Re: Re: Bankruptcies & Residential debt in Oz
> G'day Doug, You wrote: > hmm, so what's with this? > > ASIA-PACIFIC: New data show strong growth in Australia > Financial Times; Jan 8, 2002 > By REUTERS: AGENCY MATERIAL and STEPHEN WYATT Well, good retail stats accompany bad residential debt and bankruptcy stats pretty snugly, and good construction stats (not counting plummetting commercial space markets (once considered a nasty indicator all by itself) accompany gigantic government giveaways to first-home builders (the election induced a $23 billion government pork frenzy - hardly ideologically sound, but sometimes you do have to go against the theory to convince the people it's right, eh?). The election is over now, and the budget has fallen into deficit, so construction is going to cop it hard shortly. And anyway, the Wyatt piece looks like a puff-piece to me; just see what this fabled 'consensus' was saying yesterday: Business picture looking gloomy By IAN McPHEDRAN of The Australian in Canberra 07jan02 SALES and profits fell during the last quarter and most firms expect lower investment and growing unemployment, a new survey shows. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry's January survey of investor confidence paints a gloomy economic picture. The quarterly survey asks companies of all sizes across the nation to assess the economy and their own business. The results from about 280 respondents are compiled into a series of indexes rating economic factors. Overall the index for economic activity jumped from 49.2 in July last year to 51.3 but remains well below the peak of January, 2000. The investment outlook remains soft with more firms putting off investment decisions. They also expect unemployment to rise with 51.4 per cent predicting higher jobless levels. ACCI's chief economist Steven Kates said the most telling result was that 40 per cent of firms recorded lower-than-expected sales before Christmas. ACCI's acting chief executive Lyndon Rowe said: "That there is some indication of a slow down of activity and a fall off in confidence should not be surprising," he said. Cheers, Rob.
Re: FW: Re: Re: sinking Argentina
Very interesting and relevant subject of controversy, Jim. But is the "forced circulation" of fiat money a reality? If it were, general level of prices would be immutable. Unless you believe in the "quantity theory". Do you? If yes, it is another controversy. On the other hand, if people don't trust a fiat money, nobody can force them to use it. They use another one. I think that the problem lies elsewhere. What can be forced is not the circulation but the full-discharge payment. In other words: the account unit of the debt. Fiat money enables producers to reflect all increasing costs of production in their prices of production and, this way, to pass additional cost on to the creditors. What the ancient monetary units like raw materials, grain, silver and gold did not allow, because of the "scarcity" you mention and define, that is to say they did not allow to restore relative prices when upstream prices increase. So that monarchs and oligarchs were periodically lead to purge the debt (as reflected in Ancient Testament, by the "jubilee"). But in both cases, recurrent moratoriums or full-discharging fiat money, the purge of debt is a destruction of financial capital. And this is, I think, the reason why fiat money is seen as "forced". Therefore, the problem is the one of debt a world money has first to be related to. It is matter of a full-discharging world money that depends, I agree with you, on the kind of economy which gets hegemony. If hegemony was of say oil-producers countries, world money would be oil or any currency related to oil. As hegemony is of an oil importer, world money is a fiat one that allows to govern relative and real prices between oil and final goods and services. So, the only way of getting out of monetary crises is an agreement between countries according to which every country may pay its debt in any convertible currency, but its own. The BIS can manage that. But that poses the problem of getting rid of asymmetric exchanges and of all kind of imperialism, when even UNO has become an instrument of occidental empire. Has it not? Romain Kroës - Original Message - From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 5:55 PM Subject: [PEN-L:21223] FW: Re: Re: sinking Argentina > (By mistake, I didn't send the following to the list.) > > It's useful to get beyond what a world money _should_ be like and talk about > what it is. > > I agree with the implication of Marx's theory of money that unlike with the > use of a money such as gold that's naturally scarce (i.e., involves labor to > produce), the circulation of fiat money within a country must be "forced." > That is, governmental power is needed to preserve the value of paper money > (relative to its cost of production), so that its supply is limited and it > is acceptable in exchange. (States that fall apart due to civil wars, etc., > typically suffer from hyperinflation, as the fiat money's value goes to > zero.) > > That implies that a "world money" requires a world _state_. This in turn > implies that the hegemony of the dollar since World War II is based on the > US military, economic, and financial hegemony -- and that any future world > money will have to be based on some similar hegemony, perhaps of another > country. > > -- Jim Devine
China to take a decade to remove yuan controls
The Times of India THURSDAY, JANUARY 03, 2002 It'll take a decade to remove yuan controls: China BEIJING: Chinese state media said Thursday it would take another decade before the country opened up its capital accounts and entirely removed controls on its currency. The recently emerging threat of a plunging Japanese yen has served to underline the need to be careful about liberalization in the field, the Xinhua news agency said in its online service. "In the coming 10 years, China should not rashly open up its capital account," Xinhua said. China liberalized its current account for transactions in goods and services in 1996, while its capital account remains closed. The local currency, the yuan, is effectively pegged to the US currency at about 8.28 to the dollar, although local officials refer to the foreign-exchange system as a "managed float." "The yuan should maintain its long-term stability under the managed-float system in order to prevent excessive international capital flows and the spread of financial crises, and in order to cope with a Japanese devaluation," Xinhua said. China previously said it would open up its capital account by the year 2000, but that deadline was later abandoned, as policy makers got cold feet from the turmoil of the 1997-1998 Asian financial crisis. Xinhua said China's entry into the World Trade Organization, which formally took place on December 11 last year, also means opening up the capital account is not a short-term prospect. "Over the next decade, China should concentrate its efforts on the economic restructuring necessitated by WTO entry," Xinhua said. "We cannot fight a two-front war at the moment. We must first look inwards (in carrying out reform), and then outwards," the agency said. ( AFP ) Copyright © 2001 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved.
