BLS Daily Report
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, DAILY REPORT, TUESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2002: Weakness in labor markets across the country will dampen wage increases this year, holding private industry pay gains below 4 percent, according to the latest Bureau of National Affairs Wage Trend Indicator report. The WTI's final reading for the fourth quarter 2001 is 99.78, down from 100.34 in the third quarter (second quarter 1976=100). The final reading is unchanged from the revised figure reported in December. Joel Popkin, of the economic consulting firm Joel Popkin Co., the company who devised the Wage Trend Indicator, says the four consecutive declines in the WTI suggest that the next report of the BLS Employment Cost Index will show a 12-month change of about 3.5 percent in private industry wages. The ECI is the government's most comprehensive measure of compensation. The Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics is scheduled to release the fourth quarter ECI figures on January 31 (Daily Labor Report, page D-1). First year wage and benefit increases negotiated in construction collective bargaining agreements during 2001 averaged $1.37 per hour or 4.5 percent above the 2000 level, according to data compiled by the Construction Labor Research Council. Robert Gasperow, CLRC's executive director, says that an unusually low inflation rate means that real increases negotiated in new construction contracts last year are relatively large compared with recent years, indicating that union workers are making gains against inflation. He estimated that the seasonally adjusted consumer price indexes could come in under 2 percent for 2001 (Daily Labor Report, page A-5). In the fourth quarter of 2001, only 77.6 percent of job seekers won equivalent or better salaries -- the lowest level since Chicago outplacement firm Challenger, Gray Christmas, Inc. started to follow such data in 1986, the firm announced Jan. 14. Furthermore, according to the firm's Job Market Index, in the third quarter, the median job search time increased by almost 30 days to 3 months, then increased another 12 percent in the fourth quarter to 3.4 months. Job seekers are fearful, according to John Challenger, chief executive officer of Challenger, Gray Christmas. This, he said, leads to job seekers feeling they must take the first job offered or risk a prolonged period of unemployment. The end result, Challenger pointed out, is likely a substantial reduction in pay (Daily Labor Report, page A-8). The Service Employers International Union, one of a minority of growing unions, says it added 80,000 members last year and has more than 1.5 million members (Work Week feature of The Wall Street Journal, page A1). About 57 percent of 629 white-collar workers surveyed by Steelcase, Inc., Grand Rapids, Mich., say that companies expect increased productivity to make up for staff reductions (Work Week feature of The Wall Street Journal, page A1). According to Federal data, nonmetro workers had a slightly higher adjusted unemployment rate than workers in metro areas in the third quarter of 2001, says Karen Hamrick, a U.S. Department of Agriculture economist. The rate includes discouraged workers, certain part-time workers and others. They also have less chance of finding new jobs, are less likely to be covered by protective legislation, and a larger share drop out of the labor force entirely, according to Ms. Hamrick (work Week feature, The Wall Street Journal, page A1). DUE OUT TOMORROW: Consumer Price Index, December 2001; Real Earnings, December 2001 application/ms-tnef
LMD on neoliberal strategy: today Mont Pelerin; tomorrow the world
G'day all, The history of the war on social democracy , as per the latest LMD. http://MondeDiplo.com/2002/01/11alternative United States neo-liberalism seems to have triumphed: the US now dominates military and diplomatic affairs; Europe is on its way to being a mere free-trade zone. In December the US House of Representatives (narrowly) granted President George Bush increased powers to negotiate trade agreements (fast track) the same powers it had denied President Clinton in 1997. And the anti-globalisation movement is on the defensive, just as neo-liberals were 30 years ago. After financial crises in Russia, Southeast Asia and Latin America in 1998, a rightwing pundit gloomily said: Global capitalism, whose triumph once seemed inevitable, is now in full retreat, perhaps for many years. Business Week asked: Is the American model of free-market capitalism, the de facto ideology of the post-cold war period, in retreat? Countries are opting out of a free-market system everyone took for granted (1). Japan's finance