Rumsfeld Plan faces wide opposition
Message: 8 Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 18:45:42 +1000 From: "Bond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Rumsfeld Plan faces wide opposition Plan faces wide opposition By Rowan Scarborough THE WASHINGTON TIMES August 13, 2001 When Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld convened a high-level Pentagon meeting Aug. 4, the goal was to win a consensus from the nation's highest military officers on cutting the U.S. military in exchange for requiring it to do less. But what Mr. Rumsfeld found that Saturday was the civilian secretaries and four-star officers standing shoulder to shoulder. They voiced opposition to reducing a force already shriveled since the Cold War by a million active duty troops, to 1.37 million. "The meeting did not go well," said an Army officer who was briefed on the session. "It ended early." Pentagon sources said Army Secretary Thomas White made the point that the civilian leadership had not reduced Army commitments anywhere abroad, yet persisted in suggesting a smaller Army. Air Force Secretary James Roche objected to cutting fighter squadrons. The sources said Mr. Rumsfeld remained noncommittal on whether he would endorse any reductions. Positions have so hardened that Mr. Rumsfeld's aides do not meet as often with the service chiefs on Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) matters. Four days later, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz met with the media to provide an update on the ongoing review. He proclaimed the Joint Chiefs of Staff had reached a consensus that the military must change to meet 21st-century threats. But Mr. Wolfowitz, who with Mr. Rumsfeld jointly leads the QDR's senior-level review group of service secretaries and the Joint Chiefs, did not specify what type of change. Pentagon officials and congressional defense aides said in interviews that the consensus does not include agreement on cuts in Army divisions, Navy carrier battle groups or Air Force air wings. "The leadership of the Army has sent very powerful signals they're going to resist this," said the Army officer, who asked not to be named. "All the service chiefs are opposed," said a senior congressional defense aide who regularly consults with the top brass. The staffer said the generals are having a difficult time convincing Mr. Rumsfeld's aides, particularly Stephen Cambone, deputy undersecretary for policy, of the risk to regional stability and of increased casualties if the force is cut. Subsequently, Mr. Rumsfeld hosted a Tuesday meeting of the senior panel. The next day, while Mr. Wolfowitz briefed reporters, the service chiefs were wrestling with six questions from Mr. Rumsfeld. The answers may determine whether the military faces the first significant downsizing since President Clinton's first term. The defense secretary asked the chiefs whether heavy-armor Army units could be taken out of Europe without increasing the risk of war. And he asked if reducing demands on U.S. presence abroad could result in reducing force structure. In other words, said a Pentagon official, if the Navy no longer was required to keep a carrier in the Mediterranean Sea full time, could it then go below its 12-carrier fleet? Pentagon sources say that nowhere is the opposition more fierce than inside Army corridors. Army Secretary White, a Vietnam combat veteran and retired one-star general, is adamantly opposed to a cut of two divisions unless he gets firm commitments to curtail missions. His soldiers, he argues, are already stretched thin around the globe. In fact, just last month Mr. White and Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, told the House Armed Services Committee they may need another 40,000 soldiers. "Given today's mission profile, the Army is too small for the mission load it's carrying," Gen. Shinseki testified. Added Mr. White, "I am very nervous about shifting down any further." The Army thought this battle was behind it. Its generals fought a winning last-minute struggle four years ago against a two-division cut (roughly 60,000 combatants and support troops from a 477,000 active roster) during the last QDR. With a new Bush team vowing that "help is on the way" for an overextended military, the Army did not expect a repeat showdown. "We thought this administration is about strengthening the military, not cutting it to reach a number for the Office of Management and Budget," said Jayson Spiegel, executive director of the Reserve Officers Association of the United States and a deputy assistant Army secretary during the Clinton administration. "We would have hoped that when it was first raised Rumsfeld would have said 'Don't come back to me with this,'" Mr. Spiegel said. "The CINCs [regional commanders in chief] need all the capability they can have. They need a robust ground combat capability and the Army strength is pretty thin as it is." Therein lies the rub. How can Mr. Rumsfeld and his aides trim a force that went on a record number of war and peace-enforcement missions in the 1990s and is req
Quiz (No Googling!)
