wynne godley
Michael Perelman: I think that Godley may sign up to pen-l after he returns from England. I hope that we can discuss his paper fruitfully. I'd be specially interested to discuss his views about import controls. Mark = This is very good news indeed. Can't remember where I came across it, but I read an interview with Godley recently in which he talks about having to teach himself economics while at HM Treasury in order to unlearn the rubbish he was expected to practise/spout. This was at an important juncture for the UK economy of course, as its perennial balance of payments problem was about to be addressed once and for all by the IMF. It was at about this time that Nicholas Kaldor also left his advisory position, having advocated import controls only to be rebuffed by Healey et al. who went for the IMF prescription. According to Mark Harmon, Kaldor and Godley were more or less aligned with the Alternative Economic Strategy being cooked up by the Labour Left (those were the days). Godley's fellow Cambridge Economic Policy Group colleague, Francis Cripps, was part of Tony Benn's advisory team during the 1970s. Godley used to be a regular contributor to the pre-New Labour New Statesman (another case study in decline), penning the sort of stuff that congenital optimist Doug H. would no doubt find reprehensible. I'd like to know more about Kaldor's departure from the Treasury. I haven't seen any discussion of it anywhere (e.g. Harmon's book, Healey's memoirs, Targetti's book on Kaldor, David Smith). Thanks in advance. Michael K.
Stake through holders' pensions
Outrage as Equitable cuts pension policies by 16% Rupert Jones The Guardian, Tuesday July 17, 2001 Equitable Life yesterday provoked fury among long-suffering policyholders by slashing the value of pension policies by almost a sixth. The move will in some cases wipe tens of thousands of pounds off the value of policies, and will take effect immediately. The troubled insurer said the move was essential to help put its finances back on a stable footing. But Ron Bullen, chairman of one of the action groups representing policyholders, said: The reaction of people will be outrage. The 16% cut means that a pension policy worth £100,000 at the weekend is now worth £84,000. The announcement affects the vast majority of Equitable's 400,000-plus individual with-profits policyholders and a substantial number of the half a million people in company pension schemes run by the insurer. Policyholders had been hoping the recent arrival of an entirely new board of directors heralded greater stability. The 239-year-old company was plunged into crisis last summer when it lost a £1.5bn test case over promises it had made to some pension policyholders. The law lords ruled it had unfairly tried to renege on pledges it had given to 90,000 people. As a result the company put itself up for sale and then closed its doors to new business. It is trying to put together a deal to cap these liabilities. Equitable Life said it had taken the difficult step of cutting the value of with-profits pension policies by 16% after discovering that the value of its maturing policies was far greater than the underlying investments. However, some policyholders said the reduction was effectively even greater - around 20% - because of Equitable's decision also to deny people any investment growth for the first six months of this year. Equitable also has a relatively small number of with-profits endowment policyholders, who will see the value of their policies cut by 14%. In addition, Equitable will pay no bonuses for the period January 1 2001 to June 30 2001, and the rate of future bonus accumulation after that has been scaled back to 6% a year. Equitable said the decision also reflected the sharp fall in stock markets and the fact that a large number of its policyholders are currently retiring and taking benefits. Charles Thomson, chief executive, said he accepted the action will be very unpleasant for a number of policyholders. Paul Braithwaite, chairman of the Equitable Members' Action Group, said: We are talking about real losses of thousands of pounds on the back of a series of nothing but bad news. Full article at: http://money.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,6449,522948,00.html Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
New Labour, Part 2
Reform or else, Blair tells public services Prime minister 'will not flinch' from using private sector Patrick Wintour and Kevin Maguire The Guardian, Tuesday July 17, 2001 Tony Blair yesterday mapped out an extensive role for private sector finance and managers in the delivery of public services, telling the unions it is reform or bust. Private or voluntary providers should be hired when a public service is found to be under-performing, he said. But he promised a dialogue and insisted the private sector was only one element of a far wider reform programme. His long awaited speech provoked renewed criticism from the public sector unions but the big private sector unions, the engineers and MSF, were emollient. The TUC demanded details, rather than more mood music. The GMB leader, John Edmonds, said the speech will cause a lot of trouble, and his executive will today probably withdraw £250,000 of funding from the Labour party. Mr Blair, speaking at the Royal Free hospital in north London, praised the public sector ethos, including its cul ture of trust, but also argued the private sector can in many cases be more responsive than the public sector to the immediate needs of demanding consumers. He said the private sector knows that poor service, lack of courtesy, massive delays destroy their image and their success. He added: Where it makes sense to use private or voluntary sectors better to deliver public services, we will. That is nothing new in local government: nothing new in the provision of government services like the New Deal. Mr Blair also argued that people are realists, not ideologues. Anyone knocked down in the street and taken to a brand new PFI built hospital, rather than a run down Victorian hospital (is) probably relieved rather than angry. He insisted he would not flinch in the face of opposition, or allow the unions a veto.No vested interests can have a veto on reform. His remarks came as it emerged that Charles Clarke, the minister without portfolio, questioned the quality of senior management in some parts of the public sector and called for new rights to dismiss inefficient public sector managers. Mr Clarke said: We all know there are people in key positions who it is not possible to move on because of their standing, authority terms or contracts of employment. You can have people there for three, four, five and in some cases 15 or 20 years in a key post who block that capacity for continuous improvement because their minds are not open to it. He said there were plenty of head teachers who were perceived by the local community as no good. Labour officials said the remarks were not part of a prepared speech, but came in response to questions. Mr Blair said he was offering a commitment and a warning. My commitment is that I will not flinch from the decisions and changes to deliver better public services, no matter how much opposition. My warning is equally clear. If we who believe in public services don't change them for the better, there is an alternative political party and position that will seize on our weakness and use it to dismantle the very notion of public services as we know them. The overall strategy, he said was national standards, local innovation and more and better rewarded staff. The changes will be extended into 3,000 primary care premises, to finance social services and the provision of imaging and laboratory equipment. Mr Blair also promised to contract out failed local education authority services, and use private finance in 850 schools. The TUC executive will tomorrow seek to agree a statement opposing the government's drive. Full article at: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,9061,522886,00.html Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MI6's electoral games
Penners The political contest currently enthralling observers in the UK is the battle for the Conservative Party leadership, in which the initial frontrunner, erstwhile punk Thatcherite Michael Portillo, has steadily lost ground to the true punk Thatcherite Iain Duncan Smith, successor to Norman Tebbit as MP for Chingford and all-purpose boot boy. Hot on the heels of the Guardian's raking over the non-story of Portillo taking money for speeches (gosh, MPs never do that) came a story last Sunday published by the Sunday Telegraph, edited by Dominic Lawson. Lawson is the son of former Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson, married to Rosa Monckton (prominent friend of Princess Diana and sister of an MI6 agent, the Hon Anthony Monckton) and was recently alleged to be, if not actually an MI6 agent, then at least someone who has allowed MI6 to make use of his newspaper's facilities (e.g. providing journalistic cover for MI6 agents abroad). This is confirmed by Robin Ramsay, longtime observer of and campaigner against the secret state, and founding editor of the journal Lobster (see http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/). In the latest issue, Ramsay writes: Meanwhile MI6 have returned to planting disinformation in the British media -- most of it that I can see is doing into the Sunday Telegraph. [Renegade MI6 agent Richard] Tomlinson told us about the 20-strong I/Ops -- Information Operations -- unit in that shiny building on the Thames. But its existence has been visible for a long time. It is increasingly difficult to take the talk of official secrets seriously. The Sunday Telegraph of 24 September carried two pieces from MI6. There was a puff piece by former MI6 officer Alan Petty, using his nom de plume Alan Judd, on the MI6 building in the wake of the IRA attack on it; and there was the latest in a long line of anti-Gaddafi pieces, this one claiming that Libya now has some North Korean ballistic missiles. The only stated source for the allegation was a 'Western intelligence official'. Last Sunday's edition carried the unlikely story that no less than Margaret Thatcher was backing Portillo for the Conservative leadership. Lest anyone think this inconsequential, Thatcher's iconic status among many Conservatives, and her penchant for back seat driving (what she said she would do during John Major's tenure -- and did, to a certain extent), means that her support will carry many votes. But it's been well known for a long time that she has become disillusioned with her former protege's move to the centre. Thus it was taken for granted among most that Duncan Smith would be her preferred choice. However, the Sunday Telegraph article provoked her into making an emphatic public statement that she would have nothing to do with Portillo whatsoever. This, together with a damning video diary recorded by William Hague's former press secretary, currently being broadcast on Channel 4, has effectively reduced Portillo to an also-ran, barring some kind of minor miracle. Meanwhile, the fall out from the Sunday Telegraph's scoop has provoked ructions within the UK outpost of Conrad Black's media empire, as the following article indicates: 'Telegraph' titles at odds over 'false' Thatcher story By Jade Garrett Arts and Media Correspondent The Independent, 17 July 2001 A national newspaper made an extraordinary attack on its Sunday stablemate yesterday for printing what it called a false report on the Conservative leadership election. The attack appears to have put Charles Moore, the editor of The Daily Telegraph, at loggerheads with Dominic Lawson, the editor of The Sunday Telegraph, whose staff share the same offices. For a newspaper to contradict a sister title in such a way is extremely unusual. Neither editor would comment on the dispute yesterday. Responding to The Sunday Telegraph's front-page article that Baroness Thatcher was backing Michael Portillo in the race for the Tory leadership, yesterday's Daily Telegraph reported a firm denial from the former prime minister on its own front page. The Daily Telegraph's editorial column was also used to highlight alleged inaccuracies in the story, insisting that it had been denied by Lady Thatcher's office even before the Sunday newspaper was published. The story is false, it said. It was denied by Lady Thatcher's office on Saturday and again, by her personally, yesterday. But an insider at The Sunday Telegraph said that a full denial from Lady Thatcher was not forthcoming before the paper went to press. The Press Association ran a story at about 9.45pm on Saturday evening quoting Lady Thatcher as saying, 'I do not want to make any comment about any of the candidates. I like all three.' That was not a denial that she is backing Portillo, he said. Had we had a categorical denial we would have had to do something drastic to the story. There wasn't one. The full denial came some time on Sunday after our story had run, when she had clearly changed her mind. After
wynne godley
What do Y, C, I , G , etc stand for ? Charles [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/16/01 05:29PM his work is very important i think. he sets up scenarios with simple models, like Y = C + I + G + X -M or S + T + M = I + G + X and then can show, e.g., what would have to happen for expansion to continue or to avoid a significant downturn, given things like trade deficit and/or tight fiscal stance. or if credit would dry up in the consumer sector. it is also interesting to look at his stuff in relation to David Levy's forecasting, based on the Levy/Kalecki/Minsky profits equation. It would be intersting to see him on pen-l. -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 2:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:15206] Re: RE: wynne godley I was hoping for more fruit and less nuts. On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 03:48:15PM -0400, Max Sawicky wrote: If the discussion is not fruitful, I'm sure it will be nutful. mbs Jim Devine has brought up Wynne Godley's work several times. He has a new paper writter with a former penner, who had promised to return. I think that Godley may sign up to pen-l after he returns from England. I hope that we can discuss his paper fruitfully. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BLS Daily Report
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, MONDAY, JULY 16, 2001: A sharp drop in energy prices caused the producer price index for June to fall 0.4 percent -- its fastest rate of decline in 2 years. Energy prices, led by a 5.8 percent decline in natural gas prices, fell 2.5 percent in June. The core PPI, which excludes the drop in energy prices and a slight increase in food prices, rose a mild 0.1 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said. In the near term, things look good. The pipeline things that might boost inflation are pretty light now, and core inflation might still fall a bit over the next couple of months, the chief economist at Bank of America says (Daily Labor Report, page D-4). As they try to gauge underlying inflation trends, private analysts and policymakers would be best served by tracking changes in consumer prices excluding energy, an economist at the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank concluded. Measuring core inflation by excluding only energy rather than both energy and food prices from the consumer price index provides a better gauge of the underlying trend, said Todd Clark, an assistant vice president and economist at the Kansas City Fed. Other measures of core inflation are not as straightforward and reliable, he said, in a study recently released on the bank's Web site. Policymakers, including those at the Federal Reserve, and private economists most often measure core inflation by looking at the all-items CPI minus energy and food prices. The thinking has been that energy and food are historically so volatile that a clearer picture of the underlying trend emerges by excluding these two components. The latest CPI figures, compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, show that the core inflation rate is running substantially lower than the overall rate. Analysts take this as a favorable sign that eventually the overall inflation rate will moderate to a level close to the core rate. For its part, BLS does not take a position on what is core inflation, Kenneth Dalton, associate commissioner for prices and living conditions, told the Bureau of National Affairs. Rather, the agency publishes a series of special indexes each month as part of the CPI report -- including an all-items index excluding energy. By offering several options for tracking prior changes, the bureau supports our data users who might want to use the figures in different ways, Dalton said. Clark highlights two criteria commonly used in analyzing core inflation: how well each core indicator tracks an estimate of trend inflation, and how well each one predicts future overall inflation (Daily Labor Report, page A-9). The Wall Street Journal feature Tracking the Economy (page A11) indicates that the Consumer Price Index for June, due out from BLS Wednesday, will move 0.1 percent higher, according to the Consensus Global Forecast, in contrast to a change of 0.4 percent in May. The CPI excluding food and energy for June is likely to move up 0.2 percent, although it moved but 0.1 percent in May. Initial jobless claims for the week to 7/14, to be announced Thursday, is predicted to be 415,000, although it was 445,000 the previous week. Retail sales rose 0.2 percent in June, buoyed by strong auto sales, the Commerce Department reports. June sales rose to a seasonally adjusted $292.9 billion, from an upwardly revised $292.2 billion in May. May sales rose 0.4 percent, rather than the 0.1 percent previously estimated. The Census Bureau data showed motor vehicles dealers' sales jumped 1.5 percent in June after a 0.2 percent rise in May. Excluding the auto sector from the total, June retail sales fell 0.2 percent (Daily Labor Report, page D-13). American consumers last month continued to increase their spending, particularly for new cars and light trucks, rounding out a quarter in which they again apparently kept the U.S. economy from slipping into a recession. The Commerce Department reported that retail and food service sales rose only 0.2 percent last month, half the May increase. But a roaring gain of 1.4 percent in April meant that sales increased at a 6.1 percent annual rate in the April-June period, the best reading in a year. The University of Michigan said in its preliminary consumer sentiment index for this month rose to 93.7 from last month's final reading of 92.6. The index reached a low of 88.4 in April. One factor making consumers more optimistic likely is the recent slide in some energy prices, a development that should also lessen the squeeze on business profits. The Labor Department said its producer price index for finished goods fell 0.4 percent last month because the cost of energy items, including gasoline and electricity, dropped 2.5 percent while prices for other goods increased only slightly (John M. Berry, The Washington Post, July 14, page E1). Fresh evidence of a weak economy appeared yesterday in the latest
Re: RE: If Open and Frank Discussion Is Red-Baiting...