minister described himself as an outdated Keynesian (2). Capitalism's decline proved illusory: events, and commerce, resumed their course. Yet the prevailing economic system, based on beliefs that validated public policy, had once been overthrown. This was neither a fluke, nor the predictable result of social or historical shifts. Rick Perlstein's new book on Barry Goldwater, the 1964 Republican presidential candidate, reminds us of the power of politics; it recalls an era when the losers unexpectedly rewrote the history books thanks to their ability to mobilise, popularise ideas and found movements. They went on to win the bigger war (3). Contrary to the beliefs of most pollsters and journalists, charting the best course of action does not automatically mean accepting current trends and the prevailing spirit of the times, or acquiescing to the media. At times political activists try to modify trends before reversing them. This calls for patience and tenacity, and may involve battling advocates of fashionable ideas. Ideological labour, political will and activism may create demand for new political agendas. In 1964 Goldwater, with the support of only 38% of the US electorate, lost to Lyndon Johnson. Commentators were quick to write Goldwater off and proclaim the triumph of the Democrats' centrist, Keynesian ideology. Radical conservatism was finished. Goldwater's famous call to arms Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue offered voters a counter-revolutionary message grounded in social divisiveness. The Republicans supposedly learned their lesson in defeat. The 1964 elections were won in the centre-ground: radicalism was too frightening, progress was assured and the New Deal appeared invincible. Ideologies were converging, technology was paramount and thinking was monolithic: there was no alternative (4). In 1958 the Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, had acknowledged that the gradually expanding federal government was the price of rapidly expanding national growth. In 1960 the Democratic party declared that the final eradication of poverty was in reach. Johnson devoted himself to this task, secure in the knowledge that we can do it all. We have the wherewithal (5). Once in Washington, he launched his war on poverty by increased taxation and a vastly expanded civil service. Although his war on poverty did achieve some of its social objectives (6), in political terms it was the Keynesians' swansong. In Goldwater's words, it was a war on your pocketbooks. No longer monolithic The political ground was already starting to shift. The New Deal's durability was not guaranteed
Turkish conditions
Forwarded from Sabri Bush-Ecevit to discuss economy, Turkish-Greek ties and Cyprus US dubs Turkey excellent model for Islam The United States has labelled overwhelmingly Muslim but secular Turkey as an excellent model for Islam amid its ongoing campaign against terrorism in a statement that illustrated a boosted Washington backing for Ankara. The official statement came at the start of Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit's key visit to the United States this week during which the premier and a top-level Turkish delegation would seek U.S. reinforcement in a series of issues ranging from economy to Turkish-Greek relations and Afghanistan. Ecevit earlier said he would also try to persuade Washington not to launch a military strike on Iraq as part of its anti-terrorism war triggered by the September 11, attacks. The aerial attacks on the U.S.' financial and security heartlands has brought close-U.S. ally Turkey under the spotlights as the only Muslim NATO member which could play a bridge role between the Christian west and Muslim East while Washington has insisted that its anti-terrorism drive did not target the Islamic world. Turkey's secular establishment was also viewed successful in its own campaign against Islamic fundamentalism at home. Turkey is an excellent model, Anatolian news agency quoted the assistant to President George Bush for national security affairs, Condoleezza Rice, as telling Turkish reporters based in Washington in a news briefing. The Turkey model has a great importance as an alternative to radical Islam, the agency quoted her as saying. Turkey's secular constitution separates religion and state affairs strictly one from the other. U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman was among those who view Turkey as an example of moderate Islam. Lieberman, a potential contender for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, has compared Turkey with the Sharia-ruled Saudi Arabia and said Turkish women enjoy a large freedom in many fields including work and education while driving