Question on the differential ownership of the means of production, the law of value and the logical priority of the level of production over that of distribution: Author, text and year, please: "... wheresoever possessions be private, where money beareth all the stroke, it is hard and almost impossible that there the public weal may justly be governed and prosperously flourish ... the rich men be covetous, crafty, and unprofitable: on the other part, the poor be lowly, simple, and by their daily labour more profitable to the common wealth than to themselves ... no equal and just distribution of things can be made; nor that perfect wealth shall ever be among men; unless this property be exiled and banished." Cheers, Rob
BLS Daily Report
> BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, DAILY REPORT, AUGUST 13, 2001: > > Steeply declining energy prices largely were responsible for a 0.9 percent > drop in producer prices for finished goods in July, according to figures > released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It was the largely monthly > decline in the finished goods PPI since August 1993, when the index fell > by 1.0 percent. Finished energy goods prices fell 5.8 percent in July, > the biggest drop since August 1989 when they dropped 7.8 percent. The > lack of inflation pressures -- apparent in both the latest PPI and > consumer prices figures through June-- takes pressure off the Federal > Reserve as its policymakers approach an August 21 meeting where they must > decide whether to lower interest rates (Daily Labor Report, page D-1). > > Wholesale prices plunged 0.9 percent in July, the best inflation > performance in 8 years, as the cost of gasoline and other energy products > fell sharply. The better-than-expected showing in the producer price > index, which measures pressures in goods before they reach the stores, > came on top of a 0.4 percent drop in June, the Labor Department reported. > For the first 7 months of the year, wholesale prices rose at an annual > rate of just 0.5 percent, down from the 3.8 percent increase in the same > period a year ago (The Washington Post, August 11, page E2). > > Falling energy prices have kept inflation in check, and economists say > that could help the ailing economy by giving consumers and businesses more > money to spend. The Labor Department said Friday its producer price > index, which gauges inflationary pressures before they hit consumers, > declined a seasonally adjusted 0.9 percent in July, the biggest monthly > drop in 8 years, on the heels of a 0.4 percent drop in June. It was led > down by the energy price index, which fell 5.8 percent compared with a 2.5 > percent decline in June. The crude-energy index, which isn't seasonally > adjusted, dropped 11.5 percent in July, after dropping 11.9 percent last > month (The Wall Street Journal, page A2. The Journal's page 1 graph > shows the Producer Price Index over the year 2001. > > The Wall Street Journal feature "Tracking the Economy" shows the Consumer > Price Index for July, due out Thursday, dropping 0.1 percent, according > to the Thomson Global Forecast. The actual June change was an increase of > 0.2 percent. Excluding food and energy, the CPI for July is projected to > be an increase of 0.1 percent, in comparison to an increase of 0.3 percent > the previous month (The Wall Street Journal, page A6). > > One in five American workers changed jobs during the second quarter of > 2001, an increase from the previous quarter, according to a survey > conducted for a career-services firm. The number of downsized workers > grew, as did the number of those changing jobs voluntarily. The first > quarter 4.6 percent of employees left their employer voluntarily. The > second quarter, 6 percent did. The first quarter 2.8 percent of all > employees were laid off, and the second quarter 5.2 percent were (The > Washington Post, page E2). > > The director of the "Work to Live" campaign and author of a forthcoming > book by that name, says "Small business employees, the majority of us, get > an average of 8 days off a year, while Europeans and Australians receive 4 > to 6 weeks paid leave. In total hours, we now work 2 months longer every > year than Germans, 2 weeks longer than the Japanese." The average > American worked 39.6 hours a week in 1997, according to the Bureau of > Labor Statistics. An accompanying table shows the average weekly work > hours and annual vacation time in 14 countries. Source of the data is Joe > Robinson, Eurostat (The Washington Post, page E3). > > Consultant paychecks will likely rise 3 to 5 percent this year, according > to the chief executive of Ransford, a New York company that tracks salary > trends in the industry. That compares with annual increases of between 18 > and 21 percent over the last 5 years as the economic boom and the Internet > start-up stampede drove up demand for experienced consultants. "This is > the first downturn in the consulting industry in 25 years," he said. Pay, > after about doubling over the past 5 years, "is still going up, but more > slowly" (The Wall Street Journal, page B7E). > > DUE OUT TOMORROW: ":National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries in > 2000" > application/ms-tnef
Beijing workers protest privatisation and graft
Tuesday August 14, 8:53 PM Beijing workers protest privatisation and graft By Jonathan Ansfield BEIJING (Reuters) - Hundreds of workers set to lose their jobs staged a sit-in at a state-owned factory in Beijing on Tuesday, alleging official corruption and unfair compensation at a firm in the midst of a wrenching privatisation process. "Sell your houses and limousines and give the workers means to live. 150 million yuan ($18 million) in state assets -- where has it gone?" said a banner strewn across the gate of the Beijing Measuring and Cutting Tools Factory in western Beijing. Some 50 blue-uniformed workers parked themselves on chairs and the pavement beneath the banner, surrounded by around 200 others milling in and outside the gates. They heckled the chairman of their labour union as a "collaborator" when he emerged to hear their demands to talk with factory officials. Police made no arrests at the scene, which remained peaceful. Labour disputes have grown more frequent in China since it began a dramatic overhaul of its state-owned industries. Labour ministry figures recorded more than 120,000 labour disputes in 1999, and human rights groups have monitored numerous protests over mass lay-offs, management corruption and inadequate or delayed welfare payments. COMPENSATION PROMISED Officials at the struggling 42-year-old factory -- forced to sell off its land and move to neighbouring Hebei province later this year -- had promised workers unwilling to make a long commute 2,500 yuan for every year they had worked at the plant. Those who stayed could become stockholders and renegotiate their contracts, they said. But many of the 1,250 workers said the factory, which was estimated to be worth 150 million yuan earlier this year, owed them much more. "I'm 50 years old and I'll get 80,000 yuan," said a man who would only give his surname, Sha. "What do I do till I'm eligible for social security in ten years?" "They say they're broke," said a man named Li, 33. "How can they be broke and driving top-of-the-line Audis." "No one's representing our interests. Even our so-called labour union is in their hands." said a woman surnamed Jia, 38. "Meanwhile, they're using state property to buy cars, penthouses and trips overseas." CLOSED-MINDEDNESS The chairman of the labour union, Zhang Guoliang, denied the corruption charges and said workers were simply clamouring for more money. "This is the road China must go down as we convert state-owned enterprises to stockholding companies," said Zhang, a 35-year veteran of the factory. He said the plant had been a relic of a China's planned economy, making only two million yuan in revenues last year while providing benefits for an "entire society". "We had two choices: to change the system or go broke. We're just doing what you in the West have urged us to do," he told Reuters. "Actually this is an opportunity for them," said another factory supervisor, a woman surnamed Jiao. "The question is whether or not they can change their closed-minded attitudes and take it." "They're scared of facing changing times. Most of these workers were chronically lazy. After all, they'd eaten out of the country's hands for years. They would work three to four hours in the eight-hour day." She said most of the workers who had departed the plant in recent years were better off now than before.