Michael, will you please call an end to this? --jks From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:15212] RE: If Open and Frank Discussion Is Red-Baiting... Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:44:23 EDT It seems that some people think that the only way a thread ends here is when they get to finish it with an unanswered ad hominem attack. Maybe they get that idea because Michael sits by quietly while they do it, even though he had said that the thread had ended. And maybe they get that idea because when they are rude, obnoxious and unprincipled enough, having the equivalent of a listserv temper tantrum, Michael will give them have their way by stopping threads they don't like. But since I am not in the mood at this moment to have my name further assaulted by authoritarians of the left without reply... 1. It is a matter of pride to me that I am on the filter list of self-avowed Stalinists like Carrol Cox. I would be disappointed if I were not. 2. Self-avowed Stalinists like Charles Brown wouldn't know what free speech was if it ran them over. 3. The accusation of red-baiting, as it has been employed here, is the last refuge of those who can't and won't engage in open and honest debate. Charles Brown wrote: As I see it on this thread, you started out trying to discredit Greg Tarpinian's report on the Teamster's convention by redbaiting and guilt by association, and now I come back a little while later and you are claiming your freedom of speech is being harmed But what was your original redbaiting but cutting off discourse ? So, it is difficult to be sympathetic to your complaints below.The simple question ( or one of them) is did Tarpinian accurately report that the Teamsters changed their constitution to provide for direct election of officers ? If so , that is a democratic advance worthy of the history of TDU, and your speculations about Tarpianian being opportunist or motivated by anti-Trotskyism ( not to mention part of a Communist Party front) is the original discouse-dampening move on this thread. Charles Brown Leo Casey United Federation of Teachers 260 Park Avenue South New York, New York 10010-7272 (212-598-6869) Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has, and it never will. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. -- Frederick Douglass -- _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: Re: Re: RE: wynne godley
This also creates a bind regarding the dollar. If the dollar threatens to depreciate, the damn foreigners will refuse to continue financing our binge, dump their securities, drop the market and spoil our fun. Rob Schaap wrote: Ah, we're talking economics again, are we? Well, Prudent Bear Marshall Auerback http://www.prudentbear.com/Comm%20Archive/markcomm/i082900.htm talked about Wynn Godley's thoughts on private sector debt last August (when, to my mind, things looked bad, but not as bad as now - Kenichi Ohmae's warnings about Japan's new boy's idea of effectively sucking back Wall St Yen to wash away red ink, and mebbe destroy some excess capital, come to mind): -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Re: Re: RE: wynne godley
At 04:08 PM 7/17/01 +, you wrote: Ah, we're talking economics again, are we? is that allowed? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine Is it peace or is it Prozac? -- Cheryl Wheeler.
Re: Re: Re: RE: wynne godley
Although Godley is not signing on for a while, his co-author and ex-penner, Alex Izurieta, is coming on board. You can direct some of these questions for him, although you might wait a couple of hours. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: wynne godley
At 09:37 AM 7/17/01 -0700, you wrote: Although Godley is not signing on for a while, his co-author and ex-penner, Alex Izurieta, is coming on board. You can direct some of these questions for him, although you might wait a couple of hours. folks, be polite! Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http:/bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine It takes a busload of faith to get by. -- Lou Reed.
El ALCAN a los siete anos
Two announcements regarding the Global Policy Network: 1) The report NAFTA at Seven is now available in Spanish. El informe El ALCAN a los siete aos est disponible ahora en espaol. 2) GPN now has a new, shorter domain name: The Global Policy Network can now be found on the web at GPN.ORG. Our original domain name, globalpolicynetwork.org, will continue to function as well. Global Policy Network - http://gpn.org/ Economic Policy Institute - http://epinet.org/ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
godley and implosion in the US
folks, be polite! Thanks Jim (or was that meant for Wynne only?) It is nice to be back. As Michael said, I am working in association with Wynne since January. That means that I would not possibly have more answers at hand than many of you who know the work of Wynne from an earlier stage. AS TO PROTECTIONISM Certainly Wynne would be prepared to answer this better than myself. The issue of protectionism was raised, at a relatively early stage in the UK (in Latin America it was there since the times of the ECLAC and Prebisch), by the so-called Cambridge Economic Policy Group (CEPG). Main figures of that group were N.Kaldor, J. Robinson, L. Pasinetti and... Wynne Godley (and many others). The proposition in place was to exercise some degree of protectionism in order to cushion industries that needed some sort of support to avoid being displaced by external competition. The underlying justification was Kaldor's paper Foundations of Free Trade Theory and their Implications for the Current World Recession (in a book edited by Fitoussi and Malinvaud, NY: St.Martin Press. 1980). Kaldor's main hypothesis is that the Ricardian idea that free trade is beneficial for all parties involved (via comparative advantages) is true only if the assumptions of perfect competition and constant returns to scale of the aggregate production function stand. If not, if in reality what there reigns is 'dynamically increasing returns' then free trade leads to polarization. There is more to this, obviously, but perhaps it would be better to leave this for another discussion, where I could also rely on folks more familiar with these issues. Yet, from the perspective of 'history of economic thought' the 'protectionism' issue granted the CEPG the label of 'dissidents', which, IMHO encouraged them to be 'even more dissident' and allow them to produce very interesting things for decades, until Thatcher closed down the group by cutting the funds (the typical story). PROTECTIONISM, THE PAPER AND THE MODEL The issue of protectionism was raised in our paper as a way by which the current balance of payment problem in the US could be, to an extent, corrected. I believe the GATT allows for protective measures in 'proven cases' where BoP problems lead to serious problems of unemployment. It is not a re-drafting of the GATT, but a mere application of one of its clauses. Whether this is or not a good idea could be discussed at length. However, what we truly believe is that the current account deficit (nearly 4% of GDP) cannot be sustained for much longer, in the same way that the private sector imbalance cannot be sustained at the present (unprecedented) level. BTW, someone in the list mentioned that the private sector deficit has not reverted despite it was predicted to revert from time ago. Well, it is starting to revert, and quite sharply. That is what the figures of the Q1-2001 tell. Now, we explored in our model some alternatives that would allow a recovery of the BoP. One of them was a devaluation, since *in our model* the exchange rate was an exogenous variable. But not in reality (though everybody knows that if tomorrow Greenspan wakes up saying something like 'it is not in the interest of our nation to have such a strong dollar' there *will be a devaluation*. This may be the opportunity to tell that we indeed work out our solutions by means of a macroeconomic model where *there are more than accounting identities*. There are a number of critical behavioural relations, for expenditure, imports, exports, prices of international trade, labour, employment, and a couple of more instrumental variables. I would be willing to prepare a text version of the whole model if it serves for something. In plain English (well, nearly, because, as you may have already noticed, it is not *my* mother tongue): a) the model is anchored in a fully consistent system of accounting relations, including both flows and stocks. b) the main propositions of the model turn around private sector behaviour. Basically, private expenditure (and thus imports) will keep raising as long as there is some source of financing (income, or credit, or both). c) The private sector, as an aggregate, can tolerate extravagance because it feels 'wealthy'. But net worth is not the same as cash, that is why credit is necessary in order to keep spending going. d) But there is a limit as to how much the private debt can raise, simply because debts have to paid back, in cash. e) In reaching such a limit, aggregate expenditure will be dramatically reduced, since the public sector (and the public opinion about the public sector) seems not in the lines of deficit expansion. f) If there are not sufficient forces in the external sector to revert the Exports - Imports equation, THEN, there is no room for expansion at all. g) In sum, the implosion begins. That is where our analysis leads to. But I am sure there is much more that we are probably overlooking... Alex
RE: Mexican Workers in the US
where else does the GOP 'conservative wing' have to go? Buchanan is a total bust. This is a freebee for Bush. mbs Amnesty Proposal Is Huge Gamble for Bush President Could Be Rewarded With Hispanic Vote but Risks Angering GOP's Conservative Wing
RE: RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: wynne godley
. . . The effects of any form of undisguised wall-to-wall US protectionism on world trade today would be presumably, completely catastrophic, the debacle even worse than 1929-31. Is the Godley view that this debacle is inevitable anyway, so it's a case of sauve qui peut? Mark Jones I presume a plausible U.S. protectionism would not be an all-or-nothing thing, but a modulated policy negotiated in some kind of concert with other countries (naturally with a U.S. edge in bargaining power). Whether/how it would work I have no idea. mbs
Re: godley and implosion in the US
G'day Alex, You write: Kaldor's main hypothesis is that the Ricardian idea that free trade is beneficial for all parties involved (via comparative advantages) is true only if the assumptions of perfect competition and constant returns to scale of the aggregate production function stand. If not, if in reality what there reigns is 'dynamically increasing returns' then free trade leads to polarization. To apply that paragraph to our world (and to rant therapeutically), if few sellers dominate in a leading trading sector (say, IT, from backbones to software), and market entry is effectively impossible (say, IT, from backbones to software), and supply is not an issue (as with already existing information, whose scarcity is at the whim of the IP holder), we do not have anything like perfect competition. Returns to scale are problematic in the information sector, too, because IP and marketing (not to mention the extermination or takeover of nascent competition) are more decisive than input values in determining price. And, as costs for information reproduction approximate zero, returns to scale can blow out by a factor of squillions. So you can trade your costless information (ie once cost has been covered by the domestic market alone) for real goods (ie really commensurate labour time, really commensurate environmental cost and really commensurate opportunity costs of production). As effective monopolist, you sell stuff that costs you nearly nothing for whatever price the market will bear in the moment, and your host economy imports stuff at prices affected by the huge debt these sales inflict on other economies. In marxian terms, you could be selling at way above exchange value, and buying (unsustainably in the long run, but what shareholders care about that, eh?) at below exchange value. This ain't so much uneven development as immiseration of your market - and an inbuilt tendency towards underconsumption. The more your economy buys from other economies, the more you destroy your own manufacturing and extraction sectors, and the more your consumption pattern shapes your trading partners into 'low value added' economies. Exacerbating this dynamic is the concomitant fact that their currencies will fall relative to yours, and they will be encouraged to keep their interest rates higher than yours in an attempt to keep the currency at levels where the information you sell them is almost affordable. These interest rates also help keep their chances of competing in sunrise sectors at bay, as capital equipment and consumption costs are consequently relatively higher there. This leads to your own economy sating itself on foreign largesse and encourages all kinds of debt, because interest rates will be low and equity values high. The consequence of all that would be a structural tendency to high consumer debt and a current account deficit funded by money running away from structurally disadvantaged economies. Furthermore, local manufacturing would cease investing in capital, but invest desperately in marketing (after all, the pie is diminishing and only increased market share promises survival). They eke out an insecure existence by fireselling burgeoning inventories to an essentially sated population and trying to wipe out local rivals. If they're to survive, never mind grow, they shall need to keep an eye out for foreign productive assets to pick up when the currencies, wages and regulation have been sufficiently diminished - which would be very diminished indeed, as so much of what is made in such places is doomed to be sold below exchange value ... unless they too were to achieve monopoly market power ... which would occasion a merger frenzy, further leveraging, and a gradually intensifying series of corporate bankruptcies ... Cheers, Rob.
