Re: Physics and economics

[Ken Hanly]

But isnt the whole idea weird? Whether physics took atoms as units of
explanation, or  their constituents either way it would surely contradict
the weird egoism with its attendant self of traditional economics.
Explanation is not psychological in physics. If physics is correct the
movement of the atomic individual towards the refrigerator is not caused by
some desire to maximise its utility function by getting food but must be
explained ultimately by physical reactions of the atoms in the atomic
individual. Furthermore, physics does not use its models as some type of
ideal to be imitated by policy. Physicists dont suggest we ought to have
frictionless planes, or that we ought to release objects in vacuums etc. Or
suggest that we somehow should change the world when it is found that
objects on actual planes dont act as on frictionless planes. And if the idea
is just that u start with individual units and explain everything in terms
of them why take the individual units as atomic individuals rather than
collectivities such as crowds. Do a Platonic individualism!.
Isnt part of the idea of the comparison with physics to snow people into
thinking that economics is a "hard" science, not some soft muddy field like
sociology? The only legitimate part of the comparison is that in some broad
sense both explain the "more general" in terms of the interactions of the
"individual" units.
   He he..a  good pun Atom Smith...

Cheers, Ken Hanly

- Original Message -
From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 12:04 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:20315] Physics and economics


> For 2 centuries, economists have attempted to emulate physics as
> a justification for their individualistic model of the world,
> following Atom Smith.  This article says that solid state
> physicists are pushing a different fundamental view of the world
> based on complex processes.
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/04/science/physical/04SQUA.html
>
> --
>
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

Physics and economics

[Michael Perelman]

For 2 centuries, economists have attempted to emulate physics as
a justification for their individualistic model of the world,
following Atom Smith.  This article says that solid state
physicists are pushing a different fundamental view of the world
based on complex processes.


http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/04/science/physical/04SQUA.html

--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

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

Re: Addition to last post...

[Ian Murray]

- Original Message -
From: "Ken Hanly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



> Forgot to paste this in last post..cheers, Ken Hanly
>
> I also wanted to ask if the same welfare critierion is used in trade
theory?
>
> In sum, disregarding the problems inherent in the Kaldor, Hicks and
> Scitovsky criteria, the question must be raised again: are these
objective
> criteria in any sense?  Ethically, of course, the Kaldor criteria is
easily
> disputed as it is only a "could" and not a "would" or even a
"should". As
> Ian M.D. Little writes, in his famous critique:
>
> "It seems improbable that so many people would, in England now, be
prepared
> to say that a change, which, for instance, made the rich so much
richer that
> they could (but would not) overcompensate the poor, who were made
poorer,
> would necessarily increase the wealth of the community." (Little,
1950:
> p.90).
>
> A point reiterated by many contemporaries (e.g. Baumol, 1946; Reder,
1947;
> Samuelson, 1947).
>
> There were three lines of defense followed by the L.S.E. economists.
The
> first was to agree and make the "could" into a "would", i.e. have
the
> winners actually compensate the losers.  This, of course, leads to
an
> improvements of sorts, the practical objection that arises is that
once we
> are at a new allocation, winners are unlikely to surrender any of
their
> gains.
>
> The second defense, pursued by Hicks (1941), was that even if the
losers do
> not get compensated in the move, they might still benefit in the
"long-run"
> if the criteria were followed consistently by society.   This
argument is
> similar to that of "trickle-down" theory and in arguments for  free
trade:
> some people may be worse off in the short-run, but in the long run,
everyone
> will be better off.The underlying assumption, of course,  is
that at
> some point, those who lost utility initially will come across a
possible
> move in which they benefit and a society which follows the Kaldorian
rule
> will move to it and thus they will gain in the end.Of course, as
Little
> (1950) notes, this is completely hypothetical.   There is nothing to
> guarantee that there will eventually be a move in which the initial
losers
> will be the ultimate winners.
>
> The third (and perhaps best) line of defense is that the
Kaldor-Hicks
> criteria merely lay out what is economically possible and that it is
up to
> policy-makers, on the basis of their own value judgements, to choose
which
> move to make and whether compensation of the losers should be forced
(cf.
> Kaldor, 1939; Scitovsky, 1951).Thus, they argue, they are merely
> underlining that certain options may be more economically possible
than
> others, but they are still only options.  The final decision will
require
> more philosophical, ethical and political considerations to be
brought into
> the story.
>

Be forced by whom?

You mean we'll have to talk about power and such anachronisms as "what
is the good" and the idea that efficiency and advantage are
inseparable from ethics? :-)

Don't count on *final* decisions.

Oh, and what about bringing taxi drivers, medical assistants,
ecologists, artists, engineers ...you know, the working class, into
the discussion?

Ian

Addition to last post...

[Ken Hanly]

Forgot to paste this in last post..cheers, Ken Hanly

I also wanted to ask if the same welfare critierion is used in trade theory?

In sum, disregarding the problems inherent in the Kaldor, Hicks and
Scitovsky criteria, the question must be raised again: are these objective
criteria in any sense?  Ethically, of course, the Kaldor criteria is easily
disputed as it is only a "could" and not a "would" or even a "should". As
Ian M.D. Little writes, in his famous critique:

"It seems improbable that so many people would, in England now, be prepared
to say that a change, which, for instance, made the rich so much richer that
they could (but would not) overcompensate the poor, who were made poorer,
would necessarily increase the wealth of the community." (Little, 1950:
p.90).

A point reiterated by many contemporaries (e.g. Baumol, 1946; Reder, 1947;
Samuelson, 1947).

There were three lines of defense followed by the L.S.E. economists.  The
first was to agree and make the "could" into a "would", i.e. have the
winners actually compensate the losers.  This, of course, leads to an
improvements of sorts, the practical objection that arises is that once we
are at a new allocation, winners are unlikely to surrender any of their
gains.

The second defense, pursued by Hicks (1941), was that even if the losers do
not get compensated in the move, they might still benefit in the "long-run"
if the criteria were followed consistently by society.   This argument is
similar to that of "trickle-down" theory and in arguments for  free trade:
some people may be worse off in the short-run, but in the long run, everyone
will be better off.The underlying assumption, of course,  is that at
some point, those who lost utility initially will come across a possible
move in which they benefit and a society which follows the Kaldorian rule
will move to it and thus they will gain in the end.Of course, as Little
(1950) notes, this is completely hypothetical.   There is nothing to
guarantee that there will eventually be a move in which the initial losers
will be the ultimate winners.

The third (and perhaps best) line of defense is that the Kaldor-Hicks
criteria merely lay out what is economically possible and that it is up to
policy-makers, on the basis of their own value judgements, to choose which
move to make and whether compensation of the losers should be forced (cf.
Kaldor, 1939; Scitovsky, 1951).Thus, they argue, they are merely
underlining that certain options may be more economically possible than
others, but they are still only options.  The final decision will require
more philosophical, ethical and political considerations to be brought into
the story.

Re: RE: project for Pen-l

[Ken Hanly]

Well in traditional welfare economics it is assumed that a PPI does
represent an increase in welfare. This may seem idiotic but for my reading
of the field this is no bar at all to acceptance of a proposition in the
field of traditional welfare economics. The defences of doing this is dead
serious-these worthies are not joking it seems. While in purely abstract
representations on graphs there is no need to use interpersonal comparisons
of utility to do this stuff when it comes to practical matters such as CBA
dollar comparisons are the measure of utility. Now how this is possible
given that interpersonal comparisons of utility are supposed to be banned
escapes me. But much of the sense of the whole project escapes me I fear.
THese are conceptually absurd models elaborated with a rational mathematical
sophistication that is amazing.

Here is a bit on the problems in understandable language and without going
into the technical issues such as Scitovsky reversals. etc.


- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 4:24 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:20269] RE: project for Pen-l


> Ken writes,
>
> >I'm not an economist but my understanding of traditional
> >welfare economics is that there would be an increase in
> >welfare as long as there is a potential pareto improvement.
>
> By definition a pareto improvement helps some and doesn't hurt anyone.
Only
> actual pareto improvements clearly "improve welfare."
>
> Potential pareto improvements are not welfare improving. Saying that the
gains
> exceed the loses and, so, that social welfare improves requires, first,
> interpersonal utility comparisions and, second, that you make more-or-less
> arbitary assumptions about how to weight individual utilities to aggregate
up
> to a social welfare function.
>
> Interpersonal utility comparisions have been rejected by mainstream
welfare
> economics for decades. Arbitary weightings of individuals' utilities
functions
> are, well, arbitary and unsupported by any aspect of mainstream welfare
> economics.
>
> Others on the list are more knowledgeable about mainstream welfare
economics
> and I hope they correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> Eric
>

RE: There are no rouge creditors, only debtors!

[Brownson, Jamil]

Bravo for the government of Peru, as both Christian & Islamic traditions
viewed usury and exhorbitant interest as criminal &/or sinful, which in the
current global context could rightfully be called just that from a secular
standpoint. 

Seduction of borrowing afflicts individuals, firms and governments who must
meed immediate costs out of expected future revenues, and consequently
borrow to do so. that in and of itself is not a problem as it balances
fluctuating cash flow, but it is the mechanism of compound interets that
compounds debt and problems in repayment even for healthy borrowers. As to
the lender's perspective, "fair rates of return" should be maintained as law
governing interest on money borrowed (or rented) to cover both compensation
for use and for risk. But the market cannot be trusted to self regulate on
any moral ground, and it is precisely that moral ground that is violated by
compounding interest.

-Original Message-
From: Sabri Oncu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 4:23 PM
To: PEN-L
Subject: [PEN-L:20309] There are no rouge creditors, only debtors!