Chinese leftist journals shut down?
SCMP Tuesday, August 14, 2001 Party closes leftist journal that opposed Jiang MARK O'NEILL in Beijing The Communist Party has closed one of the mainland's key theoretical journals as part of an attack on those who oppose the decision of President Jiang Zemin to end a ban on membership by private business people. Staff at Zhenli de Zhuiqiu (Seeking Truth) said yesterday authorities had ordered the closure of the monthly magazine after 11 years, ahead of publication of the August issue, and that its 10 employees would retire or be moved to other jobs. Editor Yu Quanyu was likely to retire. No reason was given for the closure, they said. The monthly has been devoted to the theory of Marxism, Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought and its application to China. Sources said Mr Jiang ordered the closure, angered over opposition within the party to his speech on its 80th anniversary on July 1, in which he lifted an 80-year ban on private business people joining the party. Many party members, especially veterans of the war against the Kuomintang, have written to Mr Jiang, saying his decision was a mistake and that he announced it without proper consultation within the party. In comments to the New York Times published on Saturday, Mr Jiang said the party must apply the fundamental tenets of Marxism to the real conditions in China. "Marx and Engels lived more than 150 years ago. It is impossible to apply every single word or sentence they wrote at that time to today's reality," he said. In response to the criticism, Mr Jiang has gone on a counter-offensive, with mandatory study sessions of his July 1 speech for party members. -- On Sat, 11 Aug 2001, Jonathan Lassen wrote: > Hi all, > > Here I was waiting to see what Zhongliu and Zhenli de Zhuiqiu were going to > publish in their August issues, and now it's rumored that Zhenli de Zhuiqiu > is (temporarily?) forbidden to publish, and the editorial board of Zhongliu > has been removed. > > Has anyone heard about this? > > Saw it here > http://network54.com/Hide/Forum/message?forumid=116018&messageid=997550810 > > Jonathan Lassen >
reaganomics...
a while ago i posted a question to the list (did reagan's tax cuts in fact increase govt tax revenues?) to which i received many informative responses. thank you all for those. to satisfy my curiosity about the reagan program a bit more, i purchased a book by economist robert lekachman called "reaganomics: greed is not enough", which was written around 1981 (the beginning of the reagan era), and was a very interesting read. i am sure all of you know of this book and perhaps its author, but it was an interesting read for a layperson such as i, to hear a simple exposition of the flaws in reagan's political and economic theory (well, i guess that should read "the conservative theory that reagan subscribed to and attempted to implement"), along with a clear outline of alternatives. i post this not so much to mention the book, which i would presume is know to you, but to invite comments on it, if appropriate. --ravi
Re: Quiz (No Googling!)
- Original Message - From: "Rob Schaap" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 1:00 PM Subject: [PEN-L:15886] Quiz (No Googling!) > Question on the differential ownership of the means of production, the law of > value and the logical priority of the level of production over that of distribution: > > Author, text and year, please: > > "... wheresoever possessions be private, where money beareth all the stroke, > it is hard and almost impossible that there the public weal may justly be > governed and prosperously flourish ... the rich men be covetous, crafty, and > unprofitable: on the other part, the poor be lowly, simple, and by their daily > labour more profitable to the common wealth than to themselves ... no equal > and just distribution of things can be made; nor that perfect wealth shall > ever be among men; unless this property be exiled and banished." > > Cheers, > Rob Thomas More "Utopia" 1516? Didn't google, had to reread it the other day looking for a different quote so that's my guess... Ian
crisis watch and labor
Michael wrote: Wouldn't it be fair to say that the United States is on relatively thin ice with respect to maintaining both financial stability and aggregate demand. Alex comment: Another way of looking at it is to think that financial systems are inherently unstable (Minsky). And that (perhaps) a way to attenuate cyclical crushes of the size and periodicity we are witnessing at present times would be to allow for a (relative) degree of financial repression (or at least international co-ordination) and regulation. (Aggregate demand is necessary anyway, all the time, for an economy, global or local, to grow). Now, one could think that there might be a contradiction in the mainstream view, since we often hear, in these times, about the need of better regulatory frameworks (e.g. even from Bretton Woods institutions). And, at the same time, there is an increasing pressure towards financial liberalization. What Bretton Woods institutions and the like aim at is 'correcting' mismanagement, corruption, etc.; not necessarily 'keeping a tight rein' on (the possibilities for accumulation of) the financial system (nowadays called 'global financial architecture). As a result of these tendencies, governments are left with less instruments to manage, control, monitor, whatever, policies. And consequently, the "closure" of the model seems to be 'to smash labor' (as Michael put it). Both in times of 'prosperity', in order to prevent a crisis, and in times of 'instability', in order to come out of a crisis.