BLS Daily Report
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS DAILY REPORT, TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2001: Consumer prices for goods and services likely grew by just 0.1 percent in June. Excluding food and energy, core prices probably increased 0.2 percent. ...Housing starts in June likely fell to an annual rate of 1.61 million from 1.62 million in May. The May trade deficit probably narrowed to $32 billion from $32.2 billion in April. The weaker economy is causing a drop in demand for foreign goods, despite the strong dollar. The Conference Board's composite index of leading indicators likely advanced 0.2 percent in June. (Business Week, July 23, page 94). Hospitals across the country are struggling with an acute shortages of nurses, but the hospitals' problem is a big opportunity for a handful of nurse staffing companies, says The New York Times (page C1). These companies recruit thousands of traveling nurses who typically agree to work in hospitals on 13-week contracts. Thousands of other nurses take temporary work for a daily rate, often through a local mom-and-pop employment agency. Hospitals paid $7.2 billion last year for temporary employees, mainly nurses, according to The Staffing Industry Report, and industry newsletter. The traveling nurse companies charge the hospitals $40 to $50 an hour, and more in high-cost cities. The companies pay for apartments and other amenities, including liability insurance and health benefits for nurses who work a minimum number of weeks. They keep extensive databases on the certificates and credentials held by the skilled nurses who are in the greatest demand. Hourly pay for the nurses average between $20 and $30 an hour. They can often pick their region, for example, Florida, Arizona and California in cold weather. A federal panel backed by President Bush has recommended that the government require automakers to improve the fuel efficiency of new vehicles. The draft report does not recommend specific improvements in miles per gallon. But it says the fuel economy of sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks could be raised as much as 8 to 11 miles a gallon in 6 to 10 years with the savings on gas over the 14-year life of the vehicle offsetting the extra cost. (The New York Times, page C1) (Wall Street Journal, page A20). Business inventories were unchanged in May, as sales rose more than in any month since March of last year, the government reported -- a sign a pickup in the economy may lift production months from now. Inventories at factories, wholesalers and retailers, which fell 0.2 percent in April, have not increase the last 4 months, according to the Commerce Department. Business sales surged 1.1 percent in May, after falling 0.5 percent, the department said. (Bloomberg News, The New York Times, page C10) http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/198/business/Inventories_flat_sales_surg e_in_May+.shtml). Business inventories were flat in May, despite the largest monthly sales increase in over a year, suggesting companies are working through their excess stockpiles. The figures are roughly in line with analysts' expectations, and should provide some comfort to Federal Reserve policy makers (Dow Jones Newswires, The Wall Street Journal, page A2. The Journal's page 1 graph is of business inventories and sales, 1996 to the present). Manufacturing activity plummeted in June, the ninth straight monthly decline, providing fresh evidence that the battered industrial sector continues to bear the brunt of the yearlong economic slowdown. The Federal Reserve reported that industrial production at the nation's factories, mines and utilities declined by 0.7 percent last month, following a 0.5 percent drop in May. June's decline was the sharpest since industrial output fell by 0.9 percent in January. The latest snapshot of the industrial sector's performance was weaker than most analysts were expecting. They were predicting manufacturing activity would fall by 0.5 percent in June (Jeannine Aversa, Associated Press, http://www.nypost.com/apstories/business/V3164.htm; http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/businessnews/article/0,2669,ART-529 98,FF.html; http://www0.mercurycenter.com/breaking/headline2/072304.htm). DUE OUT TOMORROW: Consumer Price Index -- June 2001 and Real Earnings -- June 2001. application/ms-tnef
godley
As far as the ideas we put forward in the paper, the critical issue is that
the current account deficit, as it stands, cannot be sustained.
We mentioned that a sort of coordinated reflation would be a possible
solution, at a global scale. A devaluation (if it was a policy instrument)
may serve, to an extent, but it has also implications for the rest of the
world. In previous papers of Wynne Godley (1999: Open Economy Macroeconomics
Using Models of Free Trade) it was put forward that the impact of a
devaluation is not full since (price and volume) feedbacks from trade
partners would be expected (i.e. exporters shade their prices to maintain
market share).
As to protectionism, there is a VERY IMPORTANT QUALIFICATION, which does not
come out in the paper of Kaldor (the one I had at hand when I wrote my
previous Email). Namely, the original idea, put forward by Godley and Cripps
in a 1978 article in the Cambridge Journal of Economics ('Control of imports
as a means to full employment and the expansion of world trade), is that of
NON SELECTIVE PROTECTIONISM, combined with fiscal relaxation ( I am waiting
to get a copy of such paper to be able to be more specific; from what I
understand it is, in a general way, a combination of import tariffs/ quotas
with tax relaxation / expenditure expansion that would lead to increased
output). I.e. it is not an issue of protecting some industries that may be
non competitive because of particular inefficiencies, but to protect an
entire economy against its failure to ensure employment and against the
exhaustion of reserves.
In Godley and Cripps paper, such is a fully thought-out idea, which rather
than leading to debacle or global recession, actually leads to increased
output and employment worldwide.
Furthermore, in Godley (1995)' Critical Imbalance in US Trade (Levy
Institute Policy Brief, No. 23) it is emphasized that in both the GATT and
the WTO it is contemplated that contracting parties may restrict the
quantity or value of merchandise permitted to be imported (pp. 25). And, as
noted there, the principles of nonselectivity and nondiscrimination are as
fundamental as that of trade itself.
Anyway, I hoped I made a bit clearer Wynne's position on this. As I said,
international trade is not really my area. What I can stand for is that the
present trends of main financial (im)balances of the US economy (private
sector negative net savings and negative balance of trade) cannot be
sustained. And, the longer the remedies are postponed, the more dramatic the
implications for the US and the rest of the world. And, this seems to be
something that, again, free trade is not capable to resolve...
A
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Max Sawicky
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 2:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:15234] RE: RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: wynne godley
. . .
The effects of any form of undisguised wall-to-wall US protectionism on
world trade today would be presumably, completely catastrophic, the debacle
even worse than 1929-31. Is the Godley view that this debacle is inevitable
anyway, so it's a case of sauve qui peut? Mark Jones
I presume a plausible U.S. protectionism would not be
an all-or-nothing thing, but a modulated policy negotiated
in some kind of concert with other countries (naturally with
a U.S. edge in bargaining power). Whether/how it would
work I have no idea.
mbs
RE: godley
. . . Anyway, I hoped I made a bit clearer Wynne's position on this. As I said, international trade is not really my area. What I can stand for is that the present trends of main financial (im)balances of the US economy (private sector negative net savings and negative balance of trade) cannot be sustained. And, the longer the remedies are postponed, the more dramatic the implications for the US and the rest of the world. And, this seems to be something that, again, free trade is not capable to resolve...A What will be the leading indicators of the implosion, and when should we look for them? What might avert them? In short, what sequence of events would disprove your thesis? mbs
Fwd: How to Stop Bush Amnesty of 3 Million Illegal Aliens
This was sent to me off list by Michael Pugliese: From: Michael Pugliese [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Fw: How to Stop Bush Amnesty of 3 Million Illegal Aliens Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 07:29:11 -0700 Julio Huato, I lurk on alot of Right-Wing lists. Give these nativists a piece of your mind. The reactionaries are going nuts! Michael Howlin' Wolf Pugliese from pen-l - Original Message - From: CitizensLobby.com To: Recipient list suppressed Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 6:41 AM Subject: How to Stop Bush Amnesty of 3 Million Illegal Aliens == AN URGENT MESSAGE from www.CitizensLobby.com http://www.CitizensLobby.com July 17, 2001 == (Washington, DC) President Bush is considering to grant amnesty to over 3 million illegal criminal aliens. A recent report by Mr. Bush's own officials at the State and Justice Departments has recommended that he circumvent U.S. laws and approve eventual citizenship to millions of mostly Mexican illegal immigrants. Where is the compassionate conservatism for American citizens whose tax dollars line the pocket of these border-runners, lawbreakers and thieves? After 8 years of Clintonism, Bush may seem right on many issues, but he is wrong on immigration! Our President is about to squash our dignity and rights as American citizens in order to pander to the anti-American agenda of Mexican President Vicente Fox, and to the liberal Democrats in Congress. Did the President and his strategists forget that Al Gore's and Bill Clinton's Citizenship USA program in 1996, which registered over 1.2 million illegal aliens to vote, allowed the vast majority of their fraudulent ballots in 2000 to be cast for liberal Democrats? Help stop this amnesty, and help President Bush understand the virtues of American citizenship. Please join CitizensLobby.com in taking the following grass-roots action: #1 Tell President Bush to reject this illegal alien scheme. Call (800) 303-8332 or (202) 456-1414; Fax: (202) 456-2461; Write: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20500 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can also call Timothy Goeglein, WH Public Liaison, at (202) 456-2930, and Karl Rove, chief strategist, at (202) 456-5587. These gentlemen give Bush pillow talk on this issue. #2 Tell Congress to oppose this measure. The Bush plan may eventually encompass an even more radical amnesty proposed by Rep. Luis Gutierrez (H.R. 500), which could grant amnesty to as many as 10 million illegal aliens! Contact your Congressman and tell him to oppose the Bush plan and H.R. 500. Call the congressional switchboard at (800) 648-3516 or (877) 762-8762 or go to http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.html . In the Senate, lackey Phil Gramm is pushing for an expansion of a guest worker program, an equally miserable measure that will still grant amnesty to millions of illegal criminal aliens. Contact your Senators at http://www.senate.gov/senators/index.cfm . #3 Visit http://www.CitizensLobby.com and sign our Petition on immigration http://www.citizenslobby.com/petitions.htm#immigration . We will make your voice heard on Capitol Hill and deliver your petition to the House and Senate Judiciary subcommittees on immigration. Help take America back. This is our country. Our rights should not be trampled and demeaned by illegal aliens. Our tax dollars should not fund criminal lawbreaking. If an amnesty does take hold, this will only lead to a greater invasion of illegal immigrants. Please take a stand today. I thank you for your time and consideration. Best regards, Scott A. Lauf Executive Director, CitizensLobby.com # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # [NOTE: If this e-mail is in error, please disregard and/or send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to be removed from our lists. We apologize for the inconvenience. CitizensLobby.com is a non-partisan, grass-roots organization. CitizensLobby.com does not endorse or support political candidates or parties.] _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
RE: RE: godley