Message to the IMF - There Are No Rogue Creditors
By David DeRosa


New Canaan, Connecticut, Nov. 30 (Bloomberg) -- In my previous column I
denounced International Monetary Fund first deputy managing director Anne
Krueger's advocacy last Monday of the use of capital controls and standstill
periods for distressed sovereign debtors. Now I want to turn to her
unfortunate attack in the same speech on what she termed ``rogue
creditors.''

In case you missed her speech, Krueger thinks she has hit on a better way to
solve emerging markets debt crises based on American bankruptcy law. She
wants the IMF to be able to declare a standstill period during which a
cash-strapped debtor nation wouldn't have to make debt service payments. And
during that time, capital controls would be imposed to prevent foreign
capital from leaving.

One of the benefits of her plan, she says, is that it would reign in ``rogue
creditors,'' such as Elliot Associates whom she mentions by name. Rogue
creditors need controlling because they disrupt the normal process of debt
restructuring, according to Krueger.

I have heard of rogue elephants, even rogue traders. But what is a rogue
creditor? Calling anyone a rogue anything implies that they live outside of
law and civilization.

Elliot Associates

Elliot Associates is a New York hedge fund that prevailed against the
government of Peru in a New York courtroom in October 2000. What Elliot did
was acquire bonds issued by Peru that were selling at deep discount, refuse
to go along with proposed debt restructuring talks, and then proceed to haul
Peru into a New York court room for non-payment.

Elliot demanded payment in full on the bonds. The Second Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled for Elliot. It was thus that Elliot won a judgment of $58
million and the denunciation of human rights groups.

At least one group, Jubilee 2000, a non-profit organization that promotes
debt relief for poor nations, denounces Elliot Associates on its Web site
with language usually reserved for armaments merchants.

Jubilee's Liana Cisneros writes: ``These people are trading in human misery.
Elliott Associates are picking over the bones of the Peruvian economy like a
pack of vultures. It may be just business to them but to the children of
Peru it is school books, medicines and clean water.''

No Such Thing

I submit that there is no such thing as a rogue creditor. Elliot, in the
case in hand, bought distressed securities selling at a discount, and in so
doing took considerable risk.

Anyone who buys a paper from a potentially bankrupt issuer would do the same
thing. All that Elliot did was press for its rights in the normal way that
any other creditor would do.

Still, the method of using the Federal court system against a sovereign was
a novel trick. Elliot then should be rightfully regarded as a pioneer, not
as a rogue.

What Krueger is proposing is a wholesale abandonment of the legal structure
that backs up creditor-debtor relations. She wants to superimpose the IMF on
the U.S. court system. It won't fly.

But never mind that. Something very interesting came out in the run up to
the trial in the case of Elliot v. Peru.

Peruvian Bonds

It turns out someone else beside Elliot was buying up cheap Peruvian bonds
at the time. Yes, you guessed it. The government of Peru was secretly buying
up $1.7 billion of its own debt in the secondary market at deep discount
while all the while claiming it was out of cash.

This was revealed in an Oct. 25, 2000 article in the Financial Times that
concluded: ``Essentially, that means the government misled creditors about
it ability to repay them in order to win better terms.''

Actually, market participants will tell you that this isn't the only
instance of a distressed government gobbling up its own debt at discount
prices.

The lesson is this. While there are no rogue creditors, debto

Re: project for PEN-L

[Robert Vienneau]

1.0 INTRODUCTION

   I doubt anybody here will be too excited by this. But here's a numeric
example illustrating one aspect of Steedman et. al.'s 1970s critique
of HOS theory. Steve Keen has a slide show on his Debunking Economics
web page that you might like better. It's more late-Robinson-historical-
time and less Sraffa.

   Why are tariffs, protectionism, etc., bad ideas? A widespread
answer draws on the theory of comparative advantage. This long
post demonstrates this argument is logically invalid when
applied to an economy with produced capital goods and a positive
interest rate. This demonstration is made by means of a numerical
example illustrating the model in Metcalfe and Steedman (1974).

   That is, it has been known for over a quarter of a century
that the theory of comparative advantage does not justify a lack
of tariffs. It has been known - but ignored.

2.0 DATA ON TECHNOLOGY

   Consider a very simple economy that produces two goods, corn and
ale, from inputs of labor, land, and produced corn and ale. Corn
and ale are both consumption and capital goods. All production
processes in this example require a year to complete. Likewise,
all production processes exhibit constant returns to scale. One
process is known for producing ale, and two processes are known
for producing corn. These processes are shown in Table 1.


   TABLE 1:  INPUTS REQUIRED PER (GROSS) UNIT OUTPUT


   ALE INDUSTRY CORN INDUSTRY
  INPUTS   PROCESS A   PROCESS B

  Ale   0 Barrels   1 Barrel1/2 Barrel
  Corn 1/8 Bushel   0 Bushels0 Bushels

  Labor1 Person-Year4 Person-Years   7 Person-Years
  Land  9/8 Acre   5/6 Acre  1 Acre
  
  OUTPUT   1 Barrel 1 Bushel 1  Bushel


   Assume that endowments of labor and land are given. In particular,
this economy has access to 320 person-years of labor and 140 acres
of (homogeneous) land.

   In short, this economy uses two primary factors, labor and land,
to produce a net output of two consumption goods, corn and ale. This
example differs from misleading introductory textbook models of
comparative advantage in that the use of produced capital goods is
shown explicitly.

3.0 PRODUCTION POSSIBILITIES FRONTIER

   The argument is based on an analysis of long run equilibria, as
is the case with usual misleading and invalid textbook expositions.
Since the endowments of primary inputs are fixed, long run equilibria
are stationary equilibria. The ale-producing process and at least
one of the corn-producing processes will be used in a long run
equilibrium. A technique is defined to consist of the ale-producing
process and one of the corn-producing processes. Call the technique
utilizing the first corn-producing process alpha. Call the other
technique beta.

   Figure 1 shows possible efficient long run equilibria for this
numeric example. The alpha technique is used along the frontier
between the corn axis and point a. Labor is a binding contraint on
output up to point a. Less land is employed here than exists; hence
land services will be free for this portion of the production
possibilities frontier. Both land and labor are binding constraints
at point a, and the alpha technique is used. If the alpha technique
were used to produce a net output of more than 20 barrels ale, land
would be a binding contraint and labor services would be free.
However, more corn can be produced between a and b, for a given
net output of ale, by using a linear combination of the two
techniques between points a and b. The beta technique is exclusively
used at point b, and both land and labor are binding constraints.
Land is a binding constraint, and labor is free, for the remaining
portion of the frontier.


/|\
 |
  56 +
 |  .
  50 + a
 |   .
 | .
 |   .
   Net   | .
  Output |   .
   Corn  | .
 (Bushels)   |   .
 | .
  20 +   b
 |.
 | .
 |   .
 |.
 |  .
 +-+-+---+--->
  2080  105
   Net Output Ale (Barrels)

  FIGURE 1:  PRODUCTION POSSIBILITIES FRONTIER

   The portion of the frontier between points a and b, inclusive,
is the focus of the remainder of this post. The relative combinations
of ale and corn, produced net, are different along this segment
because of differences in the amount of ale and corn produced by
the two techniques. Notice the slope of this segment is 1/2 bushels
per barrel. The slope reflects the rate of transformatio

There are no rouge creditors, only debtors!

[Sabri Oncu]

Message to the IMF - There Are No Rogue Creditors
By David DeRosa


New Canaan, Connecticut, Nov. 30 (Bloomberg) -- In my previous column I
denounced International Monetary Fund first deputy managing director Anne
Krueger's advocacy last Monday of the use of capital controls and standstill
periods for distressed sovereign debtors. Now I want to turn to her
unfortunate attack in the same speech on what she termed ``rogue
creditors.''

In case you missed her speech, Krueger thinks she has hit on a better way to
solve emerging markets debt crises based on American bankruptcy law. She
wants the IMF to be able to declare a standstill period during which a
cash-strapped debtor nation wouldn't have to make debt service payments. And
during that time, capital controls would be imposed to prevent foreign
capital from leaving.

One of the benefits of her plan, she says, is that it would reign in ``rogue
creditors,'' such as Elliot Associates whom she mentions by name. Rogue
creditors need controlling because they disrupt the normal process of debt
restructuring, according to Krueger.

I have heard of rogue elephants, even rogue traders. But what is a rogue
creditor? Calling anyone a rogue anything implies that they live outside of
law and civilization.

Elliot Associates

Elliot Associates is a New York hedge fund that prevailed against the
government of Peru in a New York courtroom in October 2000. What Elliot did
was acquire bonds issued by Peru that were selling at deep discount, refuse
to go along with proposed debt restructuring talks, and then proceed to haul
Peru into a New York court room for non-payment.

Elliot demanded payment in full on the bonds. The Second Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled for Elliot. It was thus that Elliot won a judgment of $58
million and the denunciation of human rights groups.

At least one group, Jubilee 2000, a non-profit organization that promotes
debt relief for poor nations, denounces Elliot Associates on its Web site
with language usually reserved for armaments merchants.

Jubilee's Liana Cisneros writes: ``These people are trading in human misery.
Elliott Associates are picking over the bones of the Peruvian economy like a
pack of vultures. It may be just business to them but to the children of
Peru it is school books, medicines and clean water.''

No Such Thing

I submit that there is no such thing as a rogue creditor. Elliot, in the
case in hand, bought distressed securities selling at a discount, and in so
doing took considerable risk.

Anyone who buys a paper from a potentially bankrupt issuer would do the same
thing. All that Elliot did was press for its rights in the normal way that
any other creditor would do.