Re: Budget follies
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >CB: Do supply-siders express an aim to lessen recessions' unemployment >etc by their tax cuts for capital, or do they say recession is a >necessary, good thing ? Real supply-siders believe either (1) that unemployment is mostly voluntary and the unemployed should get off their asses and start a business or something instead of whining and looking for a hand-out; or (2) that the unemployed are unemployed because well-meaning entreprenuers can't create jobs for them thanks to bureaucratic red-tape, high taxes that punish success, and government regulations that force businessmen to pay workers more than they're worth. or some combination of (1) and (2). Remember that back in September, Dick Armey publicly opposed extending unemployment and health benefits on the grounds that such hand-outs were "not commensurate with the American spirit." Ellen
The Supremes side with business again
I glanced at the papers in the grocery store this morning and all newspapers I saw featured the latest unanimous pro-business decision by the Supreme Court. The ruling in *Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams*, apparently holds that work is not a "major life activity ... of central importance", and that when applying the Americans with Disabilities Act, one must look at disabilities that "substantially limit" one's ability to do such things as washing one's face, or brushing one's teeth. As they point out in the third paragraph of their opinion, "major life activities refers to those activities that are of central importance to daily life". One would think that laboring under the control of others, for extended periods during the most productive hours of the day, would be of the *utmost* "central importance" to one's life. But apparently the Court believes that labor for others is simply some sort of gift from a benevolent Father, and that when such labor causes injury that prevents someone from further working, the benevolent Father has every right simply to withdraw the gift. In passing they note that a lower District Court "rejected respondents arguments that gardening, doing housework, and playing with children are major life activities". One wonders what is left of a person after having these activities and others removed from "major life activities". This one needs to be filed under "Events which Show how Business Controls the World". Bill
Re: The Supremes side with business again
On Wednesday, January 9, 2002 at 09:49:13 (-0600) William S. Lear writes: >... BTW, the decision can be found at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=00-1089 Incidentally, the reason work is not central to one's life is given near the end of the decision: Because of the conceptual difficulties inherent in the argument that working could be a major life activity, we have been hesitant to hold as much, and we need not decide this difficult question today. Bill
state power theory of money
[was: RE: [PEN-L:21246] Re: FW: Re: Re: sinking Argentina ] Romain Kroes writes:> Very interesting and relevant subject of controversy, Jim.< thanks. > But is the "forced circulation" of fiat money a reality? < By "forced circulation," I mean (and I believe Marx meant) the use of state power to ensure that the fiat currency is used and accepted within a certain geographical area. The U.S. dollar has legal status in the U.S. -- it's legal tender for payment of all debts, public or private -- while the U.S. government accepts the fiat money in payment of dollars, fees, fines, etc., creating a permanent demand-side underpinning for its having a market-value above its production cost. (One interpretation of one U.S. financial crisis under 19th-century President Jackson was that it was sparked by the government's refusal to accept fiat money in payment for its sales of western lands. That is, the government lapsed in its role as underpinning the demand the fiat money.) Further, the Federal Reserve -- an agency of the U.S. government -- keeps its supply limited. As I said, if the power of the state collapses -- as in Germany after World War I or the U.S. Confederacy in 1865 -- the fiat behind the money collapses, so the fiat money itself loses value. (BTW, this presumes that the state doesn't want hyperinflation. I think that makes sense except when the state itself is falling apart.) > If it were, general level of prices would be immutable. < I don't get this, unless the power of the state is always constant. Also, though the power of the state is the fundamental or structural basis for the value of fiat money, there are all sorts of short-term or conjunctural factors which play a role. > Unless you believe in the "quantity theory". Do you? If yes, it is another controversy. < Somewhere in volume III of CAPITAL (I'll look for the reference if you wish), Marx endorses a version of the quantity theory of money for _fiat money_ (though not for gold or other commodity moneys). That is, if the quantity supplied of a convertible non-gold currency rises relative to the amount of gold that backs it up, the gold price of the former falls (cet. par.) so that prices stated in the non-gold currency rise. Under the gold standard, the same happens with officially non-convertible moneys. I don't believe in the quantity theory of money (which I interpret as positing a simple and stable positive relationship between the quantity of money and the price level), because the demand for money is typically unstable. Further, the quantity theory's added assumption that the economy always operates at full employment is demonstrably false. The quantity theory does have a "rational core," i.e., that if there's persistently too much fiat money in circulation relative to demand it encourages inflation and even hyperinflation. The problem is that the quantity theorists (e.g., Milton Friedman) interpret this type of event as merely a mistake by the government or as a sign of its perfidy. I interpret it instead as a sign that the state is falling apart, that society is divided by severe class and other struggles, that the government can't collect sufficient taxes or cut expenditures enough -- and finds itself able to borrow only at usurious rates that make its budget deficit worse. (If it can't borrow, then the deficit must be "monetized.") Economic dependency makes this sitution more likely. (Internal struggles need not be reflected in hyperinflation, as seen (until recently) in Argentina. With the kind of forced dollar/peso parity that Argentina had, the conflict is reflected in other ways. So even though conflict causes inflation cet. par., it need not do so in all situations.) > On the other hand, if people don't trust a fiat money, nobody can force them to use it. They use another one. I think that the problem lies elsewhere.< Though subjective trust in money -- i.e., a belief that other people will accept it -- is crucial, I believe that the forcing of the circulation of money described above is the objective basis for the subjective trust. > What can be forced is not the circulation but the full-discharge payment. In other words: the account unit of the debt. Fiat money enables producers to reflect all increasing costs of production in their prices of production and, this way, to pass additional cost on to the creditors.< please explain. > What the ancient monetary units like raw materials, grain, silver and gold did not allow, because of the "scarcity" you mention and define, that is to say they did not allow to restore relative prices when upstream prices increase. So that monarchs and oligarchs were periodically lead to purge the debt (as reflected in Ancient Testament, by the "jubilee"). But in both cases, recurrent moratoriums or full-discharging fiat money, the purge of debt is a destruction of financial capital. And this is, I think, the reason why fiat money is seen as "forced".< To me, it's not just
Budget follies