given the trade balance and tight fiscal stance, credit driven consumer spending in excess of income (additionally driven by rising stock prices) has buoyed aggregate demand. absent a dramatic change in the fiscal stance, credit crunch, falling/stagnant stock prices and/or falling consumer confidence will dry up consumer spending, and the economy takes a dive, with additional mass layoffs and declining investment. that's been my take of the Godley view? -Original Message- From: Max Sawicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 3:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:15239] RE: godley . . . Anyway, I hoped I made a bit clearer Wynne's position on this. As I said, international trade is not really my area. What I can stand for is that the present trends of main financial (im)balances of the US economy (private sector negative net savings and negative balance of trade) cannot be sustained. And, the longer the remedies are postponed, the more dramatic the implications for the US and the rest of the world. And, this seems to be something that, again, free trade is not capable to resolve...A What will be the leading indicators of the implosion, and when should we look for them? What might avert them? In short, what sequence of events would disprove your thesis? mbs
Europhile in lead for Conservative Party
From being faced with a hopeless reincarnation of William Hague (minus the jokes) as front runner for the Conservative Party Leadership, in the form of Ian Duncan-Smith, ex Guards officer, suddenly by a turn of fortunes, Michael Portillo has just slipped one vote behind, as a result of indiscrete remarks about cannabis and anxiety in the shires about his homosexual past, and has been knocked out of the Conservative leadership race. When the two bottom candidates withdrew last week their 35 votes, went only 3 to Portillo, only 12 to Duncan-Smith and a massive 20 to Kenneth Clarke the Europhile outsider in a Europhobe Party. Clarke now leads the vote of the party members by 59 MP's votes to 54 (Portillo having got 53). This suggests that despite all its misgivings the Conservative Party accepts it was massively defeated in its electoral strategy by banking on opposition to the Euro, even though the majority of the public are sceptical. Clarke who at least is in touch with modern finance capital to the extent of being on the board of BAT and marketing cigarettes to the Vietnamese, is seen as much better at bridging in human terms the gap between real economics and the ordinary voter. It is now probable that a number of former Conservative Prime Ministers will step in to promote his candidacy and accepting that the Party has to be vaguer in its stance against the Euro. As of tonight the Party still faces the risk of a massive split, and its marginalisation on the finge of bourgeois politics. But tonight the tectonic plates moved an inch or two. The pressures against the euro and for tax cuts, are no longer the main determinants of British party politics. The Conservative party is already repositioning itself. A sign perhaps that after all Blair had better bring forward the Euro referendum, to split the Conservatives again. Chris Burford London
godley and implosion in the US
Yes, I agree with Rob Schaap's illustrative description of the tragedy of our non-competitive free market at both international and domestic levels. I would not be able to express it better. And I find it very appropriate to look at the IT sector, because it is usually shown as a factor of equalization rather than polarization. Indicators of the implosion? In the context of our model in particular we look at the trends of the main (current) balances: private sector, public sector and the external sector. Within the private sector we look at the households (or sometimes the personal sector, which includes unincorporated enterprises) and companies. We also look at the stock positions (accumulation of financial wealth, for example, and, what M. Forstater said: credit). Through the structure of the model we trace the impact of these balances and their components on aggregate demand and economic growth. If (one of ) the components of the main balances that generate an expansion reverts or slows down, AND there is no other force that would alternatively generate an expansion, then an implosion unleashes. In particular, according to the NIPA accounts, the balance of the private sector started to revert in the first quarter. And, in the first quarter there was no compensation from a fiscal or external side. Thus, the previous pattern of growth is altered, and could turn into an opposite sign. There is going to be a sort of termporay compensation with the tax rebate (third quarter) but this would be, in our estimation, only sufficient to avoid a 'technical recession' (technical recession is four successive quarters of negative growth). But it will not be sufficient to reinstate economic growth. A side remark, we do not intend to make a short term forecast of the economy. It would not be possible, in our opinion. But what can be said is that the necessary reversion of the (unsustainable) current trends will lead, sooner or later, to a painful recession. And, the implications for the rest of the world will be perhaps even more dramatic. Recently European leaders complained that US is loosing its role of locomotive, affecting Europe. And, in Latin America the effect of the slow down in the US is starting to impinge on Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and from there others will follow suit... (I think you were discussing this in the list, I will give it a look). well, good night, Alex
Idaho Potatoes vs. Electricity
You say potato, I say electricity Should western water flow to spud farmers or to hydroelectric dams? The Economist (U.K) - 7/14/01 MOUNTAIN HOME, IDAHO - Idaho potatoes blend 21st-century technology with 19th-century political muscle. The technology makes Idaho's potato-growers among the most productive farmers in the world; in August, from a mere 400,000 acres, they will pull 20 billion pounds (9 billion kilos) of potatoes. That is up from 12 billion pounds 20 years ago. It is 30% of the total American output, and enough to give 3 lb of spuds to every human being on the planet. Unfortunately, people do not want that many potatoes. So Idaho farmers have a problem. Across southern Idaho and the eastern portions of Oregon and Washington state, 4.8 billion pounds of potatoes sit in warehouses, virtually worthless. Farmers can expect to get little more than $2 for a 100 lb bag that costs perhaps $4 to produce. Potatoes, no matter how unprofitable, need water for irrigation and for processing into the french fries that sit next to Big Macs worldwide. Water has been contentious in Idaho ever since fist-fights broke out along the first irrigation ditches more than 100 years ago. Nowadays, the potato farmers' water is protected by an intricate dam of law and tradition that shields longstanding water users and has its own strange rules about how water is used, often in direct contravention of both economic and environmental good sense. A farmer, for instance, can give up using his water for a year or two. But, if that becomes five years, he has to surrender the rights to the water. And much of the water is provided at rates well below market value. Rather than conserving water, there is thus a powerful incentive to keep using it regardless of whether the crop that uses it has any value. This is an ingrained, legally protected pathology, says Ray Huffaker, an expert on water law at Washington State University in the farming-country town of Pullman. The argument about whether the West's economy would be better served by transferring water from farmers who create little value to cities that create a lot (and are prepared to pay for the water) is an old one. And by the absurd standards of western agriculture - e.g. the miracle that allows Californian farmers to grow alfalfa and rice in a near-desert - Idaho's potato farmers are not particular transgressors. But this year they are in the firing line. One reason is that this summer may be the West's driest in 50 years. The other is to do with electricity and geography. The potato farmers draw their water from rivers like the Columbia and the Snake, whose dams (lower down-river) supply much of the West's hydroelectric power. This year, with consumers in many western states facing power cuts, that water, and the electricity it produces, are desperately needed. Other troubled industries have already turned the power crisis to their advantage. Aluminum producers, for instance, have cut production in order to sell electrical power that is too valuable to use for smelting aluminum. But the idea of selling their water to the power companies meets stony resistance from the potato farmers. It is not just that they are being difficult. Water is fiendishly difficult to manage. It is a fugitive resource, meaning it has a tendency to wander away - unlike, say, a stand of trees. And water use has a domino effect: draw water from a stream, and landowners 100 miles downstream feel the impact. Then there is the huge capital investment in the canal systems, farm equipment and processing plants that have grown up around the potato industry. There is a human side, too. Take Mike Wing, a 39-year-old farmer who lives with his family near Mountain Home, Idaho. He has been a farmer for 11 years, growing potatoes, alfalfa and sugar beet on his 5,600-acre spread. A passer-by might think Mr. Wing is doing fine. There is new equipment on the well-tended property. Mr. Wing pumps around $3m a year into running the farm. But his return is maybe $100,000 in a good year. Not many investors would stand for that, he admits. He holds on so that he can be his own boss, and work the land. This year, though, Mr. Wing is not farming. Idaho Power is paying him to do nothing. The water not used to water Mr. Wing's crops is generating power, and the farmer is earning enough from the deal to take a year off, studying at nearby Boise State University. Next year he plans to be farming at full speed again, partly in order to preserve his water rights. This is a long way from the sort of water trading that most economists recommend. Mr. Huffaker suggests a contingent market, in which farmers sign contracts with power generators or other water users to sell a fixed amount of their water rights during low-flow years. In doing so, they would not abandon their water rights; but it would make trading
protectionism
1. Alex's concerns about dynamic increasing returns speak mostly to North-North trade--as Richard Nelson and Sylvia Ostry have noted--not to the North-South trade which has motivated anti-globalization, protectionist sentiment. So the theoretical concerns which he raises seem out of place in the present debates. 2. Not convinced that the CAD is so foreboding. Flow of funds data do not allow us to know how much of the foreign debt is owned by Americans and very special friends (e.g., the Saudis) operating out of foreign hedge funds. 3. As for protectionism itself, I am concerned about the lack of consideration of obvious counter-productive effects. There seems to be so little recognition of this by the self styled populists, so I submit that they are in the thrall of mythical nationalist thought which gains power as class antagonisms threaten to develop in times of uncertainty. It wouldn't be the first time that the reaction to the highly formalist and abstract analysis of bourgeois economics had led to an embrace of the myths of nation and neo mercantalism. I refer here not only to retaliations and beggar-thy-neighbor policies (to which Mark was perhaps averring) but the possibility that by limiting the supply of dollars abroad through tariffs and the other import restrictions meant to protect declining industries--and this seems to be what Godley is proposing--the dollar's value will probably increase and thus put added pressure on US exports. That is, as the free trade Keynesian Bob Eisner warned (but I guess he has already been forgotten), there could be one aircraft job loss in Seattle (to Airbus) for every textile job protected in South Carolina. Rakesh As a side note: on his list from which I have been banned, Doug H downloaded a NYT article on the labor situation in Cambodia. Though of course I couldn't reply, he suggested to his list that my thinking was not complicated enough, but he did not notice--though I have pointed this out to to him several times--that the US has reserved the unilateral right to determine whether labor conditions are good enough in Cambodia to allow it a quota increase, and he did not notice that the NYT article did not say a word about what the consequences of last year's quota denial had been on the Cambodian workers who had lost their jobs presumably to return to the mine infested country-side. But I suppose keeping on nationalist chauvinist blinders is considered to be complicated analysis.