Still, the method of using the Federal court system against a sovereign was
a novel trick. Elliot then should be rightfully regarded as a pioneer, not
as a rogue.

What Krueger is proposing is a wholesale abandonment of the legal structure
that backs up creditor-debtor relations. She wants to superimpose the IMF on
the U.S. court system. It won't fly.

But never mind that. Something very interesting came out in the run up to
the trial in the case of Elliot v. Peru.

Peruvian Bonds

It turns out someone else beside Elliot was buying up cheap Peruvian bonds
at the time. Yes, you guessed it. The government of Peru was secretly buying
up $1.7 billion of its own debt in the secondary market at deep discount
while all the while claiming it was out of cash.

This was revealed in an Oct. 25, 2000 article in the Financial Times that
concluded: ``Essentially, that means the government misled creditors about
it ability to repay them in order to win better terms.''

Actually, market participants will tell you that this isn't the only
instance of a distressed government gobbling up its own debt at discount
prices.

The lesson is this. While there are no rogue creditors, debtors surely
exist.

Re: Re: project for Pen-l

[Michael Perelman]

I agree with Bill.  I wonder if Paul or somebody could attempt to tie
together what has been written already to give a focus to what comes next.

On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 10:20:24PM -0800, Bill Burgess wrote:

> There was talk awhile ago about putting togeather some kind of intro 
> textbook, but perhaps that was too ambitious. Is it too much to imagine 
> that 'free' trade might be the first in series of informal collections of 
> resources aimed at teachers of economics, teachers in other discipines, and 
> for use in other spheres?
> 

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

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

Re: FW: Today's Papers: A Blow to the Peace Process

[Sabri Oncu]

>Jim writes,
>
> 
>> The world is going to hell in a handbasket... The retribution for the US
>> elite's hubris is likely to come back to kill some of its subjects (i.e.,
>> us), as with 911.
> 
>
> I had lunch with an ambassador from an east Asian country last 
> year and during our conversation, he made the comment:
>
> "You can always tell when the American economy is in trouble.  
> The bombs start falling."
> 
> Paul Phillips,


Please don't be so pessimistic Friends,

The economy is going to recover soon and everything will go back to normal.
If you
don't believe me, take a look at the below excerpt from a recent Bloomberg
article: 

Optimism for Recovery 

Still, investors and traders said optimism the economy
will rebound next year limited today's decline. 

``It's an amazing market that it has held up this well 
given that it was thrown a lot of bad news with everything 
in the Middle East and Argentina,'' Tom Schrader, head 
trader at Legg Mason Wood Walker in Baltimore. ``It tells me 
that this bull has a lot more legs than a lot of people 
give it credit for.'' 

These Romans are crazy!
Sabri Oncu


<>

the politics of Kaldor Hicks etc....

[Ian Murray]

< http://www.washingtonpost.com >
Congress's Stupid Squeeze Play
By Sebastian Mallaby
Monday, December 3, 2001; Page A21


Sometimes Congress gets mugged by conservative ideologues who won't
tolerate any expansion of government, no matter how sensible.
Sometimes Congress gets mugged by liberal lobbies that press their
narrow interests and never mind the broader social cost. And sometimes
Congress gets mugged by both gangs simultaneously. That's what may be
happening to a humble federal program, with nasty consequences for
this week's crucial vote on trade promotion authority.

The liberal muggers in this story are the labor unions, which
supposedly represent the interests of ordinary workers. The unions are
sworn enemies of trade liberalization, protesting that job security in
vulnerable industries such as steel and textiles matters more than the
broad prosperity that trade fosters. You might think the obvious
answer is to spend some of trade's proceeds on compensation for
laid-off workers, but labor leaders appear to think otherwise.

For the past several months, Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee
have been trying to drum up support for a beefed-up version of what's
known as trade adjustment assistance. The legislation would put $1.2
billion a year into the hands of laid-off workers, up from the $400
million that has been paid out annually by the current meager program.
A lot of these payments would go to union-dominated industries, such
as cars as well as steel and textiles. And yet, far from lapping up
this generosity, the labor leadership has been indifferent to it.

The indifference goes back to the summer, when the finance committee
held hearings on the trade adjustment program. The AFL-CIO was invited
to send someone to testify in favor of it. It sent no one. Individual
labor unions were canvassed. They declined too. In the end, the only
union figure willing to participate was George Becker, the retired
head of the steel union.

The AFL-CIO also was asked to comment on the legislation. No comments
were offered until two days before the bill was introduced. The
sponsors patiently fixed their bill to accommodate nearly all those
suggestions, but the unions still withheld their support, citing one
remaining issue. Only last week, when the Senate Democrats seemed to
have mustered the votes for the bill anyway, did the AFL-CIO finally
issue a letter of endorsement.

Why did the labor federation cold-shoulder a scheme that would put
millions in the pockets of its members? Some labor sympathizers offer
a damning answer: The movement fears that helping laid-off workers
will undermine its criticism of trade agreements. This suggests a
stark hypocricy. Labor's stated position is that it dislikes trade
deals because they harm vulnerable workers. Its actual position
appears to be that it will risk harming vulnerable workers in order to
defeat trade agreements.

But this story is also about conservative muggers, who include some
congressional Republicans as well as parts of the Bush administration.
The conservatives say they care about trade, and generally they do
vote for it. But if they really cared deeply, they would be building a
pro-trade consensus in Congress. Compared with such ideas as
protecting anti-dumping laws, helping laid-off workers is an eminently
reasonable way to win over trade's critics. It gets money to ordinary
people, rather than to the shareholders of companies. It does nothing
to penalize consumers. And it does not infuriate our negotiating
partners in international trade forums.

Despite all this, supposedly pro-trade conservatives have tried to
smother the trade compensation program. Most pro-trade business groups
declined to testify in its favor and never lifted a finger to support
it. Last Thursday Senate Republicans blocked an attempt to mark up the
Democratic legislation. Meanwhile the Bush Office of Management and
Budget is refusing to spend a cent more than the $400 million a year
in the current inadequate program.

This is beyond stupid. President Bush came into office promising
wonderful relations with Congress, even though he wasn't too concerned
about his relations with foreign governments. Now, in a curious
inversion, his trade representative has succeeded against the odds in
launching global trade talks, and tens of billions' worth of economic
benefits will flow to the U.S. economy if the talks are fruitful. Yet
the president has not made the obvious moves to build a trade
consensus in Congress. Partly as a result, he may fail to secure the
trade promotion authority needed to push global negotiations forward.

There is still time for a correction. The Senate Democrats will try
again to mark up the trade adjustment package tomorrow, and maybe
conservatives will drop their obstructionism. A companion bill was
introduced in the House last Wednesday, and on Friday Rep. Bill
Thomas, the key House Republican on trade, made sympathetic noises on
the issue. Perhaps this week

Re: FW: Today's Papers: A Blow to the Peace Process

[Paul Phillips]

Jim writes,

> 
> The world is going to hell in a handbasket... The retribution for the US
> elite's hubris is likely to come back to kill some of its subjects (i.e.,
> us), as with 911.
> 

I had lunch with an ambassador from an east Asian country last 
year and during our conversation, he made the comment:

"You can always tell when the American economy is in trouble.  
The bombs start falling."

Paul Phillips,
Economics,
University of Manitoba

BLS Daily Report

[Richardson_D]

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, DAILY REPORT, MONDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2001:

RELEASED TODAY:  Projections for the American workforce covering 2000 to
2010 were issued today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, providing
information on where future job growth is expected by industry and
occupation and the likely composition of the work force pursuing those jobs.
The 10-year projections of employment by industry and occupation, labor
force, and economic growth are widely used in career guidance, in planning
education and training programs, and in studying long-range employment
trends.  These projections use the new Standard Occupational Classification
(SOC) system.

Mass layoff events totaled 1,816 in October, resulting in job losses for
212,695 people, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics report. Both the
total number of layoff events and the total of persons affected were the
largest of any October on record since the data series began in 1995.  The
October figures provide a closer look at layoffs directly related to the
September terrorist attacks.  Twenty-seven states reported extended mass
layoffs related to the September 11 incidents, BLS said.  "However, 68
percent of these events and 72 percent of the associate separations occurred
in just six states -- California, Nevada, New York, Illinois, Texas, and
Hawaii," the agency said (Daily Labor Report, page D-14).

 Despite the recent economic downturn, manufacturers are still experiencing
shortages of skilled workers, particularly among craft workers, machinists,
and operators, according to a study released by the National Association of
Manufacturers and the professional services firm Andersen.  Data for the
study were gathered from roughly 600 NAM members in May, NAM President Jerry
Jasinowski says.  Since that time, hundreds of thousands of additional
workers have been laid off.  However, he says, the survey reflects "serious
deficiencies in the skills of people asking for jobs" (Daily Labor Report,
page A-8).

The U.S. economy declined at an annual rate of 1.1 percent from July through
September, a much higher rate than the 0.4 percent of decline estimated a
month ago, the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis reports
The third quarter drop in gross domestic product, the total output of goods
and services produced within the United States, was the largest quarterly
decline in more than a decade, according to BEA.  Most of the revision was
due to a larger draw down in business inventories, the numbers showed.  The
decrease was also reflected by a declaration in personal consumption
expenditures and federal government spending, BEA said (Daily Labor Report,
page D-3; The New York Times, December 1, page C4).

 Friday's monthly U.S. nonfarm payrolls report will be among the week's most
eagerly anticipated data.  Economists in a Reuters survey predict U.S.
payrolls shrank by just 189,000 in November, after a massive drop of 415,000
in October.  But they also said the unemployment rate would tick up to 5.6
percent in November from 5.4 in October (Reuters,
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-96189dec03.story?coll-la%2Dheadlines%
2Dbusiness).