even is illegal for women in the Saudi Arabia. Turkey's willingness to actively play such a role is another matter. But its increasing significance brought Ankara certain advantages. Bush's national security adviser Rice revealed that modern Turkey's stability and improvement was important for Washington and the west since the country's role as a model for Islam, according to Anatolia. ECONOMIC NEEDS Turkey, still suffering from last year's financial crisis, largely depends on loans granted by international lenders and Washington to correct its economic balances. Ecevit is expected to ask President Bush's help for the continuation of IMF and World Bank financing which were stipulated as key to economic reforms: Reforms should be maintained. The fund transfers will continue as long as the reforms continue, Rice said. Ahead of his Washington trip Ecevit strengthened his hand by pushing nine key reform bills through Parliament. Flanked by his Economy Minister Kemal Dervis, the Turkish premier is scheduled to meet IMF Director Horst Kohler and World Bank President James Wolfensohn. The IMF has already committed $19 billion to Turkey's recovery and is expected to sign a new standby agreement with another $10 billion attached to it later this year. Ecevit also seeks trade privileges along with a relief in its $5 billion military debt to Washington in his negotiations. AFGHANISTAN MISSION Probably the first test of a new Turkish role and Ankara's ability to deal with its economic woes will be seen in the Turkish efforts to help restructuring Afghanistan after the U.S. military actions toppled the radical Islamic Taleban rulers there in an initial response to the September 11, attacks. Turkey is sending troops to Afghanistan for the multinational peacekeeping force, and has offered to eventually take over the force's leadership from Britain. But Ecevit has said he would ask U.S. financial aid for the Afghanistan mission as Turkey was not capable of meeting its entire cost, Washington, however, was reported to have granted some $20 million to Ankara for the mission and may not be warm to the idea of extending extra sums. The U.S. Administration either know or will know how important our role to bring stability to Afghanistan, Ecevit said on his way to Washington: This problem will probably be resolved. Otherwise it will be too costly (for Turkey), he said. TURKISH WORRIES ON IRAQ Ankara was quick to announce full support for Washington's campaign against terrorism in retaliation to the September 11 attacks and tried to raise its profile during the U.S. operations in Afghanistan. But Turkey is now worried about whether the U.S.campaign could target its southern neighbour Iraq. Rice said Washington has not made a decision on Iraq yet although Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was seen as a threat to the regional stability and neighboring countries: No advise on the means of coping with Iraq was given to the president. Iraq was a
query: Marx on fraud
Where is it, in volume III of CAPITAL, that Marx talks about how financial fraud becomes common in a financial bubble and is revealed when the bubble pops (or something like that)? BTW, thinking about the current melt-down of Arthur Anderson accounting, it seems a symptom of market failure: auditors compete for the dollars of those who pay them (companies like Enron). There is thus a bias (also seen with economic forecasters) toward telling the client what he or she wants to hear rather than rocking the boat. Auditors seem to fail all the time, as in Orange County (CA) back in 1994. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: query: Marx on fraud
Here is a brief snippet from my Marx's Crises Theories Moreover, the corporate form of business, wherein ownership and management are separated, allows those who control firms to use their position to their own advantage (Marx 1967; 3, pp. 441, 466, and 407; also see Marx and Engels 1859, pp. 490-91). When a crises appears, such peculations come to light. Commenting on this phenomenon, Marx wrote: The English railway system rolls on the same incline plane as the European Public Debt system. The ruling magnates amongst the different railway-nets directors contract not only -- progressively -- new loans in order to enlarge their network, i.e., the territory, where they rule as absolute monarchs, but they enlarge their respective networks in order to have new pretexts for engaging in new loans which enable them to pay the interest due to the holders of obligations, preferential shares, etc., and also from time to time to throw a sop to the much ill-used common share-holders in the shape of somewhat increased dividends. This pleasant method must one