RE: godley and implosion in the US
Didn't Wynne come out and state that a tax cut four times as big as Bush's would be necessary to avoid a major downturn? -Original Message- From: Alex Izurieta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 4:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:15243] godley and implosion in the US Yes, I agree with Rob Schaap's illustrative description of the tragedy of our non-competitive free market at both international and domestic levels. I would not be able to express it better. And I find it very appropriate to look at the IT sector, because it is usually shown as a factor of equalization rather than polarization. Indicators of the implosion? In the context of our model in particular we look at the trends of the main (current) balances: private sector, public sector and the external sector. Within the private sector we look at the households (or sometimes the personal sector, which includes unincorporated enterprises) and companies. We also look at the stock positions (accumulation of financial wealth, for example, and, what M. Forstater said: credit). Through the structure of the model we trace the impact of these balances and their components on aggregate demand and economic growth. If (one of ) the components of the main balances that generate an expansion reverts or slows down, AND there is no other force that would alternatively generate an expansion, then an implosion unleashes. In particular, according to the NIPA accounts, the balance of the private sector started to revert in the first quarter. And, in the first quarter there was no compensation from a fiscal or external side. Thus, the previous pattern of growth is altered, and could turn into an opposite sign. There is going to be a sort of termporay compensation with the tax rebate (third quarter) but this would be, in our estimation, only sufficient to avoid a 'technical recession' (technical recession is four successive quarters of negative growth). But it will not be sufficient to reinstate economic growth. A side remark, we do not intend to make a short term forecast of the economy. It would not be possible, in our opinion. But what can be said is that the necessary reversion of the (unsustainable) current trends will lead, sooner or later, to a painful recession. And, the implications for the rest of the world will be perhaps even more dramatic. Recently European leaders complained that US is loosing its role of locomotive, affecting Europe. And, in Latin America the effect of the slow down in the US is starting to impinge on Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and from there others will follow suit... (I think you were discussing this in the list, I will give it a look). well, good night, Alex
Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: wynne godley
Mark Jones wrote: Incidentally, the Godley paper lays policy emphasis on import controls. This looks like impish humour, since it is hard to imagine how such a policy could be implemented without doing even more damage. As Jim Devine says, the cure is worse than the disease: To summarize, U.S. prosperity was fragile even before late 1929, due to the process of over-investment relative to demand and the international environment. Then the Crash, restrictive fiscal and monetary policy, and protectionism interacted to break the unstable prosperity and to accelerate the downward movement. This movement involved the famous multiplier/accelerator interaction, reinforced by wage-cut induced underconsumption, debt deflation, and international interactions. [(The Causes of the 1929-33 Great Collapse: A Marxian Interpretation, by James Devine) ] The effects of any form of undisguised wall-to-wall US protectionism on world trade today would be presumably, completely catastrophic, the debacle even worse than 1929-31. Is the Godley view that this debacle is inevitable anyway, so it's a case of sauve qui peut? As my old friend Steve Zeluck used to say, the devil can quote scripture. Anyway, I think it's a big mistake to generalize from the 1930 Hawley-Smoot tariff to current-day issues. (It's quite common for the free trade vulgaris crowd -- e.g., Krugman -- to fall for this trap.) The GATT (now called the WTO) is aimed specifically at preventing trade wars of the type that H-S spurred. In any event, the world political economy has changed, undermining the political basis for protectionism (as I argue later on in the paper that Mark quotes). When the components of a car are imported for assembly in the U.S., that makes even the direct benefits of protection more ambiguous. Further, the power of the main political forces for protection has faded, at least in the U.S.: these are nationally-oriented manufacturing, narrow-minded labor unions, and domestic agriculture. As I further argue in the paper, these days it's not protection that encourages depression as much as a world-wide process of competitive austerity and export promotion encouraged by the US and its IMF and World Bank and by the competition to attract capital investment by offering low wages, pliable work-forces, etc. It's important to realize that in my full story of the origins of the Great Depression (http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/depr/Depr.html.), the H-S tariff plays only a small role. (It's sort of like Jar Jar's role in Star Wars Episode I: bad but ultimately unimportant. When I see the Jar Jar-free version of SW Ep I, I'm sure it will be just as bad as the original.) Further, it was a _product_ of an international political economy centering on aggressive nation-state-to-nation-state competition of a sort we don't see in the rich capitalist world these days. It also hit a world economy that was ready to fall. It should also remembered that the early-1920s US tariff _promoted_ US prosperity, unlike H-S. Back then, BTW, it was Republicans, not Democrats, who liked tariffs. Protection was the main Republican activist economic policy. I'm not big into protectionism: it can create jobs in one country by taking jobs away from workers in another. Or -- in the VERY exceptional case of a H-S tariff -- it can destroy jobs for both. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: wynne godley
In any event, the world political economy has changed, undermining the political basis for protectionism Jim, I check the archives often, and have learned a great deal from your posts. Not sure I agree here. Wouldn't the US state like to run a trade deficit to its own mnc's and thus accept imports from where its mncs are deeply integrated at the expense of other countries? There seems to be some basis for such a neo mercantalist trade policy. In the case of China--seemingly a platform first and foremost for Japanese mncs-- the US accepts imports probably not only because their own mncs are involved directly or as subcontractors but as a quid pro quo for access to the massive internal Chinese market. But it seems to me that neo mercantalist state may be alive and well. Don't know how far the state has retreated. Best, Rakesh
current events
Awhile back Rob Schapp quoted: ... Foreign ownership of US assets per se is not the problem. The threat comes from the fact that this foreign ownership overlays an economy rife with debt and, hence, highly vulnerable to financial dislocation should this foreign capital withdraw precipitously. We have already seen the effects of the sudden withdrawal of short-term capital in economies prone to financial fragility during 1997/98: Thailand and Korea immediately spring to mind. But in one respect the US is far more vulnerable than these Asian economies, which at least had the virtue of high levels of private household savings to fall back on. In the US, by contrast, household savings are virtually non-existent (indeed, they are negative, as of the most recent figures for July). Indeed, the ratio of debt relative to income for both the household and corporate sectors is at an all-time high... It's not US _savings_ (i.e., assets) that are non-existent. Rather, it's US _saving_ (net addition to savings) that is negative. Overall US consumer net worth is _positive_, not negative (even though this net worth did fall during the last year). The question is how long the Fed can boost the stock market and housing values to keep net worth positive. As long as that's true -- and disposable income isn't falling -- US consumers will likely continue to accumulate debt. Rob says:Now, if I may risk sounding my usual ignorant self in matters economical, ain't it the truth that America's problem ain't quite the same as Japan's? Well, not at the same stage, anyway. Sure, America has excess capacity - lots of it - and sure, Japan has a bad debt problem - lots of it - but ain't private debt the big cloud on the American horizon? if asset deflation (further falls in stock values, actual falls in housing prices) hits the US, then the US is beginning to emulate the post-Bubble Economy Japan. ... What America actually needs is to start working on private debt, and mebbe get somebody somewhere to buy more of the stuff its own cappos make. how are we to work on private debt? by abstaining from consumption? wouldn't that intensify the recessionary tendencies? What I'm trying to say is that tax cuts, in the American instance at least, look more like solving the present by damning the future - and I reckon Greenspan's rate drops have been doing that for a while already. These policies are damning the future by encouraging further private-sector debt accumulation. Import controls and, perhaps, a weaker greenback, are risky propositions, too, but wouldn't they more directly address America's structural threat? ... a weaker greenback would be a good thing, if it falls _slowly_. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Why I Am Leaving PEN-L
I am going to save Michael the need to issue any more "final warnings." After this last e-mail, I will unsubscribe from PEN-L. Out of respect to those with whom I have dialogued on PEN-L, I will explain why I have come to the conclusion that I should take this step of withdrawing from the listserv. It is clear to me that there are different sets of rules for different people on PEN-L, and since that state of affairs does not sit well with me, further conflict around issues of open and honest debate would be inevitable. Better that I should depart the scene then be a party to useless wrangling. Hopefully, others will be able to have more constructive dialogue in my absence. As disputes have arisen, I have made a number of attempts to address these problems with Michael off list, but these efforts have come to naught. While I came to the list liking Michael, having previously willing assisted him on educational sources for his work, I have lost confidence in his willingness to be fair and impartial in moderating disputes on this list. I am mindful of the difficulty of the position, and I try not to make quick judgments, but this last episode around the Teamsters/Hoffa thread has convinced me that I can not expect evenhandedness from him. When I posted the first e-mail in this thread, I received an off list from Michael telling me that what I has posted was "quite interesting," with some further inquiries. Before I had an opportunity to reply, Justin weighed in with a series of extraordinarily antagonistic postings which, in turn, accused me of red-baiting, attacked me personally and called for the thread to be censored. Despite the provocation, I made the point of keeping my replies to Justin on the substantive points, and avoiding tit-for-tat of personal attacks. I was rather outraged, therefore, when Michael responded on list to Justin's charges of "red baiting" as if there was some credibility in them, saying he just had not been paying attention to the thread because of other work. As a matter of fact, he clearly had been paying attention and his off list e-mail had communicated nothing but interest in the issue before Justin began his tirades. I was doubly outraged when Justin's infantile behavior was rewarded with getting what he wanted from Michael: the censorship of the thread. But what really put me over the top was Michael's willingness to sit by without the slightest sign of disapproval while Charles Brown continued a thread that Michael had declared closed, using it as an opportunity to make further personal attacks. When I responded with frank language describing my feelings of what had transpired, Michael decided it was time to step in -- to issue a "final warning" ... to me. Clearly, I have no right to expect anything even remotely approaching evenhandedness from here on. This controversy has been the most contrived excuse for avoiding open and honest debate I have come across on a left listserv. On every other list where this matter has come up, either through my own posting or through Michael P's propensity to share every debate across the net, it has been discussed in a civil and honest fashion. An example of the type of responses on different lists are attached at the end of this e-mail. I learned something from those responses. On one list, a member of the National Committee of Solidarity confirmed the very thesis of mine that had purportedly been the basis of Justin's vituperative attacks. "To put it bluntly Solidarity's relationship to TDU and Labor Notes is no great secret," he wrote. "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." I think it is unfortunate that matters have reached this end, but given that they have, it is time for me to depart. ** *** While I have often disagreed with Leo, and have politics that I'm sure he thinks are ten degrees left of folly, his point is well taken. I think of Solidarity as "coming out of" the Trotskyist tradition. For me, the "coming out of" is much more important than the word "Trotskyist", in the same way that, despite many independents who joined (Nathan), or others (myself), CoC "came out of" the Communist Party's split. I don't see this as red baiting. It is important to be on target. The old Mobilization for Survival (not the SMC to which Leo refers, which was very much run by the SWP), came "out of" the War Resisters League and part of the American Friends
RE: RE: godley and implosion in the US
yes. mbs Didn't Wynne come out and state that a tax cut four times as big as Bush's would be necessary to avoid a major downturn?
Re: Why I Am Leaving PEN-L
As far as Michael and evenhandedness as a moderator, I disagree. I expect evenhandedeness from him because there is not one of us on this list who has not received a warning from him from time to time to cool it and he does a bang-up job as a moderator of this list. How he maintains this list and does the 1,000 other things he occupies himself with is beyond me, but more power to him... Steve Stephen Philion Lecturer/PhD Candidate Department of Sociology 2424 Maile Way Social Sciences Bldg. # 247 Honolulu, HI 96822 On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am going to save Michael the need to issue any more final warnings. After this last e-mail, I will unsubscribe from PEN-L. Out of respect to those with whom I have dialogued on PEN-L, I will explain why I have come to the conclusion that I should take this step of withdrawing from the listserv. It is clear to me that there are different sets of rules for different people on PEN-L, and since that state of affairs does not sit well with me, further conflict around issues of open and honest debate would be inevitable. Better that I should depart the scene then be a party to useless wrangling. Hopefully, others will be able to have more constructive dialogue in my absence. As disputes have arisen, I have made a number of attempts to address these problems with Michael off list, but these efforts have come to naught. While I came to the list liking Michael, having previously willing assisted him on educational sources for his work, I have lost confidence in his willingness to be fair and impartial in moderating disputes on this list. I am mindful of the difficulty of the position, and I try not to make quick judgments, but this last episode around the Teamsters/Hoffa thread has convinced me that I can not expect evenhandedness from him. When I posted the first e-mail in this thread, I received an off list from Michael telling me that what I has posted was quite interesting, with some further inquiries. Before I had an opportunity to reply, Justin weighed in with a series of extraordinarily antagonistic postings which, in turn, accused me of red-baiting, attacked me personally and called for the thread to be censored. Despite the provocation, I made the point of keeping my replies to Justin on the substantive points, and avoiding tit-for-tat of personal attacks. I was rather outraged, therefore, when Michael responded on list to Justin's charges of red baiting as if there was some credibility in them, saying he just had not been paying attention to the thread because of other work. As a matter of fact, he clearly had been paying attention and his off list e-mail had communicated nothing but interest in the issue before Justin began his tirades. I was doubly outraged when Justin's infantile behavior was rewarded with getting what he wanted from Michael: the censorship of the thread. But what really put me over the top was Michael's willingness to sit by without the slightest sign of disapproval while Charles Brown continued a thread that Michael had declared closed, using it as an opportunity to make further personal attacks. When I responded with frank language describing my feelings of what had transpired, Michael decided it was time to step in -- to issue a final warning ... to me. Clearly, I have no right to expect anything even remotely approaching evenhandedness from here on. This controversy has been the most contrived excuse for avoiding open and honest debate I have come across on a left listserv. On every other list where this matter has come up, either through my own posting or through Michael P's propensity to share every debate across the net, it has been discussed in a civil and honest fashion. An example of the type of responses on different lists are attached at the end of this e-mail. I learned something from those responses. On one list, a member of the National Committee of Solidarity confirmed the very thesis of mine that had purportedly been the basis of Justin's vituperative attacks. To put it bluntly Solidarity's relationship to TDU and Labor Notes is no great secret, he wrote. 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. I think it is unfortunate that matters have reached this end, but given that they have, it is time for me to depart. ** *** While I have often disagreed with Leo, and have politics that I'm sure he thinks are ten degrees left