Many CEOs are caught in a downsizing Catch-22.  As they lay off workers to
boost profits, many fear that their actions would alienate employers and
customers, costing them revenue -- and profit, says The Washington Post
(page E2).  Areas where companies have reduced staff in the past 6 months
are shown in a graph.  46 percent reduced in operations, 37 percent in
administration, 28 percent in customer service, 22 percent in accounting, 20
percent in sales, 19 percent in human resources, 17 percent in marketing and
another 17 percent in product development, 16 percent in engineering, 13
percent in technology, and 14 percent in other areas.  Source of the data is
a survey of 500 executives by InsightExpress.

By the end of October, well over 7 million Americans had joined the ranks of
the jobless.  The hiring outlook for early next year may not be much
brighter, says The Washington Post (December 2, page H1). A recent survey of
16,000 businesses by the Milwaukee recruiting firm Manpower, Inc. found that
16 percent plan to slash their workforces during the first quarter of 2002.
But smack in the middle of this hazy employment landscape are American
businesses that say they will hire hundreds, if not thousands, of workers
over the next several months.  Indeed, 16 percent of those 16,000 businesses
told Manpower they expect to add new jobs by April.  Fueled by demand for
such random things as bomb-detection machines, home financing requests, gas
masks and security services, employees who fit into these pockets of job
growth will reap the benefits of government attempts to right the economy or
defend the nation against terrorist attacks.  "It was like a switch being
turned off in the one area and on in the other," says John Challenger,
founder of the job-placement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas in Chicago.
I

Martin Luther King's approach

[Charles Brown]

A Time to Break Silence
by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
This speech was given by Dr. King at a meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned at 
Riverside Church in New York City on April 4, 1967, one year before he was killed. It 
is reprinted from I Have a Dream: Writings and Speeches that Changed the World by 
Martin Luther King, edited by James M. Washington (HarperSanFrancisco, 1992). 





I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no 
other choice. I join with you in this meeting because I am in deepest agreement with 
the aims and work of the organization which has brought us together: Clergy and Laymen 
Concerned about Vietnam. The recent statement of your executive committee are the 
sentiments of my own heart and I found myself in full accord when I read its opening 
lines: "A time comes when silence is betrayal." That time has come for us in relation 
to Vietnam.

The truth of these words is beyond doubt but the mission to which they call us is a 
most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily 
assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor 
does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of 
conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover when 
the issues at hand seem as perplexed as they often do in the case of this dreadful 
conflict we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty; but we must 
move on.

Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that 
the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak 
with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. 
And we must rejoice as well, for surely this is the first time in our nation's history 
that a significant number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the 
prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the 
mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Perhaps a new spirit is rising 
among us. If it is, let us trace its movement well and pray that our own inner being 
may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the 
darkness that seems so close around us.

Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and 
to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures 
from the destruction of Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of 
my path. At the heart of their concerns this query has often loomed large and loud: 
Why are you speaking about war, Dr. King? Why are you joining the voices of dissent? 
Peace and civil rights don't mix, they say. Aren't you hurting the cause of your 
people, they ask? And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their 
concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the 
inquirers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling. Indeed, their 
questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live.

In the light of such tragic misunderstandings, I deem it of signal importance to try 
to state clearly, and I trust concisely, why I believe that the path from Dexter 
Avenue Baptist Church -- the church in Montgomery, Alabama, where I began my pastorate 
-- leads clearly to this sanctuary tonight.

I come to this platform tonight to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation. This 
speech is not addressed to Hanoi or to the National Liberation Front. It is not 
addressed to China or to Russia.

Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for 
a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Neither is it an attempt to make 
North Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the 
role they can play in a successful resolution of the problem. While they both may have 
justifiable reason to be suspicious of the good faith of the United States, life and 
history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conflicts are never resolved without 
trustful give and take on both sides.

Tonight, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi and the NLF, but rather to my fellow 
Americans, who, with me, bear the greatest responsibility in ending a conflict that 
has exacted a heavy price on both continents.

IMPORTANCE OF VIETNAM
Since I am a preacher by trade, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major 
reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is at the outset 
a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the 
struggle I , and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a 
shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for 
the poor -- both black and w

RE: RE: RE: A little rant about NPR propaganda on unemployment

[Max Sawicky]

Jeff Wenger, who does excellent work.

I was not referring to him in particular, but to us (incl this list) in
general.

mbs




who was this EPI economist?
jd

RE: RE: A little rant about NPR propaganda on unemployment

[Devine, James]

bill writes:
I was listening to NPR this morning and they had a brief report on
unemployment benefits paid by states.  They had an economist from the
Economic Policy Institute (EPI) on to describe the basic facts. . . .

mbs, a ph.d. at epi writes: 
Reciting trends in wages and incomes doesn't get
you very far in politics, truth be known . . .


who was this EPI economist? 
jd

Re: Re: Re: Peace activists disagree with WardChurchill's comments

[Michael Pugliese]

   See the Russel Means autobiography published a few yrs. ago. Has a
chapter about 20 pgs. on the Miskitos. I certainly hope that Peter
Matthieson who blurbed it, remonstrated with Means over the Contras.
Michael Pugliese


IMDiversity.com - The Elder Bellecourt, Part Two
... Later, under director of Ward Churchill and Glen Morris, Russell ...
Nicaragua with the
CIA sponsored contra, and ... the death of Miskito Indians. When we ...
www.imdiversity.com/villages/native/Article_Detail.asp?Article_ID=2437

AIM on Russell Means
... Those interests was to align himself with Ward Churchill, Glen Morris,
and Brooklyn
Rivera of the CIA-sponsored Miskito Indian faction of the contras, as well
...
www.aimovement.org/moipr/onrussellmeans.html - 43k

Untitled
... of being "FBI provocateurs, CIA agents, or both ... York: Monthly
Review, 1979); Ward
Churchill and Jim Vander ... to subordinate the Miskito, Sumu and Rama ...
www.horizons.k12.mi.us/~aim/papers/subterfugeandself.html

LBO-Talk October 1998: For Louis Proyect on Ward Churchill ( ...
... to capitalism than Ward Churchill." Of necessity, many ... more for
effect -- Ward eventually
penned (with ... states that the Miskito alliance with the CIA was a ...
http://www.nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/9810/1443.html

LBO-Talk October 1998: Going public
... Ward Churchill is an old friend ... champions who hate leftists. Ward
and Glenn co-wrote
an ... justifying the Hmong and Miskito alliances with the CIA in Laos and
...
http://www.nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/9810/1352.html

Robert E. Robideau American Indian Movement Papers, 1975-1994
... American Indian nations, by Ward Churchill, July 1983. ... movement, and
guides to CIA
and FBI operations, 1975. ... 11-15-90. 9, Miskito Indians of Nicaragua ...
elibrary.unm.edu/oanm/NmU/nmu1%23mss557bc/nmu1%23mss557bc_m8.html

POCKETS of RESISTANCE no. 11 A supplement of Dark Night field notes --
September 2001

"Some People Push Back" On the Justice of Roosting Chickens by Ward
Churchill

When queried by reporters concerning his views on the assassination of
John F. Kennedy in November 1963, Malcolm X famously - and quite
charitably, all things considered - replied that it was merely a case
of
"chickens coming home to roost."

On the morning of September 11, 2001, a few more chickens - along with
some half-million dead Iraqi children - came home to roost in a very
big
way at the twin towers of New York's World Trade Center. Well,
actually,
a few of them seem to have nestled in at the Pentagon as well.

The Iraqi youngsters, all of them under 12, died as a predictable - in
fact, widely predicted - result of the 1991 US "surgical" bombing of
their country's water purification and sewage facilities, as well as
other "infrastructural" targets upon which Iraq's civilian population
depends for its very survival.

If the nature of the bombing were not already bad enough - and it
should
be noted that this sort of "aerial warfare" constitutes a Class I
Crime
Against humanity, entailing myriad gross violations of international
law, as well as every conceivable standard of "civilized" behavior -
the
death toll has been steadily ratcheted up by US-imposed sanctions for
a
full decade now. Enforced all the while by a massive military presence
and periodic bombing raids, the embargo has greatly impaired the
victims' ability to import the nutrients, medicines and other
materials
necessary to saving the lives of even their toddlers.

All told, Iraq has a population of about 18 million. The 500,000 kids
lost to date thus represent something on the order of 25 percent of
their age group. Indisputably, the rest have suffered - are still
suffering - a combination of physical debilitation and psychological
trauma severe enough to prevent their ever fully recovering. In
effect,
an entire generation has been obliterated.

The reason for this holocaust was/is rather simple, and stated quite
straightforwardly by President George Bush, the 41st "freedom-loving"
father of the freedom-lover currently filling the Oval Office, George
the 43rd: "The world must learn that what we say, goes," intoned
George
the Elder to the enthusiastic applause of freedom-loving Americans
everywhere. How Old George conveyed his message was certainly no
mystery
to the US public. One need only recall the 24-hour-per-day
dissemination
of bombardment videos on every available TV channel, and the
exceedingly
high ratings of these telecasts, to gain a sense of how much they
knew.

