe Soli, TDU, LN, and me an apology. --jks A response was sent to my post on PEN-L by an individual member of Solidarity which maintained that it was red baiting to suggest that the TDU or _Labor Notes_ had any connection to Solidarity, or that Solidarity [!] had any special Trotskyist history or connections. It was in response to that post that I penned the one you forwarded, which spoke of common knowledge on the left regarding these ties. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Speaking of volatility
Doesnt the new labor legislation in Russia turn back the clock! In the US and Canada it would seem that temporary workers are used to keep full time workers from working overtime at a higher wage. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Tom Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] There happens to be a reason why I write and study so much about working time. The reason is not that I am a one-trick pony. The reason is that historically, reductions in working time -- which, by the way, almost invariably include wage gains as a component -- have proven to be more defensible than strictly monetary wage gains. Karl Marx noticed this. The founders of the American Federation of Labor noticed it. The 1902 report of the Industrial Commission appointed by the U.S. Congress noticed it. The early 20th century National Association of Manufacturers USA noticed and abhorred it. Organized labour in the U.S. seems to have forgotten it and has been in decline for several decades. Employers' organizations, right-wing think tanks, the financial press and mainstream economists seem to have remembered it all too well and are quick to respond with ridicule and hostility to comprehensive proposals to restrict and/or redistribute working time. Coincidentally (or not), neo-liberalism has been in ascendency for several decades. Leftists seem to take the issue for granted, as if it is all too obvious a good thing to be worth investing much effort in. Maybe leftists secretly prefer the drama of struggling against insurmountable odds to defend indefensible gains.
Re: Re: Openness and Honesty in Left Politics
Sounds as if Solidarity has been infiltrated by market socialists borrowing from within:) Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Justin Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 6:06 PM Subject: [PEN-L:15117] Re: Openness and Honesty in Left Politics Leo, we do have different ideas about left organizing. You think is appropriate to spread unsubstantiated, untrue, and potentially damaging rumors, and to call people who call you on it, in effect, liars who want to run subterranean entrist campaigns in mass movements. It may be common knowledge that Solidaity is a soft Trotskyist organization, but like many things which are common knowledge it is not true. Soli came out of the Trotskyist movement, true. That was a long time ago. The formaton of Solidarity marked an abandonment of Trotskyism as a political strategy. Soli does not hold up Trotsky as an icon; it does not teach his ideas, or those of Cannon or Schachtman, as the key to political organizing. It is not Trot. The activists in Soli in Labor Notes and TDU, some of whom are long timers who came out of the original groups, are not Trots. As far as I know, there are no Trots in Soli--well, maybe one. The overwhelming majority of the members have never been in any other left organization; and many who were, like me, have no Trot history. If you care to very, we have open meetings. Come and participate; hand out with the people, watch them work. You see see: no Trotskyism. Maybe instead of making insinuations and slurs, you could learn from people who know more than you about things you are talking about. You should be ashamed of yourself. --jks From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:15097] Openness and Honesty in Left Politics Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 13:03:59 EDT Justin: I think that you and I have different views on how socialists and radicals of all stripes should participate in large mass movements. I think that openness and honesty is essential, and that it is the failure to be open and honest that leads to trouble, not red baiting. Red baiting has the power it does only when it catches people in deception. In the context of contemporary American politics, if someone's politics are of the sort that they have to hide them, then they need to change their politics, IMHO; we are not exactly living in a police state. As for the TDU and _Labor Notes_, I said that the founders and leaders were, for the most part, Trotskyists. You say, that is wrong, and then go on to point out, in your view, which ones are Trotskyists and which ones are not. You may have some difficulty showing how what you offer for evidence is in any way inconsistent with what I said. As I see it, it is common knowledge among those who have participated in and know the history and current structure of left politics and American trade unionism that TDU and _Labor Notes_ were born out of the efforts of key cadre in the International Socialists some twenty years ago, and that the main players in that effort are now members of Solidarity. It is also common knowledge that Solidarity was created by the merger of various remnants of the Trotskyist movement, and that while it does not require adherence to Trotskyism from its members, it is a soft 'Trotskyist' organization. This is really not any different than the knowledge that the Reuther leadership of the UAW came out of the Socialist Party and defeated a faction aligned with and led by the Communists, that the AFL-CIO's international operations pre-Sweeney was run by a series of vociferous anti-Communists who were Lovestonites [members of the 'right opposition'/Bukharinites of the Communist Party] and Shachtm! an! ites ['Third Camp' Trotskyists], and so on. Pretending