Re: Why I Am Leaving PEN-L
I will very much miss Leo's contributions to this list. Fred __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Bringing Biorat from Cuba to U.S. Inner Cities
* http://www.latimes.com/news/la-55338jul05.story THE WORLD Trying Poison on Embargo of Cuba Caribbean: Pastor visiting the island nation hopes to bring back Biorat, a product to kill rodents, for U.S. inner cities. MARK FINEMAN TIMES STAFF WRITER July 5 2001 HAVANA -- Firebrand Brooklyn pastor the Rev. Lucius Walker Jr. arrived here Wednesday with 80 tons of unlicensed humanitarian aid from the United States in tow. But it's what the activist plans to bring home next week that will pose a unique challenge to the American economic embargo of the Communist-run island: rat poison. Walker plans to return with cases of a product called Biorat for distribution to community groups in inner cities, his first attempt to break the blockade by bringing a Cuban product to the U.S. Biorat combines a healthy dose of salmonella, some phage and a dash of lysine negative into a meal of biological components that its advocates claim can kill the entire rat population of a city while causing no harm to the human inhabitants. Cuban scientists and their state-owned Labiofam company say they have used the recipe for nearly a decade to decimate the rat populations in aging Havana and in nations as far off as Vietnam, Uganda and Mongolia. But the four-decade U.S. embargo of Cuba has barred the biological rodenticide--and virtually all other Cuban products--from U.S. markets. Walker, whose Pastors for Peace group has sponsored a dozen aid caravans that have delivered more than 2,000 tons of aid here since 1992, calls his first attempt to import a Cuban product into the U.S. reciprocal solidarity. We're doing a reverse challenge for the first time in history, taking aid from Cuba through this caravan to the United States, said Walker, who also plans to bring back Cuban-made solar panels. The blockade is a double-edged sword. It hurts the people of Cuba and it hurts the people of the United States. When he returns with the Cuban products, Walker said, that may be an occasion when the Bush administration may show its true colors. Walker and his New York-based Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization have made bridging the gap between the U.S. and Cuba a crusade. They have sponsored American students studying at a Havana medical university and other joint projects, incurring the wrath of Miami-based anti-Castro Cuban Americans. As in previous visits, Walker will use his presence here to condemn the embargo that he and his supporters in the Black Congressional Caucus have called immoral and a harsh and inhumane policy. But this visit by a delegation of about 90 religious leaders, scholars, medical students and others, who will tour Labiofam's factory here today, highlights a Cuban industry little-known across the ideological divide between the island and the vast American consumer market 90 miles away. Biorat is just one of hundreds of cutting edge biological and genetic products developed by Cuban scientists and marketed by state-owned companies for whom necessity clearly has been the mother of inventions. Short on money but long on highly educated researchers and scientists, President Fidel Castro's government invested heavily in several high-profile research institutes that have produced vaccines against meningitis and hepatitis. They've also discovered natural interferon, created recombinant drugs and genetically altered tilapia fish that grow months faster than natural ones, and are carrying out advanced human trials of an AIDS vaccine that Cuban officials say holds promise. For cash-strapped Cuba, which lost billions of dollars in aid with the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, all this is for sale. Beginning in the early 1990s, the government created companies such as Labiofam, a Spanish acronym for Biological Pharmaceutical Laboratories, as profit centers to market scientific breakthroughs abroad and earn vital foreign exchange to pay Cuba's foreign debts. Among the most successful products is a rare vaccine against group B meningitis that has proved so effective that U.S.-based SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals spent more than a year negotiating with the U.S. Treasury Department for a license to test and ultimately import the drug. No such vaccine exists in the United States, and in 1999 the U.S. government granted an exception to the embargo and approved the license. The market for Biorat and other Labiofam products should be equally promising, according to the company's scientists and salespeople and Walker's solidarity partners here. Already, Labiofam has signed joint-venture agreements for factories to produce the rat killer in Vietnam and Uganda. The company is in the final stages of joint tests in Brazil of an insecticide that targets the mosquitoes that carry dengue fever and malaria. And it has a whole line of biodegradable soaps, shampoos and skin-care products. Labiofam contributes more than $6 million a year
Re: Re: Why I Am Leaving PEN-L
I respect Michael but he is even-handed in an occasionally partisan way. When a flame war or what he perceives as a flame war starts, he does tend to rap the knucles of the person espousing the view he disagrees with more than those he agrees with. The person receiving the reprimand may deserve it, but the fact that the other person is not treated the same can be irritating - and I say that from experience :) Nathan Newman [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nathannewman.org - Original Message - From: Stephen E Philion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 9:08 PM Subject: [PEN-L:15252] Re: Why I Am Leaving PEN-L As far as Michael and evenhandedness as a moderator, I disagree. I expect evenhandedeness from him because there is not one of us on this list who has not received a warning from him from time to time to cool it and he does a bang-up job as a moderator of this list. How he maintains this list and does the 1,000 other things he occupies himself with is beyond me, but more power to him... Steve Stephen Philion Lecturer/PhD Candidate Department of Sociology 2424 Maile Way Social Sciences Bldg. # 247 Honolulu, HI 96822 On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am going to save Michael the need to issue any more final warnings. After this last e-mail, I will unsubscribe from PEN-L. Out of respect to those with whom I have dialogued on PEN-L, I will explain why I have come to the conclusion that I should take this step of withdrawing from the listserv. It is clear to me that there are different sets of rules for different people on PEN-L, and since that state of affairs does not sit well with me, further conflict around issues of open and honest debate would be inevitable. Better that I should depart the scene then be a party to useless wrangling. Hopefully, others will be able to have more constructive dialogue in my absence. As disputes have arisen, I have made a number of attempts to address these problems with Michael off list, but these efforts have come to naught. While I came to the list liking Michael, having previously willing assisted him on educational sources for his work, I have lost confidence in his willingness to be fair and impartial in moderating disputes on this list. I am mindful of the difficulty of the position, and I try not to make quick judgments, but this last episode around the Teamsters/Hoffa thread has convinced me that I can not expect evenhandedness from him. When I posted the first e-mail in this thread, I received an off list from Michael telling me that what I has posted was quite interesting, with some further inquiries. Before I had an opportunity to reply, Justin weighed in with a series of extraordinarily antagonistic postings which, in turn, accused me of red-baiting, attacked me personally and called for the thread to be censored. Despite the provocation, I made the point of keeping my replies to Justin on the substantive points, and avoiding tit-for-tat of personal attacks. I was rather outraged, therefore, when Michael responded on list to Justin's charges of red baiting as if there was some credibility in them, saying he just had not been paying attention to the thread because of other work. As a matter of fact, he clearly had been paying attention and his off list e-mail had communicated nothing but interest in the issue before Justin began his tirades. I was doubly outraged when Justin's infantile behavior was rewarded with getting what he wanted from Michael: the censorship of the thread. But what really put me over the top was Michael's willingness to sit by without the slightest sign of disapproval while Charles Brown continued a thread that Michael had declared closed, using it as an opportunity to make further personal attacks. When I responded with frank language describing my feelings of what had transpired, Michael decided it was time to step in -- to issue a final warning ... to me. Clearly, I have no right to expect anything even remotely approaching evenhandedness from here on. This controversy has been the most contrived excuse for avoiding open and honest debate I have come across on a left listserv. On every other list where this matter has come up, either through my own posting or through Michael P's propensity to share every debate across the net, it has been discussed in a civil and honest fashion. An example of the type of responses on different lists are attached at the end of this e-mail. I learned something from those responses. On one list, a member of the National Committee of Solidarity confirmed the very thesis of mine that had purportedly been the basis of Justin's vituperative attacks. To put it bluntly Solidarity's relationship to TDU and Labor Notes is no great secret, he wrote. 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
RE: wynne godley
Max Sawicky wrote, If the discussion is not fruitful, I'm sure it will be nutful. Beans are a fruit, aren't they? Tom Walker Bowen Island, BC 604 947 2213
Fwd: [SP-USA] Support the Voter Freedom Act!
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:05:26 -0400 X-PH: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cornell Modified) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Socialist Party USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] A message from the Socialist Party Campaign Clearinghouse: Friends, There is a bill in the U.S. House that needs the help of third party supporters. The Voter Freedom Act of 2001, H.R.2268 , introduced by Rep. Ron Paul, would guarantee an individual's right to be placed on the ballot with party identification in Congressional elections. Currently, many states bar third party candidates from using any party label, unless their party has statewide ballot status. The bill would also establish a standard maximum petition requirement of 1000 signatures for a Congressional election. This bill is currently languishing in committee. That's why we, as a part of the Coalition for Free and Open Elections, are asking you to contact your Congressional representative and ask that she or he co-sponsor H.R.2268, the Voter Freedom Act of 2001. Thank you. Yrs, Shaun Richman Campaign Clearinghouse Coordinator --- Socialist Party USA Announcement List Socialist Party USA 339 Lafayette Street, #303 New York, NY 10012 phone/fax: (212)982-4586 http://www.SocialistPartyUSA.org *** ***Vote Socialist in 2001!*** *** http://votesocialist.org *** ***
Re: protectionism
I am glad to see Rakesh returning to pen-l, but please, Rakesh, try to avoid attacking others on the list, even obliquely. Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote: 1. Alex's concerns about dynamic increasing returns speak mostly to North-North trade--as Richard Nelson and Sylvia Ostry have noted--not to the North-South trade which has motivated anti-globalization, protectionist sentiment. So the theoretical concerns which he raises seem out of place in the present debates. 2. Not convinced that the CAD is so foreboding. Flow of funds data do not allow us to know how much of the foreign debt is owned by Americans and very special friends (e.g., the Saudis) operating out of foreign hedge funds. 3. As for protectionism itself, I am concerned about the lack of consideration of obvious counter-productive effects. There seems to be so little recognition of this by the self styled populists, so I submit that they are in the thrall of mythical nationalist thought which gains power as class antagonisms threaten to develop in times of uncertainty. It wouldn't be the first time that the reaction to the highly formalist and abstract analysis of bourgeois economics had led to an embrace of the myths of nation and neo mercantalism. I refer here not only to retaliations and beggar-thy-neighbor policies (to which Mark was perhaps averring) but the possibility that by limiting the supply of dollars abroad through tariffs and the other import restrictions meant to protect declining industries--and this seems to be what Godley is proposing--the dollar's value will probably increase and thus put added pressure on US exports. That is, as the free trade Keynesian Bob Eisner warned (but I guess he has already been forgotten), there could be one aircraft job loss in Seattle (to Airbus) for every textile job protected in South Carolina. Rakesh As a side note: on his list from which I have been banned, Doug H downloaded a NYT article on the labor situation in Cambodia. Though of course I couldn't reply, he suggested to his list that my thinking was not complicated enough, but he did not notice--though I have pointed this out to to him several times--that the US has reserved the unilateral right to determine whether labor conditions are good enough in Cambodia to allow it a quota increase, and he did not notice that the NYT article did not say a word about what the consequences of last year's quota denial had been on the Cambodian workers who had lost their jobs presumably to return to the mine infested country-side. But I suppose keeping on nationalist chauvinist blinders is considered to be complicated analysis. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: current events
People would have to be confident that the fall would be very gradual. Jim Devine wrote: a weaker greenback would be a good thing, if it falls _slowly_. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tariffs, trade, MNCs, etc.