RE: reaganomics...
you would also be interested in Stephen Rousseas' book on Reaganomics. Also very good on the theoretical flaws of supply side economics are contributions in FREE MARKET CONSERVATISM edited by Edward J. Nell. -Original Message- From: ravi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 10:30 AM To: Pen-L Mailing List Subject: [PEN-L:15890] reaganomics... a while ago i posted a question to the list (did reagan's tax cuts in fact increase govt tax revenues?) to which i received many informative responses. thank you all for those. to satisfy my curiosity about the reagan program a bit more, i purchased a book by economist robert lekachman called "reaganomics: greed is not enough", which was written around 1981 (the beginning of the reagan era), and was a very interesting read. i am sure all of you know of this book and perhaps its author, but it was an interesting read for a layperson such as i, to hear a simple exposition of the flaws in reagan's political and economic theory (well, i guess that should read "the conservative theory that reagan subscribed to and attempted to implement"), along with a clear outline of alternatives. i post this not so much to mention the book, which i would presume is know to you, but to invite comments on it, if appropriate. --ravi
FW: AN INTERNATIONAL OPEN LETTER TO ALL ECONOMICS DEPARTMENTS
forwarded at the request of: David Pringle, University of Ottawa - AN INTERNATIONAL OPEN LETTER TO ALL ECONOMICS DEPARTMENTS: AN INVITATION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Economics needs fundamental reform - and now is the time for change. This document comes out a meeting of 75 students, researchers and professors from twenty-two nations who gathered for week of discussion on the state of economics and the economy at the University of Missouri - Kansas City (UMKC) this June 2001. The discussion took place at the Second Biennial Summer School of the Association for Evolutionary Economics (AFEE), jointly sponsored by UMKC, AFEE and the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability. The undersigned participants, all committed to the reform of our discipline, have developed the following open letter. This letter follows statements from other groups who have similar concerns. Both in agreement with and in support of the Post-Autistic Economics Movement and the Cambridge Proposal, we believe that economic theory, inhibited by its ahistorical approach and abstract formalist methodology, has provided only a limited understanding of the challenging complexity of economic behavior. The narrow methodological approach of economics hinders its ability to generate truly pragmatic and realistic policy prescriptions or to engage in productive dialogue with other social sciences. All economics departments should reform economics education to include reflection on the methodological assumptions that underpin our discipline. A responsible and effective economics is one that sees economic behavior in its wider contexts, and that encourages philosophical challenge and debate. Most immediately, the field of economic analysis must be expanded to encompass the following: 1. A broader conception of human behavior. The definition of economic man as an autonomous rational optimizer is too narrow and does not allow for the roles of other determinants such as instinct, habit formation and gender, class and other social factors in shaping the economic psychology of social agents. 2. Recognition of culture. Economic activities, like all social phenomena, are necessarily embedded in culture, which includes all kinds of social, political and moral value-systems and institutions. These profoundly shape and guide human behavior by imposing obligations, enabling and disabling particular choices, and creating social or communal identities, all of which may impact on economic behavior. 3. Consideration of history. Economic reality is dynamic rather than static - and as economists we must investigate how and why things change over time and space. Realistic economic inquiry should focus on process rather than simply on ends. 4. A new theory of knowledge. The positive-vs.-normative dichotomy which has traditionally been used in the social sciences is problematic. The fact-value distinction can be transcended by the recognition that the investigator's values are inescapably involved in scientific inquiry and in making scientific statements, whether consciously or not. This acknowledgement enables a more sophisticated assessment of knowledge claims. 5. Empirical grounding. More effort must be made to substantiate theoretical claims with empirical evidence. The tendency to privilege theoretical tenets in the teaching of economics without reference to empirical observation cultivates doubt about the realism of such explanations. 6. Expanded methods. Procedures such as participant observation, case studies and discourse analysis should be recognized as legitimate means of acquiring and analyzing data alongside econometrics and formal modeling. Observation of phenomena from different vantage points using various data-gathering techniques may offer new insights into phenomena and enhance our understanding of them. 7. Interdisciplinary dialogue. Economists should be aware of diverse schools of thought within economics, and should be aware of developments in other disciplines, particularly the social sciences. Although strong in developing analytic thinking skills, the professional training of economists has tended to discourage economists from even debating - let alone accepting - the validity of these wider dimensions. Unlike other social sciences and humanities, there is little space for philosophical and methodological debate in the contemporary profession. Critically-minded students of economics seem to face an unhappy choice between abandoning their speculative interests in order to make professional progress, or abandoning economics altogether for disciplines more hospitable to reflection and innovation. Ours is a world of global economic change, of inequality between and within societies, of threats to environmental integrity, of new concepts of property and entitlement, of evolving international legal frameworks and of risks of instability in international financ
What caused the US slowdown?