In trying to affix a meaning to such things, we would do well to
remember the wave of elation that swept America at reports of what was
happening along the so-called Highway of Death: perhaps 100,000
"towel-heads" and "camel jockeys" - or was it "sand niggers" that
week?
- in full retreat, routed and effectively defenseless, many of them
conscripted civilian laborers, slaughtered in a single day by jets
firing the most hyper-lethal types of ordnance. It was a performance
worthy of the nazis during the early months o

FW: Today's Papers: A Blow to the Peace Process

[Devine, James]

from MS SLATE'S "Today's Papers" news summary: >The Washington Post, New
York Times, and USA Today lead with the series of three suicide bombs in
Israel this past weekend that killed 25 people and wounded two hundred. The
latest bombing, in the port city of Haifa, killed 15. Hamas claimed credit
for the attacks. The Los Angeles Times leads with the U.S.'s tough talk to
Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat. "It's a moment of truth for Mr. Arafat,"
said Secretary of State Powell, who spoke with the Palestinian leader
yesterday. "I said to him, 'This cannot be just a "We'll round up some
suspects and that'll be the end of it." You've got to go beyond that.'" ...
 
>Arafat ordered a state of emergency and promised to arrest members of Hamas
and other radical organizations. Israel and the U.S. weren't impressed.
Neither was the Post, which went to press before the late-breaking
development that the Palestinian Authority had actually begun the arrests.
The paper's above-the-fold analysis is headlined: ARAFAT PICKS WORDS OVER
ACTIONS. The NYT, meanwhile, says that Arafat has "accepted the terms" of
what the Times calls "a dangerous test." The papers explain that Arafat may
be trapped because Hamas likely has more support among Palestinians than he
does.
 
>The papers all go high with President Bush's response to the attacks,
specifically his demands of Arafat, which the NYT says "paralleled" the
President's demands of the Taliban. "Chairman Arafat must do everything in
his power to find those who murdered innocent Israelis and bring them to
justice," said Bush. If Arafat doesn't crack down sufficiently, he risks
political isolation and, says the Post, being kicked out of the territories
or even killed by the Israelis.
 
>The NYT, in the 17th [para]graph of its lead, mentions one potential
consequence of the bombings: The U.S. will probably hold-off on any
potential showdown with Iraq. "We just can't overload the circuits," said
one official.<
 
Methinks that the US victory against Afghanistan is allowing the US power
elite to spread its ethic of vigilantism more widely (even if it protects
Iraq for a bit). It's now moving to agree with Ariel Sharon's approach in
occupied Palestine, which then encourages the worst of the Palestinans to
counterattack, which encourages Sharon... for ever & ever, a new type of
holocaust.

One things the hubristic power elite misses is that by attacking Arafat,
they are strengthening Hamas. The latter's strength has risen as the Arafat
and the relatively secularist PLO have proven themselves to be corrupt,
ineffective, and authoritarian, clinging to little bits of power. People
upset with Israel's bloody occupation turn to Hamas and the like. 

The world is going to hell in a handbasket... The retribution for the US
elite's hubris is likely to come back to kill some of its subjects (i.e.,
us), as with 911.

RE: A little rant about NPR propaganda on unemployment

[Max Sawicky]

Reciting trends in wages and incomes doesn't get
you very far in politics, truth be known . . .

mbs


Subject: [PEN-L:20293] A little rant about NPR propaganda on
unemployment

I was listening to NPR this morning and they had a brief report on
unemployment benefits paid by states.  They had an economist from the
Economic Policy Institute (EPI) on to describe the basic facts. . . .

Re: Little Finance Terminology Question

[Sabri Oncu]

Rob wrote:

> Onya, Doug!  Although I hadn't realised enough NASDAQ companies were
> projecting dividends to allow the calculation.  And would that be Fisher
> Black, the dude you chide in WS for calculating risk in terms of deviation
> from an expected return, rather than factoring in a notion inferred by the
> rest us when we hear the word; ie. 'loss'

These two notions are closely related Rob. If the returns are normally
distributed, then knowing this deviation, or as they say, volatility, is
same as knowing how much you will lose with what probability. Of course,
there are two issues here: a) how realistic is it to assume that the returns
are normal? b) how reliable is your volatility forecast?  The latter is the
more important question. You either forecast your volatility using
historical prices or look at the current prices of some securities and based
on these prices and some rocket scientific formulas, back out some implied
volatilities. This is why risk models don't work when the world gets risky.
Life is much more than just numbers. Didn't someone say it is a social
relation?

By the way, below is an excerpt from an Economist article:

"What happens next is hard to predict, not least because of Enron's
opaqueness. If nothing else, the on-off marriage with Dynegy bought time for
firms to reduce their exposure to Enron. That has probably ensured that
there is little systemic threat to the financial system of the sort once
posed by LTCM. There are even hopes of minimal disruption to the energy
market, and thus to the real economy. Even so, there was a brief, but
unfounded, moment of anxiety in Britain that there could have been a power
shortage on November 29th after Enron pulled out of the energy market."

Full article is at:
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=894167

Best,
Sabri Oncu

Re: Re: Re: Peace activists disagree with Ward Churchill's comments

[Michael Perelman]

I know about the splits.  I think that much that Churchill says is
interesting.  When he came to Chico, he behaved badly -- very arrogant
towards the students who invited him.

On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 12:53:40PM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Michael Perelman wrote:
> 
> >1. Churchill is a Native American, who has written extensively about the
> >Holocaust of Native Americans.  His thesis has not been warmly received.  So I
> >can understand why he may express some insensitivity about the slaughter of
> >Americans -- even if some of the "Americans" were not really Americans are
> >all.
> >
> >2. Churchill's strong language makes for easy criticism, but once Churchill is
> >picked off, then the pressure put on people like my colleague, George Wright,
> >for making a couple statements that were taken out of context, becomes
> >acceptable.  The attack on freedom of speech always begins at the margin.
> 
> 
> On Ward Churchill, opinions differ. From an interview with Vernon 
> Bellecourt 
> :
> 
> Vernon: What is behind it is the same FBI orchestrated program using 
> agents willing or unwilling or knowing people like Ward Churchill, 
> Russell Means and Bob Robideau in particular. Those three have 
> started this disinformation campaign by attacking the leadership of 
> AIM, making wild allegations. Now what you have to understand about 
> Ward Churchill...this man is still under investigation (we publish 
> reports of our investigation on our website under ministry of 
> information). This man claims to have served in Vietnam as an 
> information specialist. Now, if one would analyze what information 
> specialists did in Vietnam...they were actually misinformation 
> specialists putting out misinformation to set up assassinations of 
> Vietnam leaders, etc. When he got out of the military (in his own 
> writing) he states this. What we are maintaining is that this guy is 
> part of a misinformation campaign. In answer to your question, what 
> he tends to do is take 5% fact and mix it with 95% bullshit and stirs 
> it up to the point where people out there begin to question our 
> message. In other words they begin to question the messenger rather 
> than read the message.
> 
> Now that was picked up by the Native News outlets and Native American 
> press here in Minneapolis. I have a lawsuit that is moving through 
> the courts because they have now become part of the misinformation 
> campaign. That is, the writer here, Joe Geshick has admitted being an 
> associate of Ward Churchill. Joe Geshick also attended those sham 
> tribunals in California. And it seems to be that the 10 or 12 people 
> that are all lined up with Ward Churchill, seemingly are all behind 
> this misinformation campaign, who previously almost every month or so 
> accused someone else of being implicit in the death of Anna Mae. 
> First it was John Trudell, then it was myself. And now they are 
> suggesting it is Dennis Banks.
> 
> Now this is a very important point in response to your question. 
> About 7 years ago, after having looked through files of documents, I 
> called a man named Gordon Regguinti, who was the editor of the Circle 
> newspaper here in Minneapolis, and Paul Demain, editor of News from 
> Indian Country. I invited them over to my house. I sat them down and 
> I start putting all these documents in front of them. I said, "you 
> know Paul, I get a sense that a lot of journalists, particularly 
> Indian journalists, you can dangle news right under their noses and 
> they can not see or smell a story when it is put right in front of 
> them. But here is what I think," and I start telling them about the 
> attacks Ward Churchill was launching.
> 
> How Ward Churchill had gotten Russell Means to meet with the CIA in 
> Virginia. Later, under director of Ward Churchill and Glen Morris, 
> Russell Means entered in from Costa Rica to Nicaragua with the CIA 
> sponsored contra, and in fact actually caused the death of Miskito 
> Indians. When we confronted Ward Churchill with that, he and Russell 
> Means came back and accused us --that is, Bill Means, myself and 
> Clyde---of causing the deaths of Miskito Indians. There were people 
> that were with them, and they know for a fact that it was Russell 
> means that in fact caused a Miskito Indian village to be bombed with 
> several people being killed. But what happens with this 
> misinformation campaign, whenever they're confronted, they come back 
> and make the same accusations--such as accusing me of being an FBI 
> agent, accusing my brother of being an FBI agent. It is a typical 
> misinformation campaign.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Vernon: Let me deal with that this way. First of all, based on our 
> investigations, me pouring through all these different documents, 
> Ward Churchill, who was a white man, IS a white man, arrived on the 
> scene, according to his own words: "teaching" the Rapid City police 
> depar

Re: project for Pen-l

[Bill Burgess]

> > My list:

No 1. on my list, is, paraphrasing Marx, "Workers go to the wall under both 
free trade and protectionism." In some ways, this covers some of the same 
ground as one of Peter's points:

 >3. The case for free trade (and comparative advantage) is, in the end, 
the same as
 >the case for free markets in general.

I think this project is very worthwhile. Several months ago I benefited 
from the help of several Penners who replied with very useful advice and 
copies of papers when I asked for help on this topic. This list does have a 
'speciality' - it has top-notch professional and other economists, who have 
the ability to provide both internal and external critiques of 
neo-classical claims. Joan Robinson said something like, "The purpose of 
studying economics is...to avoid being deceived by economists."  Pen-L 
could lay out some of the examples. I appreciate most of the 'non-economic' 
topics discussed here, but why not take more advantages of the particular 
strengths of the list?