[was: re re re re re re re re re wynne godley.] At 04:31 PM 07/17/2001 -0700, you wrote: In any event, the world political economy has changed, undermining the political basis for protectionism ... Not sure I agree here. Wouldn't the US state like to run a trade deficit to its own mnc's and thus accept imports from where its mncs are deeply integrated at the expense of other countries? The MNCs are mostly for free trade, though they will take advantage of existing trade restrictions, if they can. They're not in favor of _expanding_ tariffs and quotas in most cases, since cutting imports often mean higher costs -- and more importantly, can hurt the sale of their own products, which are imports from the point of view of the US (or whatever country is imposing the trade restrictions). If the US imposes tariffs on imports from China, then an MNC that invests in Chinese manufacturing to take advantage of the cheap labor their doesn't get as much of a profit. Also, being less short-sighted than small business-people, they know about the possibility of retaliation and the fact that tariffs often lead to currency appreciation (which hurts exports). Further, I wouldn't reify the multi-nationals. They're just the most powerful corporations, and more likely to have an impact on state policy, especially when they join with other MNCs. But they don't always, since sometimes different MNCs have different interests from each other, while small business and even labor sometimes have an impact. There seems to be some basis for such a neo mercantalist trade policy. In the case of China--seemingly a platform first and foremost for Japanese mncs-- the US accepts imports probably not only because their own mncs are involved directly or as subcontractors but as a quid pro quo for access to the massive internal Chinese market. But it seems to me that neo mercantalist state may be alive and well. Don't know how far the state has retreated. US corporations are also investing in China. The quid pro quo you refer to is a normal part of trade: if they can't sell us their products (US imports), they can't buy ours (US exports). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Why I Am Leaving PEN-L
I am sorry to see Leo leave. He is very smart. On LBO, he did a devastating job on an NBER paper on education. I thought that calling people on the list, Stalinist, was over the top. I asked him to stop and he didn't. He is correct that Charles jumped in after I asked for a halt. Sometimes, I give a little more leeway when a message comes shortly after I make such a request, not knowing if he had the opportunity to receive the post. Both Nathan and Leo are correct about my lack of even-handedness. For example, during the bombing of Yugoslavia, I did not see any purpose in defending Clinton or piling onto the Serbs at the time. I also appreciate the fact that Nathan is able to contribute to the list, even though we do not agree on all political matters. I also think that Nathan's criticism was healthy. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am going to save Michael the need to issue any more final warnings. After this last e-mail, I will unsubscribe from PEN-L. Out of respect to those with whom I have dialogued on PEN-L, I will explain why I have come to the conclusion that I should take this step of withdrawing from the listserv. It is clear to me that there are different sets of rules for different people on PEN-L, and since that state of affairs does not sit well with me, further conflict around issues of open and honest debate would be inevitable. Better that I should depart the scene then be a party to useless wrangling. Hopefully, others will be able to have more constructive dialogue in my absence. As disputes have arisen, I have made a number of attempts to address these problems with Michael off list, but these efforts have come to naught. While I came to the list liking Michael, having previously willing assisted him on educational sources for his work, I have lost confidence in his willingness to be fair and impartial in moderating disputes on this list. I am mindful of the difficulty of the position, and I try not to make quick judgments, but this last episode around the Teamsters/Hoffa thread has convinced me that I can not expect evenhandedness from him. When I posted the first e-mail in this thread, I received an off list from Michael telling me that what I has posted was quite interesting, with some further inquiries. Before I had an opportunity to reply, Justin weighed in with a series of extraordinarily antagonistic postings which, in turn, accused me of red-baiting, attacked me personally and called for the thread to be censored. Despite the provocation, I made the point of keeping my replies to Justin on the substantive points, and avoiding tit-for-tat of personal attacks. I was rather outraged, therefore, when Michael responded on list to Justin's charges of red baiting as if there was some credibility in them, saying he just had not been paying attention to the thread because of other work. As a matter of fact, he clearly had been paying attention and his off list e-mail had communicated nothing but interest in the issue before Justin began his tirades. I was doubly outraged when Justin's infantile behavior was rewarded with getting what he wanted from Michael: the censorship of the thread. But what really put me over the top was Michael's willingness to sit by without the slightest sign of disapproval while Charles Brown continued a thread that Michael had declared closed, using it as an opportunity to make further personal attacks. When I responded with frank language describing my feelings of what had transpired, Michael decided it was time to step in -- to issue a final warning ... to me. Clearly, I have no right to expect anything even remotely approaching evenhandedness from here on. This controversy has been the most contrived excuse for avoiding open and honest debate I have come across on a left listserv. On every other list where this matter has come up, either through my own posting or through Michael P's propensity to share every debate across the net, it has been discussed in a civil and honest fashion. An example of the type of responses on different lists are attached at the end of this e-mail. I learned something from those responses. On one list, a member of the National Committee of Solidarity confirmed the very thesis of mine that had purportedly been the basis of Justin's vituperative attacks. To put it bluntly Solidarity's relationship to TDU and Labor Notes is no great secret, he wrote. 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. I think it is unfortunate
Re: Idaho Potatoes vs. Electricity
Jake Simplot, the largest potato grower and chief supplier for McDonald's, also was the primary investor for Micron -- so he has his hands in computer chips and potato chips. One of the wierdest abuses was using (subsidized) irrigated water to grow sugar, which is protected -- a ridiculous waste of resources since the yields on tropical sugar are many times higher than the sugar beets. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply to Tom Walker re PEN-L 15095
Tom, I think your post (Pen-L 15095, which I can't directly reply to) is a terrific statement on cutting work time, resisting Capitalism, and organizing. Your subsequent post about people not engaging is well taken. Sorry I didn't respond at the time, though I thought your post was so important that I saved it then as a file. Responding to the point you quote (from Commons?) -- exactly on target. The contention is that a reduction in work time is a permanent gain for labor. A great insight, by you as well as the original. I thank you for your commitment to struggling for that gain. Having said that, I wonder if losing the family wage -- i. e. needing two wage earners to support a household that one wage earner once could isn't a claw-back on the part of capital. Any thoughts/statistics about that? Or is the need for two incomes driven by the mad consumerism upon which we embarked in the same early post-WWII period during which the family wage was eroded? I would add another thought: Although it is by no means a sure thing, cutting working hours (eventually down to a few hours a week) could change the culture of consumption, so that our esteem could be gained otherwise than acquiring things. That ties your post and work back to the issue that Mark Jones addresses -- that the world can't go on with those in the North living as we do. And such a cultural shift would be an answer to Henwood who sees no hope that people won't go on buying till the oceans rise. Gene Coyle
protectionism
If the US tried to use protectionism as a form for maintaining aggregate demand, wouldn't that throw fuel on the Argentinian/Turkish crisis? Doesn't the rest of the world economy depend on the US as the consumer of last resort? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A remark to rival Summers'
Back in May, Ian Murray posted a news article whish was quite useful to me. (PEN-L 11838) Thanks again Ian. In the article a World Bank economist was quoted -- remarks which might go in the file with Summers' letter about exporting pollution. The context is this: There is a world-wide glut of coffee, and has been for years. I'll quote from the SF Chronicle article Ian posted: In the late 1980s, opposition from the Reagan administration forced the collapse of the International Coffee Agreement, a decades-old, cartel-like pact between coffee producing and consuming nations that guaranteed relatively high prices. After the pact ended in 1989 and the market was deregulated, prices plummeted. At the same time, the World Bank and its cousin, the Asian Development Bank, gave generous loans to Vietnam to plant huge amounts of low-quality robusta coffee - in line with international lending institutions' mandate to stimulate low-cost production and end market inefficiencies. The strategy succeeded with a vengeance, as Vietnam went from being one of the world's smallest coffee producers to being second-largest, after Brazil. So here we have the World Bank making loans to produce more of a crop of which there was already a glut. Seems pretty stupid. Now here's the remark: "Vietnam has become a successful producer," said Don Mitchell, principal economist at the World Bank. "In general, we consider it to be a huge success." Although Mitchell acknowledges the damage to nations that cannot compete with Vietnam's $1-per-day labor costs or Brazil's mechanized plantations - such as Guatemala, with its $3-per-day minimum wage - he said the losers must switch to farming other crops. "It is a continuous process. It occurs in all countries - the more efficient, lower cost producers expand their production, and the higher cost, less efficient producers decide that it is no longer what they want to do," he said. Farmers losing their farms, revolutions, wars, people dying, and Don Mitchell describes it as "... producers decid[ing] that is no long what they want to do." That should be quoted in every micro textbook -- I don't think it would get by too many students. But I'm a dreamer. Gene Coyle
Re: Fwd: [SP-USA] Support the Voter Freedom Act!
http://thomas.loc.gov/ http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/d?d107:100:./temp/~bd0tJd:[[o]]items= 100|/bss/d107query.html| Items containing variants of the words Voter Freedom Act in the same order. 1. H.R.2268 : To enforce the guarantees of the first, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States by prohibiting certain devices used to deny the right to participate in certain elections. Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron - Latest Major Action: 6/21/2001 Referred to House committee Committees: House Administration Voter Freedom Act of 2001 (Introduced in the House) HR 2268 IH 107th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 2268 To enforce the guarantees of the first, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States by prohibiting certain devices used to deny the right to participate in certain elections. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 21, 2001 Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration A BILL To enforce the guarantees of the first, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States by prohibiting certain devices used to deny the right to participate in certain elections. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Voter Freedom Act of 2001'. SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. (a) FINDINGS- The Congress makes the following findings: (1) The rights of eligible citizens to seek election to Congress, vote for candidates of their choice and associate for the purpose of taking part in elections, including the right to create and develop new political parties, are fundamental to a democracy. The rights of citizens to participate in the election process for member of Congress are set forth in article I. The United States Supreme Court has held that the States are powerless to discriminate against a class of candidates for Congress. Cook v. Gralike, US (decision of February 28, 2001). The United States Supreme Court has also held that all voters must be treated equally. Bush v. Gore, US (decision of December 12, 2000). (2) The voters of the various States sometimes elect candidates to Congress who are neither nominees, nor members, of the two major political parties. According to the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, during the twentieth century, voters have on 116 occasions elected someone to the U.S. House of Representatives in a regularly-scheduled election who was neither a Republican nor a Democrat. According to a recent compilation, throughout the twentieth century, the percentage of voters who have voted for minor party and independent candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives has averaged 3.7 percent. On November 7, 2000, it was 4.2 percent. Clearly, a substantial number of voters desire to vote for candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives who are minor party nominees and/or independent candidates. Such voters have existed in fairly substantial numbers in every decade of the twentieth century, and may be expected to exist in the twenty-first century. (3) Some States have enacted election laws which require minor party nominees, or independent candidates, for the U.S. House of Representatives, to submit petitions signed by more than 10,000 registered voters within a district. For example, Georgia requires such candidates to not only pay a filing fee, but to submit a petition, signed by 5 percent of the number of registered voters in the district. The signatures must be notarized. In 2002, in the average district in Georgia, 14,846 signatures will be required. By contrast, members of political parties which have polled 20 percent for President of the United States throughout the entire Nation, or which have polled 20 percent for Governor of Georgia, need not submit any petition signatures. No candidate for U.S. House of Representatives from Georgia has managed to comply with the 5 percent petition requirement since 1964. North Carolina requires an independent candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives to submit a petition signed by 4 percent of the number of registered voters in the district. By contrast, members of qualified political parties need not submit any petitions in North Carolina to run for Congress. No independent candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives has ever qualified for the North Carolina ballot. South Carolina requires an independent candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives to submit a petition signed by 10,000 signatures. By contrast, members of qualified political parties need not
Re: Re: Why I Am Leaving PEN-L
And Leo was very effective in reply to James Heartfield on Rwanda on lbo-talk. Michael Pugliese - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 8:10 PM Subject: [PEN-L:15261] Re: Why I Am Leaving PEN-L I am sorry to see Leo leave. He is very smart. On LBO, he did a devastating job on an NBER paper on education. I thought that calling people on the list, Stalinist, was over the top. I asked him to stop and he didn't. He is correct that Charles jumped in after I asked for a halt. Sometimes, I give a little more leeway when a message comes shortly after I make such a request, not knowing if he had the opportunity to receive the post. Both Nathan and Leo are correct about my lack of even-handedness. For example, during the bombing of Yugoslavia, I did not see any purpose in defending Clinton or piling onto the Serbs at the time. I also appreciate the fact that Nathan is able to contribute to the list, even though we do not agree on all political matters. I also think that Nathan's criticism was healthy. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am going to save Michael the need to issue any more final warnings. After this last e-mail, I will unsubscribe from PEN-L. Out of respect to those with whom I have dialogued on PEN-L, I will explain why I have come to the conclusion that I should take this step of withdrawing from the listserv. It is clear to me that there are different sets of rules for different people on PEN-L, and since that state of affairs does not sit well with me, further conflict around issues of open and honest debate would be inevitable. Better that I should depart the scene then be a party to useless wrangling. Hopefully, others will be able to have more constructive dialogue in my absence. As disputes have arisen, I have made a number of attempts to address these problems with Michael off list, but these efforts have come to naught. While I came to the list liking Michael, having previously willing assisted him on educational sources for his work, I have lost confidence in his willingness to be fair and impartial in moderating disputes on this list. I am mindful of the difficulty of the position, and I try not to make quick judgments, but this last episode around the Teamsters/Hoffa thread has convinced me that I can not expect evenhandedness from him. When I posted the first e-mail in this thread, I received an off list from Michael telling me that what I has posted was quite interesting, with some further inquiries. Before I had an opportunity to reply, Justin weighed in with a series of extraordinarily antagonistic postings which, in turn, accused me of red-baiting, attacked me personally and called for the thread to be censored. Despite the provocation, I made the point of keeping my replies to Justin on the substantive points, and avoiding tit-for-tat of personal attacks. I was rather outraged, therefore, when Michael responded on list to Justin's charges of red baiting as if there was some credibility in them, saying he just had not been paying attention to the thread because of other work. As a matter of fact, he clearly had been paying attention and his off list e-mail had communicated nothing but interest in the issue before Justin began his tirades. I was doubly outraged when Justin's infantile behavior was rewarded with getting what he wanted from Michael: the censorship of the thread. But what really put me over the top was Michael's willingness to sit by without the slightest sign of disapproval while Charles Brown continued a thread that Michael had declared closed, using it as an opportunity to make further personal attacks. When I responded with frank language describing my feelings of what had transpired, Michael decided it was time to step in -- to issue a final warning ... to me. Clearly, I have no right to expect anything even remotely approaching evenhandedness from here on. This controversy has been the most contrived excuse for avoiding open and honest debate I have come across on a left listserv. On every other list where this matter has come up, either through my own posting or through Michael P's propensity to share every debate across the net, it has been discussed in a civil and honest fashion. An example of the type of responses on different lists are attached at the end of this e-mail. I learned something from those responses. On one list, a member of the National Committee of Solidarity confirmed the very thesis of mine that had purportedly been the basis of Justin's vituperative attacks. To put it bluntly Solidarity's relationship to TDU and Labor Notes is no great secret, he wrote. 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
RE: Why I Am Leaving PEN-L
Hey Leo, Your departure is PEN-L's loss, not yours. LBO is more fun anyway. PEN-L tries to be serious and promote civility, but the results for civility are uneven and the seriousness stifles my matchless sense of humor. Plus it only encourages Devine. Calling someone a stalinist is hardly the worst thing in the world, in the only sense it can mean anything here. Nobody called a stalinist is being accused of murdering millions of kulaks or having Trotsky ice-picked. For some, being called a stalinist is a compliment. I've seen much worse here. Louey called me a welfare capitalist, and fat besides. He said I had a 38 inch waist, which only called attention to the fact that I have a 48 inch waist. You happened to miss Louie, who is on serial-killer sabbatical from the list. As Nathan has mentioned, while I too have high regard for Bicycle Boy Perelman, and while I also appreciate the time he sacrifices to hosting the list, his moderation in political controversies has always been a model of inconsistency. I've raised this more than once myself, but since criticism is healthy I figure you can't be too healthy. I most regret the in-fighting among people with whom I seem to get along, and from whose posts I benefit. In fact, I seem to get along with everyone these days except Louie, who actually loves me to death but won't admit it. And I'm not even a socialist. Shit. I'm less internationalist than Brad DeLong. I don't get along with Rakesh, who has just arrived, but how do we know it's really Rakesh and not some imposter whose real name is Hyman Blumenstock or Tachion Babushka? My only beef with Leo was that for a while it seemed like he got me in a thread with David Horowitz and Louis Menashe. There is something to be said for the Henwood policy of not trying to stifle abuse altogether, but to keep it to a dull roar. Thereby steam is let off but nobody blows a gasket, at least not usually. Whereas on PEN-L the mean temperature is lower but the variance higher. Can't we all get along? I guess not. It's hard when you're so damn serious. mbs
Re: tariffs, trade, MNCs, etc.