Would subscribers agree with this Q&A answer on the BBC's Business website attributing the turn in the US economy to a reduction in corporate investment? Or to the extent that this is true, is it just a symptom? Chris Burford London Friday, 27 April, 2001, 12:47 GMT 13:47 UK Q&A: What caused the US slowdown? The US economy has slowed sharply in the first few months of 2001, renewing fears of a world economic slump. But what are the reasons for the sudden downturn? BBC News Online's Steve Schifferes explains. Where did the US slowdown start? Unlike some previous recessions, the current US slowdown seems to have been caused not by reluctant consumers, but by a sudden slump in company spending. During the boom years, many US firms invested heavily in information technology systems.Overall investment grew by nearly 20% each year, helping companies boost productivity and achieve higher output with fewer workers. Much of this was financed by borrowing. But these investments were based on very optimistic forecasts for US economic growth. But when the dot-com bubble on the stockmarkets burst, and some experts began to downgrade their optimistic forecasts, companies realised that they needed to cut back on their investment. In the last few months of 2000, many businesses dramatically scaled down their investment plans for the coming year. How did the investment freeze affect other sectors? The first to feel the effects of the slowdown in company investment were high-tech firms who supply equipment to companies. They were forced to cut back production, but many were left with surplus inventories that they had to sell fast and at low prices. This hit their profits. And in order to preserve their profit margins, they had to cut back on expenses and lay-off workers, which had a further effect on confidence. How did the stock market impact on companies? Companies, like individuals, were basing many of their purchases on the fact that their stock price was so high, making it easy to justify investment in both equipment and the acquisition of other companies. But the high stock price was also based on unrealistic estimates of how fast profits and sales could rise. When profits began to crumble, share prices plunged, which in turn hit confidence in the corporate sector. The fall in share prices also meant that it was difficult for new start-up companies to raise money. This hurt for example the internet and the telecoms sectors. An additional problem was the fact that many vendor-financing schemes went wrong. What is vendor financing? Vendor financing means that manufacturers lend money to their customers, to help them buy more equipment. That probably encouraged some firms to buy more new equipment than they needed, and increased the size of their debts. When growth slowed, and share prices slumped, they were unable to raise money for further expansion. That meant they were unable to pay off those debts, and the balance sheets of equipment suppliers suffered even more. Will interest rate cuts do the trick? Many of the companies with huge debts have decided that they need to cut back dramatically on their spending, whatever the level of interest rates - so rate cuts may be less effective as a policy instrument. The Fed can ease the burden of debt, but it cannot encourage companies to spend money as long as these firms do not see an increasing demand for their products. However, interest rate cuts may help reassure consumers, who are also burdened by a high level of debts and have been hit by the fall in stock prices. How will the slowdown effect the wider economy? Many recessions occur because consumers cut back on spending, often because of an 'external shock', for example a sharp increase in the price of oil. However, the corporate-led slowdown also hurts many consumers through job cuts. That is having a broader effect on consumer confidence, making individuals more likely to postpone the purchase of expensive items like automobiles. And since many US consumers own shares, the fall in their value also makes them feel less wealthy, discouraging spending. If the corporate slowdown results in a drop of consumer spending, then the US economy could be in real trouble. However, so far although consumer confidence has fallen, consumer spending has fallen far less. US consumers may be worried by the alarming reports about the future of the economy, but they are still feeling relatively prosperous. How long will the slowdown last? The truth is that no one knows. The corporate sector, although a smaller part of the economy, tends to make more rapid adjustments. It cut back capital spending rapidly at the end of 2000, but has also cut back its production by early 2001 to limit any losses, reducing inventories sharply. That helped GDP grow slightly faster. If the consumer sector - which makes up two-thirds of the economy - starts to decline, it wi
Re: Comparative systems texts
Actually, it is out of print, but we do not object to people using it if they are able to drum up used copies, which I think is what is going on here. The first draft of the second edition has been completed and is now in the review and revision process at MIT Press. Unfortunately, I do not think it will be available for classroom use prior to next fall. Sorry about that, but, hey, we're in better shape on this than a two months ago. Barkley Rosser - Original Message - From: "Clifford Poirot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 2:11 PM Subject: Comparative systems texts > I recall some previous discussion on this list about comparative systems > texts. I had been under the impression that Barkely's book was out of print. > However, much to my pleasant surprise, my secretary told me that the sales > rep is unaware the book is out of print. At any rate, I have been able to > order a small number of used copies for my comparative systems class. > > I pass this on to this list simply because i recall others who were > interested in using the book, but I cannot remember who exactly it was. I > hope this information is of some help. If Barkely is around, perhaps he can > shed some light as to the status of his book. > >