day or another terminate in an ugly catastrophe. [Marx to Danielson, 19 February 1881; in Marx and Engels 1975, pp. 316-17] [ Devine, James wrote: Where is it, in volume III of CAPITAL, that Marx talks about how financial fraud becomes common in a financial bubble and is revealed when the bubble pops (or something like that)? BTW, thinking about the current melt-down of Arthur Anderson accounting, it seems a symptom of market failure: auditors compete for the dollars of those who pay them (companies like Enron). There is thus a bias (also seen with economic forecasters) toward telling the client what he or she wants to hear rather than rocking the boat. Auditors seem to fail all the time, as in Orange County (CA) back in 1994. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Sweden
Rakesh Bhandari wrote: This brings us back to the discussion that set off the thread on crises. Capitalism has proven resilient and has withstood a number of shocks over the centuries. yes, michael, but the question is how are crises overcome? jim's theory leads to one conclusion--raising consumption and/or prices should work to restore a crisis of overaccumulation as jim d defines it ; grossman's, mattick's, yaffe's and cogoy's, shoul's, dunayevskaya's, daum's and moseley's present another diagnosis of the crisis, which implies that it will be cured in a different way. the historic evidence and theoretical reasoning are clearly in favor of the latter school of thought (which by the way has its origins in Grossman's recovery of the essence of Marx's crisis theory). Wouldn't many bourgeois economists and executives agree? Liquidate, said Mellon; creative destruction, said Schumpeter; Enron's just the say things work, said Paul O'Neill just the other day. What's specifically Marxist about the notion? It's the Keynesians who are the odd ones out. Doug
Re: social democracy
According to a 1998 NBER paper by Morck, the Wallenberg family controls corporate assets equal to 40% of the market value of all corporations on the Swedish stock exchange. Statistics Canada tells us that 25 enterprises in Canada control 41% of all corporate assets in the country. Ownership concentration is lower in the US, e.g., 85% of Standard and Poor corporations were widely held, while in Canada only 22% of TSE corporations were widely held (data from the late 1980s; widely held=ownership positions under 20%). The Morck paper (cited by Michael P. on Pen-L a couple of years ago) does an absurd regression between inherited wealth and variables like the level of public debt and social assistance in various countries, but the data they collect is generally consistent with a connection between ownership concentration and social democracy. Bill Burgess At 07:06 PM 15/01/02 -0500, you wrote: Michael Perelman wrote: Another Swedish question. Doesn't Sweden have one of the most concentrated industrial structures in the world? Yup, think it does. The Wallenberg family's Investor trust controls some enormous portion of Swedish industry. Such structures are good for social democracy; dispersed stockowner structures like the U.S.'s are its enemy. Doug
Beijing's public servants lose free medical
The Economic Times Sunday, January 13, 2002 Beijing's public servants lose free medical PTI SATURDAY, JANUARY 12, 2002 1:55:39 AM BEIJING: With China embracing market-oriented reforms, some 9,90,000 public employees in the Chinese capital will have to bid farewell to free medical service, a privilege for civil servants and a large number of employees at non-profit-making organisations over the past decades, a report said on Friday. Medical insurance and a fixed amount of subsidy will replace the traditional government-funded medicare for civil servants before July one, Beijing Morning Post quoted a source from the municipal labour and social security bureau as saying. The ministry of finance and the ministry of labour and social security are working on a set of detailed rules on the issue, it quoted Zhang Dave, an official in charge of Medicare at the Bureau. Statistics show that some 2.16 million people in Beijing have got medical insurance by the end of last year, and the figure is expected to rise to 3.5 or four million by the end of this year and six million by the end of 2003. The report said the bureau will double its efforts this year to ensure full coverage of medical insurance among all in-service employees and retirees of Beijing-based government offices, non-profit-making bodies and all types of enterprises. Free medicare and housing were among the major privileges for public servants in China, who were known as having iron rice bowls. - PTI Copyright © 2001 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved.