Budget follies by Max Sawicky 08 January 2002 21:44 They say the recession is somebody else's fault and will be over soon. mbs CB: Thanks, Max. I forget. What is the rationale for their tax cut ? That the rich will invest it, starting a new round of investment , and ending the recesssion ? > > %% > > CB: Do supply-siders express an aim to lessen recessions' > unemployment etc by their tax cuts for capital, or do they say > recession is a necessary, good thing ? > >
Budget follies
Budget follies by Ellen Frank 09 January 2002 15:40 UTC Thanks, Ellen, Would I be right in thinking that part of the supply-sider rationale would be that the rich will invest the taxcuts; that is the bone supply-siders throw to the unemployed, the indirect help in making more jobs for them to have ; that mean spirited Americanism ? Charles >CB: Do supply-siders express an aim to lessen recessions' unemployment >etc by their tax cuts for capital, or do they say recession is a >necessary, good thing ? Real supply-siders believe either (1) that unemployment is mostly voluntary and the unemployed should get off their asses and start a business or something instead of whining and looking for a hand-out; or (2) that the unemployed are unemployed because well-meaning entreprenuers can't create jobs for them thanks to bureaucratic red-tape, high taxes that punish success, and government regulations that force businessmen to pay workers more than they're worth. or some combination of (1) and (2). Remember that back in September, Dick Armey publicly opposed extending unemployment and health benefits on the grounds that such hand-outs were "not commensurate with the American spirit." Ellen
2002 OUTLOOK: Economists say vehicle sales could fall 10%
2002 OUTLOOK: Economists say vehicle sales could fall 10% January 9, 2002 BY ALEJANDRO BODIPO-MEMBA DETROIT FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER Citing the effects of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks along with a weakening economy, economists from the three traditional Detroit automakers estimate car and light-truck sales will fall as much as 10 percent in 2002. The chief economists for General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group projected that U.S. sales will be between 15 million and 15.5 million cars, vans, pickups and sport-utility vehicles this year, compared with the 17.2 million vehicles sold in 2001. Detroit's automakers will begin telling Wall Street analysts today how they plan to cut costs and reduce excess manufacturing capacity. All three companies have scheduled meetings with analysts this week in Detroit. Speaking Tuesday at the 2002 Automotive Outlook confere, Mustafa Mohatarem of GM, Ellen Hughes-Cromwick of Ford and Van Jolissaint of DaimlerChrysler AGaddressed the health of the U.S. auto industry. The trio pointed to several reasons for the current woes being faced by domestic automakers. While sounding notes of cautious optimism about the prospects for automakers, the economists said uncertainty about the economy made predictions tough to make. The U.S. economy fell into a recession in March. Auto sales were already slowing when the attacks brought the economy into even greater uncertainty. A major concern of the economists is the effect the zero-percent finance war had on 2002 auto sales. DaimlerChrysler's Jolissaint said deep discounts offered to consumers in the fourth quarter caused upward of 500,000 vehicles to be sold at the end of 2001 that might otherwise have been sold this year. "There is still a lot of uncertainty four months after 9/11. We think the zero-percent financing will lower sales in 2002." Consumer confidence also plummeted in the second half of 2001, and automakers found themselves operating with significant excess capacity. While forecasting a mild recovery in the second half of 2002, the economists pointed to several positive trends. Leading indicators have shown upward trends the last three months and interest rates remain low. In addition, moves by the Federal Reserve designed to bolster consumer confidence over the last year may bear fruit this year, the economists say. "I think the auto industry will do better than the current consensus," Mohatarem said. "With continued strong monetary and fiscal stimulus, I expect the economy will be stronger in 2002." Prior to September, the three automakers were also coming under intense pricing pressure from foreign competitors. According to economists, the Japanese imports, in particular, have been eating away at the former Big Three's U.S. market share. Few experts will say with absolute certainty what will happen with auto sales and profits in the year ahead. Ford's economist, Hughes Cromwick, and DaimlerChrysler's Jolissaint estimate sales of cars and light trucks should be around 15.5 million in 2002. Mohatarem of GM projects sales will likely be between 15 million and 15.5 million cars and light trucks. "We think the market will come back, but we remain cautious, cautious, cautious," said Wolfgang Bernhard, Chrysler Group chief operating officer in a recent interview at the Los Angeles Auto Show. "This is a hard year, a very hard year to forecast. The toughest I can remember." Contact ALEJANDRO BODIPO-MEMBA at 313-222-5008 or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ford to cut 17,000 jobs, close 3 assembly plants
Ford to cut 17,000 jobs, close 3 assembly plants DEARBORN -- Ford Motor Co.'s Board of Directors today is expected to consider a sweeping restructuring plan that will include closing three North American assembly plants by 2003, eliminating 17,000 full-time jobs, sharply reducing contract workers and taking an estimated $4-billion charge against earnings. 01/09/02 http://www.detroitnews.com/autosinsider/index.htm
RE: Budget follies
when they feel compelled to address recession, they use that claim. otherwise they try to change the subject to the long-term need for investment, or they try to inveigle people with the promise of "giving you your money back." On the positive side, they do not invoke the Democratic canard that higher surpluses will cause interest rates to fall and cause investment spending to end the recession. mbs > > CB: Thanks, Max. I forget. What is the rationale for their tax > cut ? That the rich will invest it, starting a new round of > investment , and ending the recesssion ? > > >
Re: Re: Budget follies
Ellen Frank wrote: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >>CB: Do supply-siders express an aim to lessen recessions' unemployment >>etc by their tax cuts for capital, or do they say recession is a >>necessary, good thing ? > >Real supply-siders believe either > >(1) that unemployment is mostly voluntary and the >unemployed should get off their asses and start a >business or something instead of whining and looking >for a hand-out; or > >(2) that the unemployed are unemployed because >well-meaning entreprenuers can't create jobs for >them thanks to bureaucratic red-tape, high taxes that >punish success, and government regulations that force >businessmen to pay workers more than they're worth. > >or some combination of (1) and (2). Remember that >back in September, Dick Armey publicly opposed extending >unemployment and health benefits on the grounds that >such hand-outs were "not commensurate with >the American spirit." And there's (3) Excessively tight monetary policy, courtesy of central bankers who believe in the discredited notion of the Phillips Curve, when they really should set policy by the gold price and other market-based measures. If you're by a TV the morning of the next employment report (Feb 1), tune into CNBC and get an earful of Larry Kudlow. Doug
: Re: Budget follies
Doug writes: >And there's > >(3) Excessively tight monetary policy, courtesy of central bankers >who believe in the discredited notion of the Phillips Curve, when >they really should set policy by the gold price and other >market-based measures. > >If you're by a TV the morning of the next employment report (Feb 1), >tune into CNBC and get an earful of Larry Kudlow. > >Doug > Right. I had forgotten that one. Jude Wanniski has me on his mailing list ever since my one appearance on the appalling O'Reilly Factor -- so I get regular updates on this. I will say that these guys are way less mean-spirited than creeps like Armey.