unsubscribe
unsubscribe
Canada's place inth global beauty contest
POSTED AT 11:42 AM EDTTuesday, August 14 Canada climbs because of business climate By ALLISON LAWLOR Globe and Mail Update Canada ranks as the fourth best place in the world to do business over the next five years in a survey released on Tuesday by the Economist Intelligence Unit. The survey determined that Canada will be a "very good" place to do business in the period between 2001 and 2005. Canada's ranking rose one spot from the fifth that it placed for the period between 1996 and 2000. The Netherlands is ranked first in the report published by the business arm of the Economist Group, publisher of The Economist magazine. The United States ranked second and Britain third. "The Netherlands scores particularly highly for its political environment, its policy toward foreign investment, its liberal foreign trade and exchange regime, and the availability of finance," the report said. Business environments in the world's 60 largest countries are ranked by the Economist Intelligence Unit, based on such factors as policies toward foreign investment, trade laws and availability of skilled labour. Hong Kong, which ranked as the third best place to do business between 1996 and 2000 is expected to drop to 10th place in the period between 2001 and 2005, in large part because of regulatory and political changes, the report says. Ranking after Canada among the top 10 countries are Switzerland, Ireland, Finland, Singapore, Sweden and Hong Kong. The biggest improvement in the business environment will be in eastern Europe but this is seen in part due to its weak starting point, the report said. Overall, the Economist Intelligence Unit expects the global business environment to improve over the next five years. "While our forecasts are for weak global growth in 2001 and 2002, the economic outlook for the next five years as a whole is reasonably bright," the report said. Economic uncertainties and turbulences in some countries are not likely to have lasting damage on business operating conditions, the report said. Deregulation, liberalization and globalization are expected to continue in most countries and will continue to benefit business environments. Recent protests at international meetings, including the G7 Summit in Genoa, Italy, are not expected to reverse this process, but they may slow the pace of globalization, the report concedes.
Re: Re: Quiz (No Googling!)
> > Thomas More "Utopia" 1516? Didn't google, had to reread it the other > day looking for a different quote so that's my guess... > > Ian Well, I didn't squeeze much sado-glee out of that one. You're too damned learned, Ian. More sees with a seer's eye, eh? He has only the foetus of capitalism to work with (and perhaps a heightened sense of flux via a living memory of the Old Ways), but already he hands us the gist of Smith and Marx, don't you think? I was impressed, anyway. Cheers, Rob.
FW: statement to support increasing CA UI benefits
From: Michael Reich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 1:58 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: statement to support increasing CA UI benefitsAugust 14, 2001Dear Colleague:I am attaching and also providing below a statement of support for SB 40 (Alarcon), a bill to increase unemployment insurance benefits in California. Our state ranks last in the nation in unemployment benefits as a percentage of average weekly wages. A similar bill passed the legislature last year and was vetoed by Governor Davis. I believe that SB40 is both fiscally and economically prudent as well as equitable and I am circulating the statement to economists in California in order to gain support for the bill.If you agree with the attached statement and can sign onto this document, please respond by e-mail directly to me or by e-mail to Angie Wei, Public Policy Director, CA Labor Federation AFL-CIO at [EMAIL PROTECTED], no later than August 20, 2001. This document will be submitted to Governor Davis and/or may be used for media work. As usual, your institutional connection will be listed for identification purposes. A fuller statement of the bill can be found at www.leginfo.ca.gov. or www.calaborfed.org. Please feel free to contact me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or 510-643-7079 if you have any questions. You may contact Angie Wei at 510.663.4030. Sincerely, Michael ReichProfessor of Economics, UC Berkeleyand Research Chair, Institute for Labor and Employment Economists in Support of SB 40 (Alarcon)INCREASE IN UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITSWe are writing as California economists in support of SB 40 (Alarcon), a bill to increase unemployment benefits in California. SB 40 would provide a much-needed increase in the maximum weekly unemployment insurance benefit from $230.00 to $380.00/week over a three-year period and increase the replacement rate for all unemployed workers. California's Unemployment Insurance benefits were last increased on January 1, 1992. Yet our benefits levels are among the lowest in the nation: forty-five (45) states and the District of Columbia pay higher maximum weekly benefits. The average weekly UI benefit $161 per week replaced only 22% of the average weekly wage in 2000. This ratio was the lowest in the nation. Our state's failure to index benefits is also out of step with most states; at least thirty-one states and the District of Columbia index their benefits to insure that they keep up with inflation. A 1995 report to the President by the Advisory Council on Unemployment Compensation recommended that states adopt a policy of replacing 50% of wages earned by the unemployed. To achieve this standard, the state maximum benefit would need to be equal to two-thirds of the state average weekly wage. In California, this would mean a benefit level