Jim D wrote At 04:31 PM 07/17/2001 -0700, you wrote: In any event, the world political economy has changed, undermining the political basis for protectionism ... Not sure I agree here. Wouldn't the US state like to run a trade deficit to its own mnc's and thus accept imports from where its mncs are deeply integrated at the expense of other countries? The MNCs are mostly for free trade, though they will take advantage of existing trade restrictions, if they can. Jim, how do you know this? if mncs are pro-free trade, why haven't they razed the whole intricate edifice of tariffs, quotas, ridiculously elastic import surge clauses, exclusions of competitive goods from duty free acess, stipulations and incentives to use US inputs in US bound exports, etc.? Have you looked at the Africa Free Trade Act which is loaded with protectionist clauses? And if mncs are not responsible for this structure, who is? Not convinced that we don't have an emergent region-based neo mercantilist trade syste organized by the mncs. What else are we to make of the attempt to create a regional market in the Americas? They're not in favor of _expanding_ tariffs and quotas in most cases, since cutting imports often mean higher costs -- and more importantly, can hurt the sale of their own products, which are imports from the point of view of the US (or whatever country is imposing the trade restrictions). That would seem to be the case but is it? Why did the North fight to make sure the MFN and agricultural protection would be the last thing relaxed by the WTO as late as 2005? If the US imposes tariffs on imports from China, then an MNC that invests in Chinese manufacturing to take advantage of the cheap labor their doesn't get as much of a profit. you assume that the US company is not after the internal Chinese market. Also, being less short-sighted than small business-people, they know about the possibility of retaliation and the fact that tariffs often lead to currency appreciation (which hurts exports). so perhaps they prefer Zoellick negotiated bilateral and regional deals which can better secure their interests than multilateral trade agreements. Further, I wouldn't reify the multi-nationals. They're just the most powerful corporations, and more likely to have an impact on state policy, especially when they join with other MNCs. But they don't always, since sometimes different MNCs have different interests from each other, while small business and even labor sometimes have an impact. Fair enough. will keep it in mind. Rakesh There seems to be some basis for such a neo mercantalist trade policy. In the case of China--seemingly a platform first and foremost for Japanese mncs-- the US accepts imports probably not only because their own mncs are involved directly or as subcontractors but as a quid pro quo for access to the massive internal Chinese market. But it seems to me that neo mercantalist state may be alive and well. Don't know how far the state has retreated. US corporations are also investing in China. The quid pro quo you refer to is a normal part of trade: if they can't sell us their products (US imports), they can't buy ours (US exports). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: RE: Why I Am Leaving PEN-L
From a new friend, in a former life a member of the CWP circa the Greensboro massacre in '80. Michael Running Dog Pugliese Tell your friend A to watch out for the poetry of Ray O Light...I have heard some of his stuff and it goes like this: Socialism is A chicken in every pot And an ice-pick in every trot Ciao, Thomas - Original Message - From: Max Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 9:13 PM Subject: [PEN-L:15268] RE: Why I Am Leaving PEN-L Hey Leo, Your departure is PEN-L's loss, not yours. LBO is more fun anyway. PEN-L tries to be serious and promote civility, but the results for civility are uneven and the seriousness stifles my matchless sense of humor. Plus it only encourages Devine. Calling someone a stalinist is hardly the worst thing in the world, in the only sense it can mean anything here. Nobody called a stalinist is being accused of murdering millions of kulaks or having Trotsky ice-picked. For some, being called a stalinist is a compliment. I've seen much worse here. Louey called me a welfare capitalist, and fat besides. He said I had a 38 inch waist, which only called attention to the fact that I have a 48 inch waist. You happened to miss Louie, who is on serial-killer sabbatical from the list. As Nathan has mentioned, while I too have high regard for Bicycle Boy Perelman, and while I also appreciate the time he sacrifices to hosting the list, his moderation in political controversies has always been a model of inconsistency. I've raised this more than once myself, but since criticism is healthy I figure you can't be too healthy. I most regret the in-fighting among people with whom I seem to get along, and from whose posts I benefit. In fact, I seem to get along with everyone these days except Louie, who actually loves me to death but won't admit it. And I'm not even a socialist. Shit. I'm less internationalist than Brad DeLong. I don't get along with Rakesh, who has just arrived, but how do we know it's really Rakesh and not some imposter whose real name is Hyman Blumenstock or Tachion Babushka? My only beef with Leo was that for a while it seemed like he got me in a thread with David Horowitz and Louis Menashe. There is something to be said for the Henwood policy of not trying to stifle abuse altogether, but to keep it to a dull roar. Thereby steam is let off but nobody blows a gasket, at least not usually. Whereas on PEN-L the mean temperature is lower but the variance higher. Can't we all get along? I guess not. It's hard when you're so damn serious. mbs
Re: RE: Why I Am Leaving PEN-L
I don't get along with Rakesh, who has just arrived, but how do we know it's really Rakesh and not some imposter whose real name is Hyman Blumenstock or Tachion Babushka? Max, why do you find so called ethnic names funny? Are you one of those self-hating ones? Look, I am sure you are a good father to your daughter. Your politics are nonsense however. You try to come across as some kind of grounded pragmatist in touch with the soul of the American people but you voted for the far out Nader. You defended the reactionary keep-China-out-of-the-WTO-movement-so-that-the-US can-pressure-China-for-more-concessions-for-its-MNCs-every-year. And you did so largely on ideological grounds though you also try to present yourself as some kind of empiricist. The fact is that you have never given any kind of quantitative analysis of how important a factor specifically unfair trade has been in keeping US wages low even in the recent boom conditions. You have refused to ever criticize any form of US protectionism--for example as built into the trade act with Africa. You have given no serious consideration to alternatives to trade sanctions in the enforcement of the Core Conventions. You have just thought it alright to support Mazur and company against the free trade academic elites, though it turns out that Duke and NYU students are signing up to Mazur's campaigns, which have already had very bad impacts on Africa and Cambodia. You are some kind of Keynesian, so you praised Cheney as making the most sensible fiscal comments of any politician. This is deplorable that you would give any support to a politician who is using a simple inventory cycle to give (no has given) back billions of dollars to the richest Americans. Some populist. I guess you are funny. I think it's sad that you have wasted your considerable intellect on pulling whose ever toes were exposed at any given moment. Rakesh My only beef with Leo was that for a while it seemed like he got me in a thread with David Horowitz and Louis Menashe. There is something to be said for the Henwood policy of not trying to stifle abuse altogether, but to keep it to a dull roar. Thereby steam is let off but nobody blows a gasket, at least not usually. Whereas on PEN-L the mean temperature is lower but the variance higher. Can't we all get along? I guess not. It's hard when you're so damn serious. mbs
Re: Re: RE: Why I Am Leaving PEN-L
Max was wrong to go about tweaking people this way. His note first appeared on LBO and then only later came over here to pen-l. Even so, please, I am trying to avoid the aggressive sort of note that you posted here. Please cool it. On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 09:57:34PM -0700, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote: I don't get along with Rakesh, who has just arrived, but how do we know it's really Rakesh and not some imposter whose real name is Hyman Blumenstock or Tachion Babushka? Max, why do you find so called ethnic names funny? Are you one of those self-hating ones? Look, I am sure you are a good father to your daughter. Your politics are nonsense however. You try to come across as some kind of grounded pragmatist in touch with the soul of the American people but you voted for the far out Nader. You defended the reactionary keep-China-out-of-the-WTO-movement-so-that-the-US can-pressure-China-for-more-concessions-for-its-MNCs-every-year. And you did so largely on ideological grounds though you also try to present yourself as some kind of empiricist. The fact is that you have never given any kind of quantitative analysis of how important a factor specifically unfair trade has been in keeping US wages low even in the recent boom conditions. You have refused to ever criticize any form of US protectionism--for example as built into the trade act with Africa. You have given no serious consideration to alternatives to trade sanctions in the enforcement of the Core Conventions. You have just thought it alright to support Mazur and company against the free trade academic elites, though it turns out that Duke and NYU students are signing up to Mazur's campaigns, which have already had very bad impacts on Africa and Cambodia. You are some kind of Keynesian, so you praised Cheney as making the most sensible fiscal comments of any politician. This is deplorable that you would give any support to a politician who is using a simple inventory cycle to give (no has given) back billions of dollars to the richest Americans. Some populist. I guess you are funny. I think it's sad that you have wasted your considerable intellect on pulling whose ever toes were exposed at any given moment. Rakesh My only beef with Leo was that for a while it seemed like he got me in a thread with David Horowitz and Louis Menashe. There is something to be said for the Henwood policy of not trying to stifle abuse altogether, but to keep it to a dull roar. Thereby steam is let off but nobody blows a gasket, at least not usually. Whereas on PEN-L the mean temperature is lower but the variance higher. Can't we all get along? I guess not. It's hard when you're so damn serious. mbs -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