There was talk awhile ago about putting togeather some kind of intro 
textbook, but perhaps that was too ambitious. Is it too much to imagine 
that 'free' trade might be the first in series of informal collections of 
resources aimed at teachers of economics, teachers in other discipines, and 
for use in other spheres?

Bill Burgess

A little rant about NPR propaganda on unemployment

[William S. Lear]

I was listening to NPR this morning and they had a brief report on
unemployment benefits paid by states.  They had an economist from the
Economic Policy Institute (EPI) on to describe the basic facts.  Well,
NPR had a few quotes from the EPI guy to lay out the basic problem:
unemployment insurance in almost all states is woefully inadequate to
sustain people through times of unemployment, and very unequal from
state to state (it's especially bad in California, which ranks *last*
among all states, AND is a very expensive place to live).  BUT, and
here's a key technique in a well-functioning propaganda system: when
it came to describing WHY this might be so, they essentially silenced
the EPI economist, and turned to one from the business-friendly
think-tank, the Brookings Institution, who basically said this was
because states want workers to look really hard to find work.  In
other words, a non-explanation of the problem that somehow seems to
imply that it is the lazy workers who need to be prodded by scanty
benefits to find their next job.  No mention of the demand by
BUSINESS that their employees be forced to depend on nobody but
BUSINESS for their welfare.  That helps to make workers SUBSERVIENT TO
BUSINESS NEEDS.  No mention of this very important relationship was
allowed to be heard.

This of course is quite typical with any number of topics: each topic
is treated *sui generis* and the common thread linking many of our
social problems --- the ineluctable GREED of BUSINESS --- is never
mentioned, and this makes it appear to people that instead of having
ONE basic problem, we have countless pain-in-the-ass problems that
have no common thread, thus making EVEN THINKING ABOUT A SOLUTION
difficult or impossible, and so people just TURN OFF and remain
disgusted --- at what they are not exactly sure.

The EPI report on unemployment, if you're interested, is at:

http://www.epinet.org/Issuebriefs/ib169.html

Apologies for the gratuitous ALL CAPS, but as one who has recently
found himself out of work, I felt I deserved the luxury.


Bill

Re: Re: Peace activists disagree with WardChurchill's comments

[Doug Henwood]

Michael Perelman wrote:

>1. Churchill is a Native American, who has written extensively about the
>Holocaust of Native Americans.  His thesis has not been warmly received.  So I
>can understand why he may express some insensitivity about the slaughter of
>Americans -- even if some of the "Americans" were not really Americans are
>all.
>
>2. Churchill's strong language makes for easy criticism, but once Churchill is
>picked off, then the pressure put on people like my colleague, George Wright,
>for making a couple statements that were taken out of context, becomes
>acceptable.  The attack on freedom of speech always begins at the margin.


On Ward Churchill, opinions differ. From an interview with Vernon 
Bellecourt 
:

Vernon: What is behind it is the same FBI orchestrated program using 
agents willing or unwilling or knowing people like Ward Churchill, 
Russell Means and Bob Robideau in particular. Those three have 
started this disinformation campaign by attacking the leadership of 
AIM, making wild allegations. Now what you have to understand about 
Ward Churchill...this man is still under investigation (we publish 
reports of our investigation on our website under ministry of 
information). This man claims to have served in Vietnam as an 
information specialist. Now, if one would analyze what information 
specialists did in Vietnam...they were actually misinformation 
specialists putting out misinformation to set up assassinations of 
Vietnam leaders, etc. When he got out of the military (in his own 
writing) he states this. What we are maintaining is that this guy is 
part of a misinformation campaign. In answer to your question, what 
he tends to do is take 5% fact and mix it with 95% bullshit and stirs 
it up to the point where people out there begin to question our 
message. In other words they begin to question the messenger rather 
than read the message.

Now that was picked up by the Native News outlets and Native American 
press here in Minneapolis. I have a lawsuit that is moving through 
the courts because they have now become part of the misinformation 
campaign. That is, the writer here, Joe Geshick has admitted being an 
associate of Ward Churchill. Joe Geshick also attended those sham 
tribunals in California. And it seems to be that the 10 or 12 people 
that are all lined up with Ward Churchill, seemingly are all behind 
this misinformation campaign, who previously almost every month or so 
accused someone else of being implicit in the death of Anna Mae. 
First it was John Trudell, then it was myself. And now they are 
suggesting it is Dennis Banks.

Now this is a very important point in response to your question. 
About 7 years ago, after having looked through files of documents, I 
called a man named Gordon Regguinti, who was the editor of the Circle 
newspaper here in Minneapolis, and Paul Demain, editor of News from 
Indian Country. I invited them over to my house. I sat them down and 
I start putting all these documents in front of them. I said, "you 
know Paul, I get a sense that a lot of journalists, particularly 
Indian journalists, you can dangle news right under their noses and 
they can not see or smell a story when it is put right in front of 
them. But here is what I think," and I start telling them about the 
attacks Ward Churchill was launching.

How Ward Churchill had gotten Russell Means to meet with the CIA in 
Virginia. Later, under director of Ward Churchill and Glen Morris, 
Russell Means entered in from Costa Rica to Nicaragua with the CIA 
sponsored contra, and in fact actually caused the death of Miskito 
Indians. When we confronted Ward Churchill with that, he and Russell 
Means came back and accused us --that is, Bill Means, myself and 
Clyde---of causing the deaths of Miskito Indians. There were people 
that were with them, and they know for a fact that it was Russell 
means that in fact caused a Miskito Indian village to be bombed with 
several people being killed. But what happens with this 
misinformation campaign, whenever they're confronted, they come back 
and make the same accusations--such as accusing me of being an FBI 
agent, accusing my brother of being an FBI agent. It is a typical 
misinformation campaign.

[...]

Vernon: Let me deal with that this way. First of all, based on our 
investigations, me pouring through all these different documents, 
Ward Churchill, who was a white man, IS a white man, arrived on the 
scene, according to his own words: "teaching" the Rapid City police 
department about AIM. You could take the word "teaching" out of it, 
put [in] "informing," very easily. And that's exactly what he was. 
And that is what he is today. He admits to being this white man 
standing behind the hill from Porcupine on June 26th, [1975] [-] 
being behind the hill from Porcupine, urinating against the hill when 
he witnessed these FBI federal marshalls, BIA police with armored 
pers

Re: Re: Peace activists disagree with Ward Churchill's comments

[steve]

Thanks for the comments Michael.  I expect to take some heat for having the
gall to put out this story, many on the left would surely rather not know
about it since they have an image of Churchill as one of the great
representatives of the left and more particularly Native American issues.
This I believe is a probematic assumption due to the well known history of
Churchill's alliance with Russel Means and the support that Means and
Churchill showed for the Contras in Nicaragua during the 1980's.  Many
excuses for this alliance have been offered, but I have yet to hear a
justification for that move.

In this instance I made known to those on a number of public left lists the
recent reaction of a organizers to Churchill's comments and the fact that
those remarks essentially undercut their ability to establish greater
credibility for the anti-war movement.  The heart of the matter, in my book,
comes down to this, to borrow from a post I sent to the SR list earlier
today:

"Are activists in Burlington that unable to think ahead?  That unaware of
the
past links between Churchill, Means, and the Contras? Why not, instead, with
the money they wasted on flying him out to Burlington, not fly up a few
family members who lost family due to WTC and are now opposing Bush's "war
on terror"?  Why not have them give speeches at the rally?  Admittedly they
are not celebrities like Churchill or Means, but they might have something
more valuable to offer the movement at the moment."

The responses that have (falsely) accused me of siding with the Burlington
Free Press's attempt to restrict free speech (which they didn't actually,
the columnist who called Churchill on his remarks actually supported his
right to make the remarks).  I ask a different question for the left. We
know that the media will try to associate the anti-war movement with support
for the attacks.  Why, knowing that, would left activists want to bring a
person to speak at a rally knowing that his public on line remarks can be
expected to be used to malign the movement?

It is one thing when the press maligns Chomsky or Zinn, dedicated leftists
who not only don't make inaccurate assessments of the significance of 9/11
(can you imagine Chomsky or Zinn saying something so bizarre as calling the
survivors "eichmanns"?  Even in private? Let alone could we imagine a
Chomsky or Zinn alligning themselves with a Russel Means? Helping him to
make trips to Nicaragua to support the contras...?
Nota bene, I have on this list and others defended Chomsky against the
distortion of his comments on 9/11 by persons like Leo Casey.  That was,
however, because Chomsky's remarks were defendable.

Steve

Ashcroft is in town to further co-ordinateexpanded "police powers"

[Charles Brown]

Ashcroft is in town to further co-ordinate expanded "police powers"
with Canada.
We couldn't get definite info on his where abouts, but thought he shouldn't
get through here without some vocal opposition.

Anyone who can make it, come to the Detroit Windsor Tunnel, 11 am to
noon on Monday, December 3. Say NO to military tribunals, racist profiling
of Arab people and slashing our rights! I'm making some signs tonight.
Bring what you have or can make.

Re: Peace activists disagree with Ward Churchill's comments

[Michael Perelman]

I have been trying to avoid debates about the World Trade Center here.  Since
Steve posted the article about Churchill, several points are in order.

1. Churchill is a Native American, who has written extensively about the
Holocaust of Native Americans.  His thesis has not been warmly received.  So I
can understand why he may express some insensitivity about the slaughter of
Americans -- even if some of the "Americans" were not really Americans are
all.

2. Churchill's strong language makes for easy criticism, but once Churchill is
picked off, then the pressure put on people like my colleague, George Wright,
for making a couple statements that were taken out of context, becomes
acceptable.  The attack on freedom of speech always begins at the margin.