that this is not true, in the name of avoiding 'red baiting,' is, in my view, engaging in the type of deception which has haunted the work of the left in the American trade union movement. This was a lesson I learned very quickly on in my participation on the American left. As a working class teenager from Queens who opposed the war in Vietnam, I invited a representative from the Student Mobilization Committee Against the War to speak at my high school. At the meeting, someone accused the SMC of being a front group for the Socialist Workers Party and Young Socialist Alliance. The speaker adamantly denied that this was the case, and then told me after the meeting that although he was a member of YSA, they were under instructions not to admit such matters. As soon as anyone raised the question, cry 'red baiting.' Is it any wonder that an organization which worked in that way lacked all credibility? Leo Casey _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Violence Stops Yugoslavia Gay Pride/Depleted Uranium: TheVieques-Kosovo Connection
http://www.thegully.com/essays/gaymundo/010705gay_yugoslavia.html Had not seen this online publication before. This looks good too, Depleted Uranium: The Vieques-Kosovo Connection, Vieques Movement: Little Engine That Could, http://www.thegully.com/essays/puertorico/010212depleted_uranium.html http://www.thegully.com/essays/puertorico/000927deadhorse.html in depth gay mundo bush plus race/class nyc africa americas asia europe http://www.thegully.com/about.html ...is your online magazine for a sharp queer view of international news, U.S. politics, e-activism, race, class, lesbian and gay issues, and more. Our difference: the queer outsider's political skepticism and common sense commitment to democracy. Think. ACT. Even water makes its mark. Michael Pugliese
Gay-Bashing in the Anti-Bush Movement
Links to the Honesty on the left thread. Michael Pugliese, my last post for the day...Hooray Go The Masses! http://www.thegully.com/essays/US/politics_2001/010409left_homophobia.html
Re: Re: Re: Re: [ASDnet] Fw:Openness and Honesty in Left Politics
Michael, he called me, and outfit, a liar and a sneak. He's also redbaiting Soli, LN, TDU, Tarpinian, and LRA, the latter two of whom he respectively called a Commie and CP front. Who's out of line here? Not me, I think. --jks From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:15121] Re: Re: Re: [ASDnet] Fw:Openness and Honesty in Left Politics Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 17:03:19 -0700 Whoa. Nobody needs to attribute views to others here; nor to call anybody a liar or a fool. On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 11:25:03PM -, Justin Schwartz wrote: Leo, you are a liar or a fool. I never dedied that Soli had any serious Trot history. I don't know what connections are. What I said was that we are not a Trot group and that the specific people imvolved in LN and TDU are not Trots. You either deliberately misrepresented or could not understand my post, which is archived for all to see. You owe Soli, TDU, LN, and me an apology. --jks A response was sent to my post on PEN-L by an individual member of Solidarity which maintained that it was red baiting to suggest that the TDU or _Labor Notes_ had any connection to Solidarity, or that Solidarity [!] had any special Trotskyist history or connections. It was in response to that post that I penned the one you forwarded, which spoke of common knowledge on the left regarding these ties. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com -- 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ASDnet] Fw:Openness and Honesty in Left Politics
The redbaiting does not belong here. I have not been following everything carefully because I have a book ms. to copyedit --The Pathology of the U.S. Economy Revisited. Even so, I did not think that your response was appropriate. I will try to be more careful in monitoring things. I, for one, remain unconvinced about the Rosenberg's guilt. On Sat, Jul 14, 2001 at 03:12:02AM -, Justin Schwartz wrote: Michael, he called me, and outfit, a liar and a sneak. He's also redbaiting Soli, LN, TDU, Tarpinian, and LRA, the latter two of whom he respectively called a Commie and CP front. Who's out of line here? Not me, I think. --jks From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:15121] Re: Re: Re: [ASDnet] Fw:Openness and Honesty in Left Politics Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 17:03:19 -0700 Whoa. Nobody needs to attribute views to others here; nor to call anybody a liar or a fool. On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 11:25:03PM -, Justin Schwartz wrote: Leo, you are a liar or a fool. I never dedied that Soli had any serious Trot history. I don't know what connections are. What I said was that we are not a Trot group and that the specific people imvolved in LN and TDU are not Trots. You either deliberately misrepresented or could not understand my post, which is archived for all to see. You owe Soli, TDU, LN, and me an apology. --jks A response was sent to my post on PEN-L by an individual member of Solidarity which maintained that it was red baiting to suggest that the TDU or _Labor Notes_ had any connection to Solidarity, or that Solidarity [!] had any special Trotskyist history or connections. It was in response to that post that I penned the one you forwarded, which spoke of common knowledge on the left regarding these ties. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com -- 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 -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Russia to import Nucelar Waste