of almost $500/month.Employer contributions to the UI system have been declining as a share of total wages, from .98% in 1994 to .62% in 1999. Put another way, employer tax contributions would have been $1.5 billion higher in 1999 had the contribution rate continued at 1994 levels. The state's Employment Development Department forecasts that, if SB 40 were signed and unemployment benefits were raised as of January 1, 2002, tax rates would not increase until 2004, at the earliest. Increasing unemployment insurance benefits will immediately increase the buying power of unemployed workers as well as pump more resources into local economies. We believe that SB 40 is a fiscally prudent measure that improves fairness for California's unemployed workers while maintaining the competitive position of the state's economy. aw/tng39521cwa.afl-cio -- Attachments are virus free! This message has been scanned for viruses at the originating end by Nemx Anti-Virus for MS Exchange Server/IMC http://www.nemx.com/products/antivirus reich final.doc
Forwarded from Rakesh
Rakesh asked me to forward this. I am sending it on even though it has digs at both Doug and Max, which are inappropriate. Since he is not part of the list, I am passing the message on in its entirity, assuming that the danger of flaming is not very high. Dear economists: Please indulge this non economist's attempt at understanding. So let's say we use the idea of Kaleckian surplus instead of the Keynesian saving. This potential surplus can only be realized as monetary profit if there is source of demand for it beyond what can be sustained by current income. This *autonomous* source of demand could be say borrowing through overdraft facilities from the bank. But any autonomous expenditure--for example, deficit financed govt 'investments' in infrastructure and the social wage--will do in situations of deficient demand and serious unemployment. I'll leave aside the Marxian objections here (see Paul Mattick, Marx and Keyenes). we have a problem anyway: rate cuts are not simulating investment; even the threat of deficit financed govt expenditures is putting upward pressure on long term rates; we don't seem to have the global financial architecture needed to pull off a coordinated monetary and fiscal stimulus (which of course assumes that under a different financial regime, such a stimulus could be effective...which I doubt). So this puts all the pressure on net exports, no? Alex has underlined that US has huge negative net exports, but does this include sales from foreign affiliates and account for services which seem to be undercounted? At any rate, exports can be bolstered by some combination of wage repression, protectionism and currency devaluation. But then we seem to run into a fallacy of composition. Of course the powerful nations can get away with more. So with the labor and environmental standards--as called for by the Northern-union backed, anti globalization movement--the North will not have to relax fully the MFA and system of agricultural subsidies even trade and financial regulations are knocked down in obscenely poor countries. No one should be surprised that India is threatening to walk away from further neogiations...with the full backing of all its major trade unions. Yet it goes unsaid by even American leftist business observers that every major trade union centre in India--that is, not just Indian businessmen or the Indian state or Indian free trade economists--has forcefully repudiated the link between trade and labor rights. But this fact seems not to have found itself into the pages of any publication of the American left! We have articles about the student anti-sweatshop movement with titles like kids vs. economists, though they would be more appropriately titled ivy league brats vs. all major trade union centres in India. But there seems to be another more important response to the end of social democracy in the form of govt expenditures. In short, it seems that as society settles into so called unemployment equilibrium, we have become accustomed to either locking up or locking out the unemployed. That is, incarceration and restrictive immigration policy. The facts about the former are well known. There is an excellent article in the recent Monthly Review by Michael Tigar on this. But it seems that the latter is less well understood. Yet any objective comparison between globalization now and globalization one hundred years ago reveals a stark contrast in the scale of migration. Legal inflows into the US today are about the same in absolute terms as they were right before WWI. And the US, along with Germany and Canada, have been more open than the rest of Fortress Europe for example. Yet the political opposition to immigration is still very high. We have even had EPI fellow Max Sawicky speak well of Michael Lind's liberal nationalism of which restrictive immigration policy is a key. Even the recent AFL/CIO-backed Bush plan to legalize workers whose labor has already proven to be needed does not change that in historic terms immigration policy is very restrictive. Of course there have been many bogus rationales given for this--some outright racist, but Lind has not hesitated in invoking them. In short, it seems that as a consequence of the collapse of social democratic keynesianism (whether for reasons internal to it or for reasons of changes in the international financial system), powerful social forces have arisen to accomodate us to unemployment through incarceration and restrictive immigration policy. Both policy approaches are intertwined with racism. So even if in academic circles The Bell Curve and AlieNation have suffered lethal blows, the policy recommendations have lost none of their lustre. In fact restrictive immigration policy now has the stamp of "liberal" populism. But the racism which is tied up with such policy continues to haunt our social lives. Rakesh -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel
Re: Re: Re: Quiz (No Googling!)