Re: Two, three many geniuses
Tom Walker wrote: As of 10:20 p.m pacific time, January 15, a google search on genius of capitalism and enron returned 453 hits. Following the below news item from AFP, I've added a few more pre-enron allusions to the genius. I do believe Secretary O'Neill has spoken the phrase that will someday appear in his obituary. snip> Speaking on the CBS show "Face the Nation", Senator Joseph Lieberman, a former Democratic vice-presidential candidate, described O'Neill's comments as "outrageous". "With all respect to Secretary O'Neill, those statements are outrageous. I hope that they're - they sound more cold-blooded than he means them to be," he said. "Those are statements that might have been made by the secretary of the treasury in the 18th century, but not in the 21st century." "The death that Enron experienced was not a natural death. We know enough to know that now," he added. "This was not capitalism as we want it to be." snip> In my dreams I imagine that an alert CBS journalist immediately asked Lieberman "Just how DO you want capitalism to be?" And in my nightmares I can hear his answer. Gene Coyle
Re: Re: Two, three many geniuses
- Original Message - From: Eugene Coyle In my dreams I imagine that an alert CBS journalist immediately asked Lieberman "Just how DO you want capitalism to be?" And in my nightmares I can hear his answer. Gene Coyle http://www.nightmareanalysis.org Ian
Re: Re: Re: Sweden
Rakesh Bhandari wrote: This brings us back to the discussion that set off the thread on crises. Capitalism has proven resilient and has withstood a number of shocks over the centuries. yes, michael, but the question is how are crises overcome? jim's theory leads to one conclusion--raising consumption and/or prices should work to restore a crisis of overaccumulation as jim d defines it ; grossman's, mattick's, yaffe's and cogoy's, shoul's, dunayevskaya's, daum's and moseley's present another diagnosis of the crisis, which implies that it will be cured in a different way. the historic evidence and theoretical reasoning are clearly in favor of the latter school of thought (which by the way has its origins in Grossman's recovery of the essence of Marx's crisis theory). Wouldn't many bourgeois economists and executives agree? Liquidate, said Mellon; creative destruction, said Schumpeter; Enron's just the say things work, said Paul O'Neill just the other day. What's specifically Marxist about the notion? It's the Keynesians who are the odd ones out. Doug well the so called orthodox marxist answer here is the Keynesians were not the odd ones out (Samuelson was king) until the mixed economy went up in staglationary ashes and its limits thereby exposed. as michael p has underlined elsewhere, while schumpeter thought recessions, bouts of liquidation, periodic douches are in fact an intrinsic moment in the capitalist development process, he argued that the descent to full scale depression was the result of bad govt policy. I can't remember where I read that a one Smithies (a prominent economist who may have been Schumpeter's student) thoroughly criticized Schumpeter's explanation for the Depression. That is, Marxists argue that bourgeois economists and actors alike are boxed in by their ultimate belief in the equilibriating properties of the system--this is revealed, as Christopher Freeman points out, in Schumpeter's failed attempt to keep his vision and Walras' vision together. Schumpeter was scathingly critical however of purely monetary theories of disequilibrium presented by von Mises, Hayek and their popularizer today Mark Skousen. rb
the Corps.