Re: Budget follies
Absolutely right. That's the whole idea. In thier world-view, which I think is widely held in America, businessmen (and women!)are the heroes. Adversity -- like unemployment -- spurs the heroic to action -- to take risks, start businesses. In this way the heroes provide incomes and opportunity for their meeker brethren. Taxing the heroes reduces both their ability and their incentive to take risks. Charles writes: >Would I be right in thinking that part of the supply-sider rationale >would be that the rich will invest the taxcuts; that is the bone >supply-siders throw to the unemployed, the indirect help in making more >jobs for them to have ; that mean spirited Americanism ? > >Charles >
RE: : Re: Budget follies
Ellen writes: >I will say that these guys [supply-siders] are way less mean-spirited than creeps like Armey.< right. If anyone remembers Jack Kemp, he advocated supply-side economics as beneficial not only to the majority of Amurricans but also to minorities. He was quite the optimist in terms of his self-presentation, reminiscent of the old "New Deal" Keynesians & Democrats (before the latter fell in love with the balanced budget or budget surpluses). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: state power theory of money
I just was handed a patacon from someone who just returned from Argentina. The first thing that hits you is that it looks so much like their peso. The patacon was issued and used to pay government worker salaries. They key state power here was the declaration that patacones would be accepted in payment of taxes. Of course, then there is another state power implied there--the power to tax. An the power to issue the patacon. And the power to set prices for goods and services the government purchases. So any state power theory of money must recognize at least these powers: 1) power to tax; 2) power to issue currency; 3) power to declare "public receivability" (what will settle obligations at state pay offices); 4) power to set certain prices. This is straight chartalist monetary theory. Mat -Original Message- From: Devine, James [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 12:05 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [PEN-L:21251] state power theory of money [was: RE: [PEN-L:21246] Re: FW: Re: Re: sinking Argentina ] Romain Kroes writes:> Very interesting and relevant subject of controversy, Jim.< thanks. > But is the "forced circulation" of fiat money a reality? < By "forced circulation," I mean (and I believe Marx meant) the use of state power to ensure that the fiat currency is used and accepted within a certain geographical area. The U.S. dollar has legal status in the U.S. -- it's legal tender for payment of all debts, public or private -- while the U.S. government accepts the fiat money in payment of dollars, fees, fines, etc., creating a permanent demand-side underpinning for its having a market-value above its production cost. (One interpretation of one U.S. financial crisis under 19th-century President Jackson was that it was sparked by the government's refusal to accept fiat money in payment for its sales of western lands. That is, the government lapsed in its role as underpinning the demand the fiat money.) Further, the Federal Reserve -- an agency of the U.S. government -- keeps its supply limited. As I said, if the power of the state collapses -- as in Germany after World War I or the U.S. Confederacy in 1865 -- the fiat behind the money collapses, so the fiat money itself loses value. (BTW, this presumes that the state doesn't want hyperinflation. I think that makes sense except when the state itself is falling apart.) > If it were, general level of prices would be immutable. < I don't get this, unless the power of the state is always constant. Also, though the power of the state is the fundamental or structural basis for the value of fiat money, there are all sorts of short-term or conjunctural factors which play a role. > Unless you believe in the "quantity theory". Do you? If yes, it is another controversy. < Somewhere in volume III of CAPITAL (I'll look for the reference if you wish), Marx endorses a version of the quantity theory of money for _fiat money_ (though not for gold or other commodity moneys). That is, if the quantity supplied of a convertible non-gold currency rises relative to the amount of gold that backs it up, the gold price of the former falls (cet. par.) so that prices stated in the non-gold currency rise. Under the gold standard, the same happens with officially non-convertible moneys. I don't believe in the quantity theory of money (which I interpret as positing a simple and stable positive relationship between the quantity of money and the price level), because the demand for money is typically unstable. Further, the quantity theory's added assumption that the economy always operates at full employment is demonstrably false. The quantity theory does have a "rational core," i.e., that if there's persistently too much fiat money in circulation relative to demand it encourages inflation and even hyperinflation. The problem is that the quantity theorists (e.g., Milton Friedman) interpret this type of event as merely a mistake by the government or as a sign of its perfidy. I interpret it instead as a sign that the state is falling apart, that society is divided by severe class and other struggles, that the government can't collect sufficient taxes or cut expenditures enough -- and finds itself able to borrow only at usurious rates that make its budget deficit worse. (If it can't borrow, then the deficit must be "monetized.") Economic dependency makes this sitution more likely. (Internal struggles need not be reflected in hyperinflation, as seen (until recently) in Argentina. With the kind of forced dollar/peso parity that Argentina had, the conflict is reflected in other ways. So even though conflict causes inflation cet. par., it need not do so in all situations.) > On the other hand, if people don't trust a fiat money, nobody can force them to use it. They use another one. I think that the problem lies elsewhere.< Though subjective trust in money -- i.e., a belief that other people will accept it -- is crucial, I b
Dissidents' Trial Begins in Iran
TEHRAN, Iran - The trial of 15 Iranian dissidents charged with plotting to overthrow the Islamic establishment began behind closed doors Tuesday at the hard-line Revolutionary Court in Tehran. Outside the courthouse, some 20 family members of the defendants staged a sit-in demonstration in below-freezing temperatures to protest the closing of the trial to the public. Narges Mohammadi, the wife of accused activist and writer Taqi Rahmani, called the trial a mockery of justice. ``There is nothing valid about this trial,'' she told reporters. Mohammadi said her husband had been charged with ``apostasy,'' which carries the death sentence in Iran. The defendants are mainly writers, journalists and university professors from the liberal National Religious Alliance. Most were arrested in March for attending a meeting at the home of a prominent political activist, and some were arrested later. If convicted, they could face long prison terms. Six of those being held have been in jail as long as 13 months, some in solitary confinement. Nine others were recently released on bail. Defendants include opposition leaders Habibollah Peyman and Ezatollah Sahabi, and journalist Reza Alijani, who recently won an award from the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders. Iran has been caught up in a power struggle between religious liberals and conservatives that intensified after the 1997 election of the reformist President Mohammad Khatami (news - web sites). The popular president was re-elected last year for another four-year term. Religious hard-liners who control key institutions such as the judiciary have stalled efforts by Khatami to ease religious restrictions and allow more political freedom for Iran's predominantly young population. Since last year, the hard-liners have illegally closed down nearly every liberal publication, jailing and intimidating journalists, academics and activists. They have also jailed legislators who dared to criticize the heavy-handed tactics. The National Religious Alliance, a liberal political group opposed to Iran's hard-line clerics, rejects violence and seeks political reforms within the Islamic establishment. Iranian reformers and international human rights groups have criticized the trial. In a statement ahead of the trial, Reporters Without Borders said it was worried the accused were not getting a strong defense. ``We have full reason to fear that these journalists will not be given a fair trial. To date their advocates have not had access to their clients' files nor even to the indictment,'' the group's general secretary, Robert Menard, said in a written statement Monday. _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
RE: RE: state power theory of money
Mat writes: >This is straight chartalist monetary theory.< can you tell me (pen-l) about who developed this tradition? somehow I never picked it up and seem to have developed a version of it independently. -- Jim
Fw: confidential
Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/ I received the following posting. I have forwarded it to various addresses: - Original Message - From: "charles mosanga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 3:24 PM Subject: confidential attn: Karl Carlile I am sending this message to you with the hope thayou will understand it's content and as well co-operate,as it will opportune us the privillage to establish mutuality and do to one another a life time favour.I got your contact from your country web. I am Charles Mosanga UGANDAN national.I do not intend to take you too much aback but ,I belive if you listen to the B.B.C. news or if you are conversant with the political events in Africa, then you should be aware of the assasination of the president of THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO President Laurent D. Kabila ,on tuesday the 16th of january 2001. This assasination was executed by my half brother COL.RACHID KAPENGA who's father hails from Congo.He was thepersonal bodyguard to the President.Prior to the president's death, my brother had surmmoned me and my mother to our family home in KAMPALA the Capital city of my Country .He showed to me certificate of deposit and other valuable documents belonging to a security company based in LOME the Capital city of TOGO inWest-Africa. He further disclosed to me that the President had secretly deposited the sum of Thirty Eight Million Seven Hundred Thousand United States Dollars($38,700,000.00) Without revealing to the security offcials the true contents of the consignment as it was deposited as a trunk box containing valuable and top secret governmental documents. He said the president had instructed him to quickly go to Lome and claim this money and hand it over to his friend president Charles Taylor of Liberia West-Africa for the purchase of ammunition to strengthen the military force of the Congo Army, following a percieved attack from the opposition forces of the United Anti Kabila Front . However,my brother was the president's most trusted guard and this gave him a direct access to the president's family and fortunately and as God will have it, a member of the Kabila family who was very close to my brother had earlier informed my brother that Mr Kabila was planning a massacre on all his opposition and might certainly extend to all his guards as he intends employing new ones for fear that his guards are too close to his family and as well know too much about his secrets. This is why my brother visited us in Uganda to hand us these documents and ask us to go to LOME and claim this money for our own use without telling us what his next intentions were as he was so much in a hurry to go back to Congo.I had barely arrived Lome when my mother called me to inform me that my brother went back and killed his boss, President Laurent D. Kabilla and as such he was equally killed by other guards who did not know what my brother knew. Now, with the new developement at hand no other person knows about this except my mother and myself and I intend to transfer these funds out of here as fast as I can that is why I am contacting you. If you are willing to assist me get these funds into your Country, I am willing to offer to you 15% of thetotal sum. I have succeeded in aquiring a mobile phone . Therefore,you can contact me on the telephone numbers (+228 9 035 155) or you can contact me on e:mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I await your soonest response. Thanks and God bless. C. Mosanga __ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
WSJ editorial calls IMF idiotic
Did anyone catch an editorial in yesterday's WSJ? It seemed very anti IMF (rightly so, though I suspect for different reasons than many on this list would propose). Is this a normal WSJ stance? Since when? For those that haven't seen it, I have enclosed it below. Alan Wall Street Journal January 8, 2002 Editorial Who Lost Argentina? With Argentina devaluing its peso over the weekend, the conventional economic wisdom finally got its way. We hope that Argentines now watching their life savings dissipate feel as gratified. Someone should also pause, amid the conventional backslapping, to ask why, if the dollar-peso peg was such a terrible idea, it managed to last for a decade? The answer is that the peg did enormous good in Argentina as long as its discipline was followed. Keep in mind that the decision to anchor the peso to the dollar was made in 1991 as a last policy resort. Amid labor strikes and fears of a military coup, then-President Carlos Menem revoked the central bank's power to print local currency except when it had the dollar reserves to back it up. The result was almost immediate success. The peg restored credibility to the peso, broke the Argentine scourge of hyperinflation and brought the first economic stability to that country in our lifetimes. Argentine GDP grew by about 10% in each of the next two years and nearly 6% in the two after that. The peg even helped Argentina to ride out any contagion from Mexico's peso devaluation of 1994; growth fell in 1995 but the country's refusal to take conventional advice and follow with its own devaluation helped growth rebound through 1998. Of course, the challenge with any hard-money policy is that its benefits require that policy discipline be maintained. And over time that is something Argentina's politicians proved incapable of doing. In particular, its political system provided no control over the free-spending of state governors. The country's rigid labor laws were never eased and new private monopolies, such as in telecom, hurt its competitiveness. The peso-peg's intellectual Achilles' heel, however, was probably Mercosur, the country's customs union with neighboring Brazil. A free-trade area like Mercosur can be useful, but it is inevitably unstable when one of the countries is linked to the dollar and the other isn't. So when Brazil devalued its real in January 1999, Argentina got whacked. Devaluations of this type used to be called beggar-thy-neighbor policies for a reason. In this case it gave Brazilian products an exporting advantage and made Argentina bear the pain of adjustment. Argentine exports fell in 1999 for the only time that decade. Mercosur's common external tariffs trapped Argentina into this arrangement and blocked its industries from the discipline of global competition. In response Argentina began fiddling with its dollar-peso link, adding the euro to the mix in another sign of weakening discipline. This is where both the Clinton Treasury and the International Monetary Fund failed Argentina. At worst then-Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin encouraged Brazil to devalue, at best he did nothing to stop it. And devaluations are of course the IMF's household remedy for any economic ailment. Worse, when Argentina's economy suffered as a result, the IMF then recommended its other patent medicine -- austerity and higher taxes to close its "budget deficit." While there certainly was a budget problem, austerity to solve recession is self-defeating, not to say idiotic. Rather than devalue, Argentina would be better off now to go all the way to complete dollarization while breaking free of Mercosur. This would restore credibility to the peso, which is essential to attracting new investment. And it would limit the devastation to the living standards of the country's middle class. If there is a silver lining to this debacle, it is that Argentina's international creditors won't be bailed out. This is in contrast to what happened after the Mexican and Asian crises of the 1990s, and goes a ways toward removing moral hazard from the global monetary system. The Bush Treasury deserves credit so far for holding the line here. We can hope that in the future markets will start to pinch credit to troubled countries sooner, before any downward spiral and while there is still time for less painful remedies. It would be even better for world economic growth and stability if the IMF is one of the creditors that isn't repaid. Its bad advice has contributed to Argentina's troubles, but its bureaucrats will pay no heed until their own pretensions are pricked. They will continue to live comfortably in Washington with their own assets in dollars, immune from the damage that devaluation does to peso-holding Argentines. More hopefully, an Argentina free of the IMF could finally address its own problems more realistically. Things may now get worse before they get better, but Russia faced similar turmoil after its last economic crisis in 1998. Th
investment in rail