- Original Message - From: "Rob Schaap" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 5:10 AM Subject: [PEN-L:15899] Re: Re: Quiz (No Googling!) > > > > Thomas More "Utopia" 1516? Didn't google, had to reread it the other > > day looking for a different quote so that's my guess... > > > > Ian > > Well, I didn't squeeze much sado-glee out of that one. You're too damned > learned, Ian. > > More sees with a seer's eye, eh? He has only the foetus of capitalism to work > with (and perhaps a heightened sense of flux via a living memory of the Old > Ways), but already he hands us the gist of Smith and Marx, don't you think? > > I was impressed, anyway. > > Cheers, > Rob. === That more of us could communicate with our fellow citizens with the insight of a More or a Smith or a Marx.We must try... Ian
RE: Forwarded from Rakesh
" . . . Yet the political opposition to immigration is still very high. We have even had EPI fellow Max Sawicky speak well of Michael Lind's liberal nationalism of which restrictive immigration policy is a key. Even the recent AFL/CIO-backed Bush plan to legalize workers whose labor has already proven to be needed does not change that in historic terms immigration policy is very restrictive. Of course there have been many bogus rationales given for this--some outright racist, but Lind has not hesitated in invoking them. . . . " My main criticism of U.S. immigration policy is that it is illegal to deport those who commit heinous crimes of unreason. You assume a lot, Michael, even for an economist. mbs
China pollution stats
Research Casts Doubt on China's Pollution Claims By John Pomfret Washington Post Foreign Service Wednesday, August 15, 2001; Page A16 BEIJING -- New studies have cast doubt on reports that China is significantly reducing the "greenhouse gas" emissions that help make it one of the world's major polluters. Research by a Japanese scientist, funded by the World Bank, raises questions about Chinese statistics that show a huge reduction in production of coal, a fuel whose consumption contributes heavily to pollution here. And at a recent conference in Beijing, a Chinese scientist reported that China will revise upward its estimates for coal consumption for 1999, wiping out half the previously reported reductions. Other research points to a serious underreporting of China's consumption of oil, another major pollutant. China is the second-largest producer of greenhouse gases in the world, after the United States. Until the initial Chinese studies were released showing a drop in coal production and oil consumption, it was widely expected that China would surpass the United States by 2020. The projected rise in pollution was thrown into doubt when researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, Calif., reported in April that, since 1996, China's energy output had fallen 17 percent and its carbon dioxide emissions had fallen 14 percent, even though China's economy grew by 36 percent over the same period. Also in April, the European Union office in Beijing estimated China had increased energy efficiency by 50 percent and reduced coal use by 30 percent over the past five years. The reports, which emerged soon after the Bush administration announced it was withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, drew wide notice. They bolstered Beijing's arguments that if a relatively poor country like China could achieve major reductions in its carbon dioxide emissions, then richer countries should be able to follow suit. But a report issued by the U.S. Embassy in Beijing this month called the statistical claims "greatly exaggerated," saying they fell "outside the realm of experience of any other country in modern times." The report concluded that China's greenhouse gas emissions "have dropped little, if at all." Nobuhiro Horii, of the Institute of Developing Economies in Japan, looked at how Hunan province handled government orders to shut coal mines. He concluded that local officials told Beijing they had shut the mines, when in fact they kept them open. Interviews with officials in other parts of China led Horii to determine this to be a nationwide problem. Horii added that it usually takes about a decade to increase energy efficiency. China's claims that it was making inroads into carbon dioxide production in two years, or even four, are not credible, he said. "This is just not possible," Horii added. "Yes, China is increasing energy efficiency, but they are doing it slowly, like everyone else." The U.S. Embassy report noted problems with other statistics. The switch from coal to gas is not occurring in major cities as quickly as many in the government have said. Nor is the growth in hydropower replacing coal, it said. It also questioned Chinese statistics on petroleum consumption. Vehicle traffic in Chinese cities has been doubling about every five years. But official data show oil consumption rising just 11.4 percent from 1996 to 1999. Zhou Dadi, director of the Energy Research Institute of the central government's State Development Planning Commission, said that doubts about China's energy statistics are reasonable. "But regardless," he added, "we are clearly decreasing our coal consumption."
C. S. Pierce's revenge..and Whitehead's too and well....
[NYT] AUG 15, 2001 Cosmic Laws Like Speed of Light Might Be Changing, a Study Finds By JAMES GLANZ and DENNIS OVERBYE An international team of astrophysicists has discovered that the basic laws of nature as understood today may be changing slightly as the universe ages, a surprising finding that could rewrite physics textbooks and challenge fundamental assumptions about the workings of the cosmos. The researchers used the world's largest single telescope to study the behavior of metallic atoms in gas clouds as far away from Earth as 12 billion light years. The observations revealed patterns of light absorption that the team could not explain without assuming a change in a basic constant of nature involving the strength of the attraction between electrically charged particles.
Re: Sir Thomas Moore
At 14/08/01 20:00 +, you wrote: >Question on the differential ownership of the means of production, the law of >value and the logical priority of the level of production over that of >distribution: > >Author, text and year, please: > >"... wheresoever possessions be private, where money beareth all the stroke, >it is hard and almost impossible that there the public weal may justly be >governed and prosperously flourish ... the rich men be covetous, crafty, and >unprofitable: on the other part, the poor be lowly, simple, and by their daily >labour more profitable to the common wealth than to themselves ... no equal >and just distribution of things can be made; nor that perfect wealth shall >ever be among men; unless this property be exiled and banished." > >Cheers, >Rob Although the ideas could have been there in the middle ages, I was going to guess 17th century from the intricacy of the concepts, 100 or more years later than Ian correctly identified. Moore is an idealised figure in history, and his Utopia is an attractive read. However he was a very shrewd, at at times ruthless, opponent of the new bourgeois ideas (there is some evidence that he interrogated protestants under duress/torture in his own house). He therefore writes as some sort of learned intellectual aristocrat who was defending what was virtuous in the old prebourgeois society. The battle was fought out in terms of whether he could reconcile arguments about defending the authority of the Roman Catholic Church while allowing the king his divorce and he was outmanouevred on that. But perhaps this symbolised something wider. Rob's quote raises the question of whether Moore could be re-analysed more fully in terms of a critic of deloping capitalism, upholding precapitalist forms of collective social production, while having an idealised picture of how social conflict was to be regulated. Chris Burford London