Well it has come to pass as Lawrence Summers saith. Russia is underpolluted and is now engaging in a profitable trade in pollution. Cheers, Ken Hanly Christian Science Monitor 3 July 2001 Russia's nuclear-waste gambit A $21 billion cash for trash plan is now before Putin. Critics say it will magnify safety problems. By Scott Peterson Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor The thicket of nettles is chest high as Vladimir Katzenbogen and Nikolai Popov force their way through, searching with Geiger counters and a gamma-ray detector for radioactive hotspots. The brush thickens, then opens up to the bank of a muddy stream beside an abandoned factory in northwest Moscow. The crackling of the detector leads the two-man patrol to a hole where, at some point in Russia's less-than-careful nuclear past, radioactive material was dumped. People are usually joyful when they see us, to know that this control is going on so they can live safely, says Mr. Katzenbogen, who works for Radon, the government's radiation-control arm. Two weeks ago, a Radon patrol seized more than 50 pounds of contaminated berries from a market - a common occurrence. In Moscow alone in the past five years, Radon has disposed of some 450 tons of potentially dangerous material - from soil at construction sites to market mushrooms - as limits on acceptable levels of radioactive contamination have steadily strengthened. But while the patrols demonstrate a measure of success in Russia's efforts to clean up its nuclear act, they are dwarfed by the magnitude of the problem resulting from past failures to safely manage spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste. Which is why many people at home and abroad are skeptical of a government plan - awaiting President Vladimir Putin's signature - to import 20,000 tons of nuclear waste over 10 years, earning a projected $21 billion. I don't think you'll find any place else in the world where spent nuclear fuel is stored in such bad conditions, says Thomas Nilsen, who studies Russia for the Norwegian environmental group Bellona, in Oslo. The first priority should be to secure spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste already existing in Russia. You don't do that by importing more. Moscow's nuclear track record includes the 1986 Chernobyl disaster and last year's sinking of the Kursk submarine, with two nuclear-powered engines on board. Decades of improper storage of nuclear waste have left environmental devastation from Murmansk across Siberia to the Kamchatka Peninsula nine time zones away. Russia's Ministry of Atomic Energy, or Minatom, is pushing the waste-import plan as a means of rescuing the industry. Proceeds also are meant to be used for a cleanup of waste sites, and may avert a disaster for the 100 old nuclear submarines that are becoming rusty and that one beautiful morning might just sink, says Minatom spokesman Vitaly Nasonov. Current nuclear-waste storage facilities are virtually full, however, the only working processing plant is nearly a quarter-century old, and after decades of neglect, transport infrastructure - by which radioactive material would be moved - is collapsing. It's a calculated risk, says John Reppert, head of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government in Cambridge, Mass. It is something they are clearly technically able to handle, he says. But it is not something they have traditionally handled well or they wouldn't have that mess to clean up. And while Russia's vast unused spaces mean a wide margin for error, Mr. Reppert adds: If they are going to create the world's largest and least-safe nuclear-waste dump, then it will be a long-term consequence for the rest of the world. Critics, such as Bellona's Mr. Nilsen, also are concerned that the money will be misspent. We are suspicious that most of the income from spent nuclear fuel will end up inside Moscow's ring road, and not in Siberia where the money is needed for environmental clean-up, he says. There is one encouraging example. Reppert says that Russian experts have adhered strictly to tough fiscal and radiological standards when using official American funds - some of which he helped account for - to deal with weapons-grade nuclear material. The US is spending $874 million on such nonproliferation projects this year, though not all are deemed so successful. President Bush's 2002 budget slashes this spending by 10 percent. The key to the large, new program is likely to be transparency, says Reppert. But unlike the built-in oversight tied to US donations, there may be few checks on how new funds are used. Already, the plans are taking an unusual political path. The measure was due before the Federation Council, Russia's upper house, on Friday. But two days earlier, council chairman Yegor Stroyev quietly signed off on the plan, sending it directly to the president. The plan is far from popular. A poll commissioned by the environmental group
Re: Speaking of volatility
Ken Hanly wrote: In the US and Canada it would seem that temporary workers are used to keep full time workers from working overtime at a higher wage. Au contraire. Temp workers and part-timers are part of the mix with overtime. More temp and part-time = more overtime. Tom Walker Bowen Island, BC 604 947 2213
Re: Russia to import Nucelar Waste