> COMMENT. this article captures a major component of neo-liberalism: the > lack of real investment. As far as I can tell, British Railtrack was a > privatized company which was treated simply as a speculative & financial > investment by "the City" (Britain's Wall Street). Instead of building up > the railroad's capacity, it was more the subject of a lottery. This > emphasis on financial rather than real also shows up in California's > energy emergency last year: instead of building new power plants, Enron > _et al_ soaked the public. Enron itself shows the stress on finance & > speculation rather than real investment. > > Elliott's emphasis is on the state's failure to invest in important > infrastructure such as railroads. This critique applies to the neo-liberal > state, but the previous "New Deal" style liberal state might also be > guilty (though not _as_ guilty as the neo-liberal state). > > > > Byers must not be made a scapegoat: Under-investment is to blame for the > rail crisis, not the minister > > Larry Elliott > Wednesday January 9, 2002 > > The Guardian > > Rarely has a politician slid from hero to zero as rapidly as Stephen > Byers. Back in the autumn when he pulled the plug on Railtrack and > effectively renationalised the lamest of lame ducks, Byers - the very > embodiment of New Labour greyness - found himself in the strange position > of being the toast of the left. > > But that was October. Now, fresh back from his holiday in India, the > Westminster smoke signals suggest he will be the sacrificial lamb thrown > to shivering, angry commuters waiting for the 8.12 to Waterloo. Strikes, > cancellations, delays, fare increases, congestion: Byers is being set up > as the fall guy for them all. > > Tossing Byers to the wolves has its attractions. He is scarred by the Jo > Moore affair and has hardly been the most eloquent of spokesman for his > brief. He has not been the safe pair of hands that Downing Street wanted, > so the argument goes, and should now be replaced by someone less > butter-fingered. > > But the case against the transport secretary doesn't really stack up. For > a start, the decision to put Railtrack into receivership was entirely > correct. Railtrack epitomised everything that was wrong with the > privatisation of the railways. It was not just that the company was > stuffed full of accountants and appeared to put profits before passengers, > but that as a capitalist organisation it was a complete dud. Aided and > abetted by the City and the Conservative party, the management of > Railtrack has attempted to rewrite history and present itself as the > protector of the shareholder against a confiscatory government. The simple > truth is that the falling share price was a function of the company's > inability to provide a halfway decent service without large and increasing > slugs of public money. > > Bringing the railways back into some form of public ownership - even if it > is at arms length - was a necessary first step towards sorting out the > tangled mess left behind by the Conservatives. But for some reason the > central issue for the past few months has been whether Byers has ripped > off the Railtrack shareholders. He didn't. Railtrack ripped off the > Railtrack shareholders, and since most of those left by the time the > company went belly-up were City institutions, they have only themselves to > blame. The government should give them short shrift and press ahead with > its plans for a new structure for the railways, the difficulties of which > long predate the arrival of Byers as transport secretary. > > Put bluntly, Britain has a railway system that was designed and > constructed for the world as it was 150 years ago, not the world as it is > now. A network where the routes converged on London and a few other > industrial centres may have been right for mid-Victorian Britain, but > looks anachronistic after a century which has been transformed by the car, > as well as population drift out to the suburbs and beyond. There are two > problems: those towns and cities that are linked to a metropolitan centre > by an arterial rail route are growing rapidly, and the existing commuter > services cannot cope. In addition, employment patterns have changed. It is > all very well suggesting that the worker in Hemel Hempstead should use > public transport, but if she works in Slough the M25 looks a much better > option than flogging in on the Euston line, taking the Circle line to > Paddington and heading out of London again. > > Britain needs to think hard about the sort of railway system it needs, > both upgrading the existing network to favour those who make frequent > short journeys - rather than those who make occasional long-distance trips > - and developing new ways to link the places outside of the big cities > where people now live and work. But this is self-evidently a huge task, > and it is not made any easier by the legacy of
RE: RE: RE: state power theory of money
Well, it can be found in Adam Smith (a few passages), and there are some other proto-chartalist meanderings, but the key text is Knapp's State Theory of Money. Keynes in the Treatise on Money explicitly accepts Knapp's main theses. Abba Lerner also embraced it in a short piece in the AER, 1947 I think, called "Money is a Creature of the State". More recently it can be found in Minsky (Stabilizing an Unstable Economy), and the "neo-chartalist revival" includes Randy Wray (Understanding Modern Money), Stephanie Bell (articles in the CJE, JEI), and others. Charles Goodhart is also a key recent reference--in his article in the European Journal of Political Economy, Goodhart contrasts the metalist-Mengerian-Monetarist tradition (the M-team) with the "Cartalist" tradition (the C-team). Menger's followers include the Austrians, etc., who claim that fiat money is still loosely but definitely tied to gold (and other metals) and look to the evolution of private moneys as the key,! with the State 'interfering' with these 'natural' developments. Goodhart had an interesting editorial called "One Government, One Money" asking "how can the 'one nation-one money' phenomena possibly be a coincidence?" and using the framework to highlight weaknesses in the EMU arrangements (where countries in Europe voluntarily reduce their own position to that of states in the U.S.--political entities that have no monetary authority on which to base their fiscal policies). Mat -Original Message- From: Devine, James [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 2:43 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [PEN-L:21263] RE: RE: state power theory of money Mat writes: >This is straight chartalist monetary theory.< can you tell me (pen-l) about who developed this tradition? somehow I never picked it up and seem to have developed a version of it independently. -- Jim
BLS Daily Report
> BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, DAILY REPORT, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2002: > > Unemployment grew in nearly 85 percent of the nation's metro areas in > November from a year earlier, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. > Danville, Va., where the manufacturing slowdown has hit the textile > industry hard, recorded the biggest increase, up 5.8 percentage points > from last year, to 9 percent. Among areas with populations of one million > or more, tech-heavy San Jose, Calif., experienced the sharpest increase in > joblessness, 5.1 percentage points, to 6.6 percent. Yuma, Ariz., an > agricultural area with a high concentration of migrant workers, posted the > highest unemployment rate in the nation, 19.2 percent, while Miami's 7.5 > percent was the highest among big metro areas. The lowest rate in the > nation: 1.4 percent in the Fargo, N.D.-Moorhead, Minn. area (The Wall > Street Journal, page B5). > > With the return of double-digit increases in health care costs, and the > possibility of rampant medical inflation rivaling that of the late 1980s, > there is a new sense of urgency about health care costs in bargaining, > according to a union speaker at a session of the Industrial Relations > Research Association's annual conference. Stephen R. Sleigh, director of > strategic resources for the Machinists, says health care has been the > single most important issue behind strikes over the last 2 years, with the > big issues in bargaining being cost-shifting by employers and the overall > decline in benefits. Health care costs are the largest nonwage part of > the costs of labor, almost 15 percent of total labor cost, according to > Sleigh. "If there is a red button issue for labor-management > negotiations, it is health care," he says (Daily Labor Report, page C-1). > > For most employers, "business as usual" remains the rule for Martin Luther > King, Jr. Day, according to a Bureau of National Affairs survey of 448 > organizations. Just one-fourth of responding establishments have > scheduled a paid holiday for all or most workers on the third Monday in > January this year, little changed from 2001. Workers in banking, > education, and government have the best shot at a day off with pay January > 21. Almost nine out of 10 banks (89 percent) will grant a paid holiday > commemorating Dr. King's birthday, and roughly four out of five government > organizations (83 percent) and schools (76 percent) have the same intent. > Employees of social service agencies (57 percent) and associations (47 > percent) also stand a decent chance of employing a paid day off on the > federal holiday (Daily Labor Report, page A-4). > > Although many researchers attribute the United States' declining rates of > unionization to the relatively high wage differences between union and > nonunion workers, two panelists at the January 4 Industrial Relations > Research