--

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

Re: Re: Re: Little Finance Terminology Question

[Doug Henwood]

Rob Schaap wrote:

>Onya, Doug!  Although I hadn't realised enough NASDAQ companies were
>projecting dividends to allow the calculation.  And would that be Fisher
>Black, the dude you chide in WS for calculating risk in terms of deviation
>from an expected return, rather than factoring in a notion inferred by the
>rest us when we hear the word; ie. 'loss'?

The very same Fisher Black. Most of the time - 99% or more - those 
sort of risk calculations work. But 1% isn't that small a number - 
it's about two trading days a year, when hell can break loose. Just 
ask LTCM.

Doug

technology transfer

[Devine, James]

[was: RE: [PEN-L:20285] Re: Re: Re: RE: project for Pen-l]

Ali writes: > many in the international organizations sincerely believe in
technology spill over and linkages, of these there are backward and  forward
linkages, <

One problem with "technology transfer" is that the technology, even if used
in the poor countries, is still owned by the corporation. This means that it
runs up against "intellectual property rights." To the extent that IPR win,
technology transfer loses, and vice-versa.

as for the backward & forward linkages, in theory they could work. A plant
that assembles electronic goods in (say) Honduras might, in theory stimulate
those industries in Honduras that use electronic goods to produce other
things and those industries in Honduras that supply the raw materials used
in making electronics goods. The problem is that Honduras is a dependent
nation, in which all or almost all capital goods are imported. The linkages
are thus exported. The electronics plant also provides wages to H workers,
but the problem is that if wages in H rise above those offered by
competiting countries, capital will start thinking about moving (or about
enlisting the gov't to drive wages down).

These linkages would work better in a place like S. Korea when it was in its
Hamilton/List phase of building industry behind trade barriers in order to
win the battle of competition internationally. It won't work very well at
all for a dependent country that opens itself to the world market. 

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

Re: RE: project for Pen-l

[Michael Perelman]

Schumpeter argues that excessive competition is inimical to efficiency and
technical progress.  I discuss this in detail in my book, Natural Instability of
Markets.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Peter writes,
>
> >There is also a dynamic case, which we haven't discussed here,
> >and which mainstreamers have come to rely on as the main
> >argument. The dynamic boost (whatever it might actually be)
> >is viewed as ongoing.
>
> In the informal literature (that I'm aware of) one source of long-term benefit
> is the possibility of increased competition in markets. This provides both a
> static benefit (supposedly) along with greater rates of technological advance
> (supposedly).
>
> This requires, however, that you ignore Schumpeter's idea--which might be
> partially right--of the importance of low competition for high rates of
> innovation.
>
> Some have also suggested that trade liberalization might lead to higher returns
> to human and physical capital and these higher returns might lead to increase
> investment in both human and physical capital. Higher rates of economic growth
> might follow from this. But this argument seems a bit hypothetical.
>
> So too might knowledge be spead more rapidly by increased openness by some
> mechanism.
>
> Is there anything else the mainstream has mentioned as a source of dynamic
> benefit to trade? I'm not sure that much empirical evidence supporting these
> claims have been offered.
>
> >We are really concerned with the effects of trade liberalization,
> >both in the narrow economic sense (macro instability for instance)
> >and the broader political-economic sense.
>
> I'm with you on that.
>
> However, I think a good argument can be made that institutional differences
> between countries can shape the pattern of trade.
>
> Eric

--

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

Re: Re: Little Finance Terminology Question

[Rob Schaap]

Onya, Doug!  Although I hadn't realised enough NASDAQ companies were
projecting dividends to allow the calculation.  And would that be Fisher
Black, the dude you chide in WS for calculating risk in terms of deviation
from an expected return, rather than factoring in a notion inferred by the
rest us when we hear the word; ie. 'loss'?  

A dark morn on the street, eh?

G'Night,
Rob.

Re: Re: Re: RE: project for Pen-l

[ALI KADRI]

This is particularly true in Africa, I have worked on
this long enough to know this. Before adjustment,
Ghana, per e.g., had a manufacturing sector, which was
about 20% of its economy, after adjustment it withered
away, sort of like a Marxist dream of what should
happen to a state. But as you know many in the
international organizations sincerely believe in
technology spill over and linkages, of these there are
backward and  forward linkages, making this into a
paraphernalia of sexually co notated development
jargon, which by the by, stands a better chance in
sexual activity than in economics.

I once had a chance to discuss these issues with a
guru of investment strategy, I played curious and
dumb, the latter point I may think it is not of my
qualities, but there is a good chance it is, none the
less, to make a long story short, here goes the main
points in that discussion:

Ali: why is FDI so important to the developing world
when it only represents less than 4 percent of total
investment, and when you take extractive industry out
of this, it represents less than half a percentage
point, I want to also add that much of investment is
public investment and ODA, so why not make this work
better?

FDI GURU: Yes that is true, but it is not only about
quantity, you see it is the quality of investment that
counts; think about the Japanese model of development
and how that happened through quality FDI.

Ali: I am not sure I know enough about the Japanese
experience, but a priori, that was a different time
and different circumstance, so maybe the parallel is
not all that valid; moreover, we have had about twenty
years of so called quality FDI, and yet we are at a
stand still?

FDI guru: There are exceptions of course, I know they
are very few, but in this very open economic
environment, do you see an alternative to sharpening
competitiveness other than technology, and so under
the circumstances they might as well make do with what
they have.

Force majeure

--- Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Here is a good report about the absence of
> technology transfer.
> 
> Ross, Michael. 2001. Extractive Sectors and the
> Poor: An Oxfam
>America Report (Boston: Oxfam America).
>
> 
> On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 11:19:27PM -0800, Peter
> Dorman wrote:
> > > Is there anything else the mainstream has
> mentioned as a source of dynamic
> > > benefit to trade? I'm not sure that much
> empirical evidence supporting these
> > > claims have been offered.
> > 
> > The main argument, at least for developed
> economies, seems to be the beneficial
> > effects of competition.  LDCs are supposed to
> benefit from technology transfer.
> > There is a huge literature on this, which I
> haven't pretended to keep up with.
> > (Unlike the other literatures I do pretend to keep
> up with...)  I've made a rather
> > different argument, that technology has become
> international in a sense that has
> > little historical precedent.  The training of
> engineers, the types of equipment
> > used, and so on, has been largely standardized. 
> Techniques bounce back and forth
> > in an almost frictionless way across borders.  The
> division of labor in innovation
> > (the interconnected flow of process and product
> innovations) is also
> > international.  Thus a high degree of openness is
> a precondition for participating
> > in the technologically advanced sectors of the
> economy.  This is an inescapable
> > argument for a certain type of liberalization,
> although it doesn't follow that
> > unmanaged trade is a good idea, either nationally
> or globally.  I sketched some of
> > the evidence for this view in an article I wrote
> several years ago, "Actually
> > Existing Globalization".
> > 
> > >
> > > >We are really concerned with the effects of
> trade liberalization,
> > > >both in the narrow economic sense (macro
> instability for instance)
> > > >and the broader political-economic sense.
> > >
> > > I'm with you on that.
> > >
> > > However, I think a good argument can be made
> that institutional differences
> > > between countries can shape the pattern of
> trade.
> > 
> > Yes, you've studied that, so I'll defer.  But can
> your approach be distinguished
> > empirically from the neoclassical
> endowments-and-preferences model?
> > 
> > >
> > > Eric
> > 
> > Peter
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
> 
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.
http://shopping.yahoo.com

Re: RE:Free trade is...

[Michael Yaffey]

On Dec 3rd, James Devine wrote:
>I hope that pen-l's critique of "free trade" would
>also involve a critique of Hamilton/List nationalism, so we
>can avoid quoting such horrors as Bismark. -- Jim Devine

I have something on this (relating to small LDCs) on
http://www.bigwig.net/~new.hopes/FList.pdf
but would like to see something else if anyone can
recommend anything along those lines

Michael Yaffey

RE:Free trade is...

[jdevine]

the weapon of the victor.

Bismarck

 
comment: I hope that pen-l's critique of "free trade" would 
also involve a critique of Hamilton/List nationalism, so we 
can avoid quoting such horrors as Bismark. -- Jim Devine



_
The simple way to read all your emails at ThatWeb
http://www.thatweb.com

Re: Re: RE: project for Pen-l

[Michael Perelman]

Here is a good report about the absence of technology transfer.

Ross, Michael. 2001. Extractive Sectors and the Poor: An Oxfam
   America Report (Boston: Oxfam America).
   

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 11:19:27PM -0800, Peter Dorman wrote:
> > Is there anything else the mainstream has mentioned as a source of dynamic
> > benefit to trade? I'm not sure that much empirical evidence supporting these
> > claims have been offered.
> 
> The main argument, at least for developed economies, seems to be the beneficial
> effects of competition.  LDCs are supposed to benefit from technology transfer.
> There is a huge literature on this, which I haven't pretended to keep up with.
> (Unlike the other literatures I do pretend to keep up with...)  I've made a rather
> different argument, that technology has become international in a sense that has
> little historical precedent.  The training of engineers, the types of equipment
> used, and so on, has been largely standardized.  Techniques bounce back and forth
> in an almost frictionless way across borders.  The division of labor in innovation
> (the interconnected flow of process and product innovations) is also
> international.  Thus a high degree of openness is a precondition for participating
> in the technologically advanced sectors of the economy.  This is an inescapable
> argument for a certain type of liberalization, although it doesn't follow that
> unmanaged trade is a good idea, either nationally or globally.  I sketched some of
> the evidence for this view in an article I wrote several years ago, "Actually
> Existing Globalization".
> 
> >
> > >We are really concerned with the effects of trade liberalization,
> > >both in the narrow economic sense (macro instability for instance)
> > >and the broader political-economic sense.
> >
> > I'm with you on that.
> >
> > However, I think a good argument can be made that institutional differences
> > between countries can shape the pattern of trade.
> 
> Yes, you've studied that, so I'll defer.  But can your approach be distinguished
> empirically from the neoclassical endowments-and-preferences model?
> 
> >
> > Eric
> 
> Peter
> 

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

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

RE:RE: project for Pen-l

[jdevine]

I wrote (a day or more ago)
>>There's a difference between proposing an alternative theory
>>and getting into the standard academic and/or 
>>sectarian approach of "my Theory is better than yours."