Geoff Rothwell says that the Russian deal will not work because they are charging too much and will only hold the stuff for 20 years. On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 11:20:55PM -0500, Ken Hanly wrote: Well it has come to pass as Lawrence Summers saith. Russia is underpolluted and is now engaging in a profitable trade in pollution. Cheers, Ken Hanly Christian Science Monitor 3 July 2001 Russia's nuclear-waste gambit A $21 billion cash for trash plan is now before Putin. Critics say it will magnify safety problems. By Scott Peterson Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor The thicket of nettles is chest high as Vladimir Katzenbogen and Nikolai Popov force their way through, searching with Geiger counters and a gamma-ray detector for radioactive hotspots. The brush thickens, then opens up to the bank of a muddy stream beside an abandoned factory in northwest Moscow. The crackling of the detector leads the two-man patrol to a hole where, at some point in Russia's less-than-careful nuclear past, radioactive material was dumped. People are usually joyful when they see us, to know that this control is going on so they can live safely, says Mr. Katzenbogen, who works for Radon, the government's radiation-control arm. Two weeks ago, a Radon patrol seized more than 50 pounds of contaminated berries from a market - a common occurrence. In Moscow alone in the past five years, Radon has disposed of some 450 tons of potentially dangerous material - from soil at construction sites to market mushrooms - as limits on acceptable levels of radioactive contamination have steadily strengthened. But while the patrols demonstrate a measure of success in Russia's efforts to clean up its nuclear act, they are dwarfed by the magnitude of the problem resulting from past failures to safely manage spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste. Which is why many people at home and abroad are skeptical of a government plan - awaiting President Vladimir Putin's signature - to import 20,000 tons of nuclear waste over 10 years, earning a projected $21 billion. I don't think you'll find any place else in the world where spent nuclear fuel is stored in such bad conditions, says Thomas Nilsen, who studies Russia for the Norwegian environmental group Bellona, in Oslo. The first priority should be to secure spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste already existing in Russia. You don't do that by importing more. Moscow's nuclear track record includes the 1986 Chernobyl disaster and last year's sinking of the Kursk submarine, with two nuclear-powered engines on board. Decades of improper storage of nuclear waste have left environmental devastation from Murmansk across Siberia to the Kamchatka Peninsula nine time zones away. Russia's Ministry of Atomic Energy, or Minatom, is pushing the waste-import plan as a means of rescuing the industry. Proceeds also are meant to be used for a cleanup of waste sites, and may avert a disaster for the 100 old nuclear submarines that are becoming rusty and that one beautiful morning might just sink, says Minatom spokesman Vitaly Nasonov. Current nuclear-waste storage facilities are virtually full, however, the only working processing plant is nearly a quarter-century old, and after decades of neglect, transport infrastructure - by which radioactive material would be moved - is collapsing. It's a calculated risk, says John Reppert, head of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government in Cambridge, Mass. It is something they are clearly technically able to handle, he says. But it is not something they have traditionally handled well or they wouldn't have that mess to clean up. And while Russia's vast unused spaces mean a wide margin for error, Mr. Reppert adds: If they are going to create the world's largest and least-safe nuclear-waste dump, then it will be a long-term consequence for the rest of the world. Critics, such as Bellona's Mr. Nilsen, also are concerned that the money will be misspent. We are suspicious that most of the income from spent nuclear fuel will end up inside Moscow's ring road, and not in Siberia where the money is needed for environmental clean-up, he says. There is one encouraging example. Reppert says that Russian experts have adhered strictly to tough fiscal and radiological standards when using official American funds - some of which he helped account for - to deal with weapons-grade nuclear material. The US is spending $874 million on such nonproliferation projects this year, though not all are deemed so successful. President Bush's 2002 budget slashes this spending by 10 percent. The key to the large, new program is likely to be transparency, says Reppert. But unlike the built-in oversight tied to US donations, there may be few checks on how new funds are used. Already, the plans are taking an unusual political path. The
Re: Re: Speaking of volatility
I temped for about 6 years. Occasionally, I was told by the secretaries or lower level mgrs. esp. cynics in banking and financial services, how much Wells Fargo or whoever was paying the agency . For a $10 an hr. assignment, they were paying $15. For $12, they were paying $18-20 on up. Permanents at $15 an hour plus, say 33% for benefit costs = $20. Add time an a half for O.T. The Big Boss Man still comes out ahead. BTW, is this 33% that I've always heard, right? An exaggeration how much health insurence, dental, etc. cost? Good, easy to digest data from the Dept. of Labor on benefit costs, in various sectors, Fortune 500 vs. medium sized firms~ $100 Million or less in sales say. Michael Pugliese - Original Message - From: Tom Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 8:55 PM Subject: [PEN-L:15129] Re: Speaking of volatility Ken Hanly wrote: In the US and Canada it would seem that temporary workers are used to keep full time workers from working overtime at a higher wage. Au contraire. Temp workers and part-timers are part of the mix with overtime. More temp and part-time = more overtime. Tom Walker Bowen Island, BC 604 947 2213
Re: Re: Speaking of volatility
Do you have the figures? Why is this the case do u think? I guess my remark about the new Russian labor law is true though. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Tom Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 10:55 PM Subject: [PEN-L:15129] Re: Speaking of volatility Ken Hanly wrote: In the US and Canada it would seem that temporary workers are used to keep full time workers from working overtime at a higher wage. Au contraire. Temp workers and part-timers are part of the mix with overtime. More temp and part-time = more overtime. Tom Walker Bowen Island, BC 604 947 2213