Association meeting took the view that wage differences do not > matter. Paula B. Voos, a professor in Rutgers University School of > Management and Labor Relations, and Dale Belman, a professor at Michigan > State University, examined the construction industry to test the theory > that union wage gains lead to later decline in union membership. They > looked at construction wages in three periods -- from 1975 to 1979, from > 1988 to 1990 and in 2000 -- to determine if it was true that those states > with a high union/nonunion wage differential, other things equal, had a > lower rate of unionization in 1990 or 2000. They found that unionization > rates in places where there was a high wage differential were the same > during all three periods, Voos said. What really seemed to matter was > union density in the area, she said (Daily Labor Report, page C-2). > > Sales of new and existing homes set records in 2001, even after a pause in > sales after the September 11 attacks, as low mortgage rates spurred > buying, the National Association of Realtors said. Existing home sales > rose 2.5 percent from 2000 to 5.25 million, and new home sales rose 2.5 > percent to 902,000, the Washington, D.C. based trade group estimated. The > previous record for existing homes was 5.21 million sold in 1999, and the > old record for new homes was 885,000 in 1998. For 2002, the group expects > existing home sales to fall 0.5 percent, and new home sales to drop 3.2 > percent, as mortgage rates rise to 7.3 percent by the third quarter > (Bloomberg News, > http://www.latimes.com/business/la-02006jan09.story?coll=la%2Dheadline > s%2Dbusiness). > > Sales at U.S. chain stores fell in the last retail week of 2001, > concluding what analysts said was the worst holiday shopping season in a > decade and suggesting weakness could persist in the new year, two reports > showed yesterday. The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi and UBS Warburg said their > retail chain store sales index slipped 0.6 percent during the week ended > January 5, after a 0.9 percent rise a week earlier. Separately,
Re: Fw: confidential
Karl Carlile wrote: > > I received the following posting. I have forwarded it to various > addresses: > > - Original Message - > From: "charles mosanga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 3:24 PM > Subject: confidential > > > attn: Karl Carlile > > I am sending this message to you with the hope thayou > will understand it's content and as well > co-operate,as it will opportune us the privillage to > establish mutuality and do to one another a life time > favour.I got your contact from your country web. > ... > isnt this spam? i have received at least 3 different versions of this message. the first one i checked for validity and it didnt pan out. the rest i have been deleting. --ravi
Re: Fw: confidential
Yes, this is a new version of a scam that has been running around the net for at least 4 yrs. Doug Orr Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 16:22:05 -0500 From: ravi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [PEN-L:21269] Re: Fw: confidential Karl Carlile wrote: > > I received the following posting. I have forwarded it to various > addresses: > > - Original Message - > From: "charles mosanga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 3:24 PM > Subject: confidential > > > attn: Karl Carlile > > I am sending this message to you with the hope thayou > will understand it's content and as well > co-operate,as it will opportune us the privillage to > establish mutuality and do to one another a life time > favour.I got your contact from your country web. > ... > isnt this spam? i have received at least 3 different versions of this message. the first one i checked for validity and it didnt pan out. the rest i have been deleting. --ravi
Re: Re: Fw: confidential
Someone in Salon, I believe, did a wonderful literary analysis of these scams. He even spoke with some of the scammers. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Argentina and the IMF
http://www.imf.org/external/country/arg/index.htm
"Third way is dead"
Rather rambling article from a political commentator, Polly Toynbee, who usually has her ear very much to the ground of New Labour and is probably correct about this too: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,629668,00.html The central content of the article is that New Labour's electoral successes have indeed shifted the centre of gravity of politics in Britain. Best evidence of this is that yesterday, amazingly, the Conservative Party came out in favour of "the neighbourly society" - poor Margaret Thatcher, who thought there was no such thing as society. Chris Burford London
Re: "Third way is dead"
Chris Burford wrote: >Rather rambling article from a political commentator, Polly Toynbee, >who usually has her ear very much to the ground of New Labour and >is probably correct about this too: > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,629668,00.html > >The central content of the article is that New Labour's electoral >successes have indeed shifted the centre of gravity of politics in >Britain. > >Best evidence of this is that yesterday, amazingly, the Conservative >Party came out in favour of "the neighbourly society" - poor >Margaret Thatcher, who thought there was no such thing as society. Yeah, but Blair still wants to privatize the London Underground, no? Seems to me that Sir Alan Walters was right, when he said that Mrs T's most lasting achievement was the transformation of the Labour Party. Doug
x
system pen-l perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] #subscribe pen-l Fred Lee -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Query on Mutual insurance companies
How do the controllers of a mutual insurance company make their money. The Rusts (who control State Farm) are very wealthy indeed -- but of course State Farm Automobile is a mutual company, nominally owned by the policy holders. All the other State Farm companies are stock companies, with the stock originally, I suppose, belonging to State Farm Automobile. But even if that stock is distrbuted to management, the Rusts' wealth (and that of the Meherles) was built up before those subsididary companies could have contributed much. I never have understood this. Carrol
state power theory of money
David Friedman, the anarcho-capitalist son of Milton, has a piece arguing for private money. The problem I see with the state power/fiat money argument is that there are lots of instruments out there that should qualify as money that are not creatures of state creation. A recent article in one of the Hayekian journals actually makes this kind of argument in a discussion of money market funds - which, of course, have no reserve requirements. Stephen F. Diamond School of Law Santa Clara University [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: state power theory of money
Hayek also argued for privately issued money. Of course, bank in the US issued money in the early nineteenth century, causing enormous confusion -- sort of like an Enron-inspired banking federal reserve. Steve Diamond wrote: > David Friedman, the anarcho-capitalist son of Milton, has a piece arguing > for private money. The problem I see with the state power/fiat money > argument is that there are lots of instruments out there that should qualify > as money that are not creatures of state creation. A recent article in one > of the Hayekian journals actually makes this kind of argument in a > discussion of money market funds - which, of course, have no reserve > requirements. > > Stephen F. Diamond > School of Law > Santa Clara University > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re:Query on Mutual insurance companies
Carrol Cox asked: >How do the controllers of a mutual insurance company make their money. I would imagine they worked extemely long hours and saved every penny they earned. Isn't that how everybody does it? Tom Walker
RE: state power theory of money
Steve Diamond says:>David Friedman, the anarcho-capitalist son of Milton, has a piece arguing for private money. The problem I see with the state power/fiat money argument is that there are lots of instruments out there that should qualify as money that are not creatures of state creation. A recent article in one of the Hayekian journals actually makes this kind of argument in a discussion of money market funds - which, of course, have no reserve requirements.< all of the near-moneys are based, directly or indirectly, on fiat money. For example, money market funds hold a lot of T-bills as assets. Without the stability that U.S. power and the power of the Fed (a government agency) provided, the MMFs couldn't get anywhere. In Marx's time, it was a country's gold reserves that formed the "monetary base," the stock of "high-powered money," upon which the whole system of money and near-money rested. Now it's dollars, which are in turn based on U.S. state power. (Other countries do hold other currencies as forex reserves, but most of these get their stability from the power of the states that issued them, which is in turn dependent on the success of the US-dominated hegemonic coalition.) -- Jim Devine.