Eric writes in response: >I think the "my theory is better than yours" can be 
productive, particularly if "my theory" really is better. <

but you seemed to be saying that one of the problems with a Shaikh-type theory of 
absolute advantage was that it claimed to be better...

>>what's wrong with rebutting the mainstream?

>Nothing, of course, unless the rebutting that is taking place is not relevant 
to current mainstream theory. <

what if your target is not to convince the professional economists as much as to (1) 
teach students an alternative view and/or (2) develop an alternative view (which might 
be in its infancy) that can grow and replace the current orthodox theory? 

>>what's wrong with absolute advantage?<<

>It is wrong in most cases. I'm not sure it makes any sense in a floating 
exchange rate regime. It also might out of necessity presume a one-factor input 
(labor) model of production. This one input model is needed to clearly 
determine the country with the absolute advantage.<

(1) No-one said that the theory is right in all cases. (Are there _any_ economic 
theories that 
are right in all cases?) Shaikh's point, as I understand it, is that if exchange rates 
do not 
adjust instantly, then there is a period in which absolute advantage applies. (The 
same works if 
the exchange rate is determined by such things as assets markets rather than by 
commodity flows, 
especially when exchange rates reflect "non-fundamentals," as you note in a different 
message.) 
That period of absolute advantage has the effect of changing the situation to the 
advantage of 
the country with the higher labor productivity. Path dependence kicks in, so that the 
final 
equilibrium achieved would differ from the equilibrium posited under the assumption of 
instant 
adjustment of exchange rates to reflect fundamentals (purchasing power parity).

The issue in the Shaikh story, as I understand it, is not whether exchange rates are 
floating. 
Rather, it's whether they instantly snap to their long-term equilibrium levels 
corresponding to 
real fundamentals.

Now, it's quite correct to note that the Ricardo/Shaikh story of autarchy being 
replaced by trade 
is a total myth. But it does say something about what happens on the margin as trade 
barriers are 
taken down.

(2) The fact that the multi-factor model cannot represent absolute advantage is a 
strike against 
that model. But I'm not convinced it can't be done. Why don't trade models use 
production 
functions with technological shifters? That is, in a Cobb-Douglas story, q =AKL with 
exponents on 
K and L, why can't A differ between countries? Is there some sort of methodological 
imperative 
against such models? 

Jim Devine


_
The simple way to read all your emails at ThatWeb
http://www.thatweb.com

Re: Little Finance Terminology Question

[Doug Henwood]

Rob Schaap wrote:

>What's this 'fair value' stock exchange pre-opening reports are always on
>about.

It's an estimate of where the futures should be trading, given time 
to maturity and the gap between dividend yields and prevailing 
interest rates. It's rather like the Black & Scholes options 
valuation model. When market values are above fair value, it suggests 
a strong opening - though operating against that is the fact that 
arbs can sell the futures and buy the stock, hoping to reverse the 
position when values return to more normal levels.

Doug

Little Finance Terminology Question

[Rob Schaap]

Hey Doug,

What's this 'fair value' stock exchange pre-opening reports are always on
about.  Never been able to make hide nor hair of it.  Whatever it means lots
of big numbers are opening well below it this week, I notice.

Cheers,
Rob.

Peace activists disagree with Ward Churchill's comments

[Stephen E Philion]

Ward Churchill was invited by Burlinton Peace activists to speak at a
rally in opposition to the  "war on terrorism". They were taken aback when
a  Burlington Free Press columnist did some elementary research on
Churchill's views on the people who died in the WTC attack. Churchill's
view that the people in the WTC bldg. were "little Eichmanns" shocked the
organizers and sponsors, one of whom pulled out of the rally, Pax Christi.

The column from Saturday's Burlington Free Press:

Hemingway

Activist's views on attacks will have people buzzing

Ward Churchill is speaking in Burlington today.

That might not mean much to most folks, although Churchill is one of the
nation's foremost experts on the plight of indigenous peoples,
particularly Native Americans.

That's important stuff, but it's his views about the Sept. 11 attacks on
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that will have people buzzing this
weekend.

Churchill, who is expected to appear at a downtown rally against the
bombing in Afghanistan this morning and at a symposium at the University
of Vermont in the afternoon, basically thinks the victims of the attacks
got what they deserved.

In a lengthy Internet essay titled, "Some people push back: On the justice
of roosting chickens," this is what he wrote about the people who
commandeered the airliners that crashed into the Pentagon and the twin
towers:

"They finally responded in kind to some of what this country has dispensed
to their people as a matter of course. That they waited to do so ... more
than anything is a testament to their patience and restraint."

As for those victims who died at the Pentagon, they were not "innocent
civilians," he wrote. "The building and those inside comprised military
targets, pure and simple."

He directed his harshest remarks at the people who worked and died inside
the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, apparently forgetting that a good
number of them worked in low-paying jobs servicing the building and its
users.

"If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of
visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little
Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd be
really interested in hearing about it."

The Eichmann reference is to Adolph Eichmann, the member of the Nazi
secret police who was convicted and executed for his part in the killing
of six million Jews during World War II.

Thankfully, we live in a nation that values free speech and is strong
enough to permit the articulation of unpopular viewpoints, even as
repugnant as Churchill's.

To be fair, his essay was written shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, so
we don't know if he remains as strident on the subject today. Attempts to
reach him by telephone this week were unsuccessful.

The essay first appeared on a Web site he helps edit and most recently was
posted on UVM philosophy professor Will Miller's Web site.

One thing's sure: UVM and the people responsible for sponsoring his visit
to Burlington don't support what he wrote about the victims.

They didn't even know he'd said those things until the essay was brought
to their attention by a reporter.

"I find it personally obnoxious and abhorrent," said Provost John Bramley.
"I didn't know a damn thing about it until today."

Ellen Kahler, director of the Peace & Justice Center, spoke about wishing
her group could "pull back" from support for Churchill's appearance at the
rally.

"It's clearly not our position at all, and it's unfortunate it came out
now," she said.

Jimmy Leas, a lawyer connected with the Burlington Anti-War Coalition,
said his group considered but rejected the idea of disinviting Churchill
upon learning of his remarks.

"What he said is so completely at variance with what we believe," Leas
said.

You have to wonder if Churchill's remarks would be as cold-blooded if he
had lost a loved one in the attacks, or what he'd say to the families of
the 13 UVM alumni who did.

Sometime this weekend, you can bet someone is going to ask Churchill about
that.

Let's see what he says.

NYT on the EU-Turkey European Force agreement

[Sabri Oncu]

New York Times, December 3, 2001

Turkey Reports Agreement on European Force

By SOMINI SENGUPTA

ISTANBUL, Dec. 2 — After months of negotiations led by American and British
diplomats, Turkish government officials announced tonight that they had
broken the deadlock in talks over the creation of a European security force.
The issue has increasingly roiled this country's relationship with the
European Union, an organization that Turkey wants to join.

Turkey has insisted on having a decision-making role in the proposed
60,000-member European Union security force, especially as it applies to the
use of the resources of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; Turkey is a
member of NATO and a candidate for membership in the European Union.
Turkey's demands have been the chief stumbling block to the creation of the
security force.

A statement from the office of Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit said an
agreement had been reached to allow cooperation between NATO and the
European Union. Turkish government officials offered no other comment. But
whatever the details of the agreement, it has yet to win the approval of the
15-member European Union. The organization is scheduled to meet later this
month to begin setting up the security force, scheduled to be in place by
2003.

"The three-party talks form a concrete basis that will provide an
opportunity to take relations between the E.U. and NATO forward in every
field," read the statement, issued today after the prime minister, his
cabinet and senior military officials ended their meeting.

Turkey worries that the European Union, which includes its rival, Greece,
would use the proposed force against its interests, namely, on the divided
island of Cyprus in the Aegean Sea. Turkey has sought to participate in the
decisions. For their part, the Europeans have rejected giving Turkey an
automatic seat at the table. Rather, the European Union has said Turkey and
other nonmember states would be consulted on a case- by-case basis.

Turkey's intransigence on the issue emerged in recent weeks as the chief
symbol of tensions with the European Union. "It's a matter of extreme,
extreme distrust," said Soli Ozel, a professor of international relations at
Bilgi University here. "The British and the Americans have tried very hard
to reach a compromise."

British and American diplomats have held three meetings in Ankara in recent
months to work out a solution, and the matter is expected to be on the
agenda during Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's visit this week. The
United States has a stake in this fight: it prefers that the would-be
European force use NATO resources rather than create a separate military
unit.

Turkey has already been assured that the European Union force will not
intervene in the political disputes of NATO allies, like the Greek-Turkish
standoff over Cyprus.

The Dutch foreign minister, Jozias van Aartsen, and Prime Minister Guy
Verhofstadt of Belgium, who currently presides over the European Union, met
senior Turkish officials last week to try to iron out a deal.


http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/03/international/europe/03TURK.html