fuel cells
Bush resorts to hot air while America burns President ignores current problem of gas-guzzling cars by switching budget to hydrogen power future Paul Brown, environment correspondent Thursday January 10, 2002 The Guardian President George Bush has abandoned plans to develop fuel-efficient petrol cars in favour of hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles in order to end America's dependence on imported oil. Fuel cells, which act like batteries, produce no emissions except water vapour, and are already in prototypes. They are, however, at least 10 years away from mass production. The decision to abandon the Clinton administration's £1bn, five-year programme to produce a generation of fuel-efficient cars and instead leapfrog directly into the hydrogen age met a mixed reaction yesterday. Environmentalists were suspicious of the president's motives. America's love affair with gas-guzzling cars - it consumes a quarter of the world's oil - leaves the economy exposed to price rises. The energy secretary, Spencer Abraham, announced in Detroit, the home of the car industry, that the aim of the new programme was the eventual replacement of the internal combustion engine, which has dominated world transport for a century. Fuel cells use stored hydrogen and oxygen from the air to create electricity but are currently far from economic. A second practical problem is the creation of the supply chain. Despite these difficulties the big three car companies - General Motors, Ford and DaimlerChrysler - are pressing ahead with a joint venture with the Bush administration. Mr Clinton's plan was to develop affordable cars which were capable of 80 miles to the gallon. Some prototypes were running at 70 miles per gallon but none reached production. Meanwhile, fashion had led many Americans in the opposite direction - with a big increase in the popularity of four-wheel drive vehicles which use even more fuel than the traditional family car. In Europe, pressure from the European Commission has forced the industry to gradually improve the fuel efficiency of vehicles and reduce pollution, but the effect has been largely swamped by the increase in the number of cars. Environmental groups in the US favoured the European way, saying that these efficiency improvements were a useful stop-gap until new technologies could be developed in 10 or possibly 20 years. Kara Saul Rinaldi, deputy policy director for the Alliance to Save Energy pressure group, said she welcomed the investment but fuel economy standards for petrol engines were also essential. "We are looking at long-term technology when we have not made the first step. Raising fuel economy standards is the first step." Steven Nadel, executive director of the American council for an energy efficient economy, said: "I think fuel cells are a useful long-term goal, but the big problem is that the Bush administration proposal does not seem to address anything for the next 10 years. There is a lot of technology that can go into cars in 2006 or 2007." Although this year's £100m budget for fuel efficiency is likely to be diverted to hydrogen cars, all has not been lost. Many lighter components and other fuel-saving devices have been developed and are in use. Toyota and Honda will be introducing hybrid cars that use petrol and electricity by 2004. Honda and DaimlerChrysler will have fuel cell-powered vehicles at the same time but these are unlikely to be for anything but a tiny market. Hydrogen is already seen as the fuel of the future because it is plentiful and non-polluting. The problem is how to achieve mass production in tanks to be fed into vehicles or to burn for electricity production. Iceland, which has a tiny population but a vast surplus of energy because of its hydro-electricity and thermal supplies, plans to be the first country in the world to go over to a hydrogen economy. In America a production possibility is to use surplus energy from wind farms for hydrogen production.
myth of the self-made man
Deliberate or unconscious humour? http://www.ezwrite.com/Store/itemdetail.asp?IDNO=116 Tom Walker
Re: "Third way is dead"
At 09/01/02 20:20 -0500, you wrote: >Chris Burford wrote: > >>Rather rambling article from a political commentator, Polly Toynbee, >>who usually has her ear very much to the ground of New Labour and is >>probably correct about this too: >> >>http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,629668,00.html >> >>The central content of the article is that New Labour's electoral >>successes have indeed shifted the centre of gravity of politics in Britain. >> >>Best evidence of this is that yesterday, amazingly, the Conservative >>Party came out in favour of "the neighbourly society" - poor Margaret >>Thatcher, who thought there was no such thing as society. > >Yeah, but Blair still wants to privatize the London Underground, no? Seems >to me that Sir Alan Walters was right, when he said that Mrs T's most >lasting achievement was the transformation of the Labour Party. > >Doug In one sense that it true. Thatcher inflicted such a crippling defeat on Labour that Labour had to shift position or die. New Labour has now done this to the Conservatives who face a very real possibility of becoming a little England party, populist in a reactive way with snobbish people but with no credibility in the eyes of finance capital. Although Thatcher's preferred candidate Ian Duncan-Smith won the election for leader, he has quietly been reducing the focus on hostility to the euro. His shadow ministers have announced tectonic shifts in British politics: they are not against tax increases for state welfare, and they are in favour of society. As far as New Labour is concerned it continues to grate against the very strong tradition of ethical socialism in Britain, based on the non-conformist churches. I think New Labour remains dedicated in its conscientious opportunism to be guided always by what will help it remain dominant in public opinion. Nevertheless within those severe constraints, and although New Labour will do nothing to offend finance capital, it thinks in terms of managing the whole society, consumers, market, capital, and therefore has a certain willingness to introduce subtle reformist reforms which may slightly promote social production guided by social foresight. New Labour ministers were probably significantly influenced by Marxism Today, eurocommunist publication of the 80's, which was systematically opportunist in its efforts to think how to capture a Gramscian ideological hegemony. New Labour has succeeded in that however distastefully, which now allows it a small degree of space to make some shifts. On the specific issue you raise of privatisation of the London Underground they appear to have waited for public opinion to be disillusioned with privatisation of overland trains, and the rail disasters, and are seeking some sort of renationalisation of Railtrack into a not-for-profit-company. So typically they are probably trying to move the debate on by reframing the questions to blur any conflict between the longer terms interests of finance capital and those of social foresight. But yes, no ethical socialist has any prospect of voting New Labour with a clear conscience, and should not begin to attempt to do so. Nevertheless Polly Toynbee, scourge of the idealist left, is probably correct that a shift has occurred. And as a scourge of the idealist left, she is an interest source for such a view. Chris Burford London
increasing unity in international economic law?
[Relevant to the H&N Empire dustup] < http://www.asil.org/ajil/pauwelyn.pdf >