[link below] American Corporations: the New Sovereigns By LAWRENCE E. MITCHELL Chronice of Higher Education, 2.1.18 One of the most striking yet overlooked aspects of the current globalization debate is the quiet retreat of sovereign power -- including that of the United States -- in the face of imperial conquests by modern American corporations. At least until the recent downturns in the stock market -- both the general one in 2000 and the sharper one following the attacks of September 11 -- a number of these companies, including Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Intel, General Electric, and Hewlett-Packard, have had market capitalizations larger than the gross national products of a number of developed and developing countries, including Spain, Kuwait, Argentina, Greece, Poland, and Thailand. The statistics overwhelmingly demonstrate that such corporations and American capital are increasingly dominant throughout the world. At last count, American institutional assets constituted an aggregate 66.8 percent of the total in five major foreign economies, including those of France and Germany. Modern democracies are built to ensure the restraint of power and the pursuit of public will by forgoing efficiency for patience and consensus. In contrast, the modern American corporation, with its centralized control and absolute power in the board, is brilliantly and devastatingly built for economic efficiency -- the ability to amass huge resources and deploy them instantly. No socialist economy has ever had the command-and-control capacities of the American corporation. The scary thing is that we have come to see these corporations as built for a single purpose, to maximize stockholder wealth, and we have created them in a manner that exempts them from any of the normal moral constraints we expect from governments or individuals. It has not always been so. Several factors led to the development of this new ethic over the last couple of decades. Among them were deregulation beginning during the Reagan era, together with an increased emphasis on wealth maximization as a social goal; the expectations created in stockholders by the quick money made in hostile takeovers, especially during the 1980s; and the charging bull market of the 1990s. Those phenomena have instilled stockholder expectations of large and immediate returns. American corporations and their managers are thus increasingly driven by the faceless, soulless capital markets -- markets composed of individuals with consciences but creating a collective that lacks one. Moreover, pressure on corporations to show higher stock prices fast has been increased by the enormous growth in institutional investors, which now own about half of the equity market in the United States. They also dominate institutional investing in foreign markets like those of Western Europe. Institutional investors compensate their managers on the basis of their ability to raise the values of their portfolios immediately, so those managers have every incentive to push for short-term stock-price maximization over long-term gain and corporate stability. In addition to the pressure of institutional investors, American investment banks, and consulting companies, markets are driven by nongovernmental organizations like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Those players have implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, conditioned the supply of American capital (and in the case of the nongovernmental organizations, largely Western capital) to overseas markets on those markets' adoption of American-style, stockholder-centered, corporate capitalism. To be sure, American corporations have brought the world great benefits: increased travel, communication, health, nutrition, and production capabilities. They have also brought Americans a higher material standard of living. But it is, in large part, the stockholder-centered nature of the corporation that leads it to behave in ways that no thoughtful person really wants, ways that most of us would consider to be irresponsible. Although no legal doctrine requires it, American capitalist culture has adopted the view that maximizing stock price is the purpose of the corporation, its reason for being. Capital markets demand that maximization, and punish those corporations that fail to meet short-term expectations -- just look at the stock price of any corporation that reports disappointing quarterly earnings. Corporate structure implies stock-price maximization: Only stockholders vote for directors, only stockholders have the right to sue, and only stockholders have the ability to sell the company out from under the directors. Coupled with the maximization goal is the limited liability that shields the corporation. While corporations can be sued for causing harm, and sometimes
WB loans or grants?
U.S.-Europe Clash Stalls World Bank Aid Plan Bush Seeks Grants, Not Loans, for Poor By Paul Blustein Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, January 16, 2002; Page E01 A plan to increase World Bank aid to poor countries has stalled because of a dispute between the United States and European countries over a Bush administration proposal to convert many of the bank's loans to grants. Officials familiar with the dispute predicted that it will end in compromise. But that would require concessions from two strong-willed antagonists -- Paul H. O'Neill, the U.S. Treasury secretary, and Clare Short, the British development minister. In the meantime, the rift is dimming the hopes of aid advocates who have intensified calls for major boosts in funding for poor countries in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. World Bank President James D. Wolfensohn, among others, has argued that the attacks underscore the need for a huge effort to reduce global poverty and eradicate the root causes of terrorism. But O'Neill has voiced skepticism about whether such an initiative would work, and the latest U.S.-European discord suggests that aid officials will have to scramble just to ensure that previously planned increases come through. Under the plan that has been put on hold, the world's rich countries would contribute $12.5 billion to help fund the next three years' worth of aid by the International Development Association (IDA), the arm of the World Bank that assists very poor nations such as Bangladesh, Honduras and Malawi. That would be a 16 percent increase over the amount that was contributed for the three-year period ending June 30. In contrast with World Bank loans to middle income countries such as Brazil and Thailand, which are made at terms roughly comparable to those available from private lenders, the bank's IDA loans are extended on easy, concessional terms -- typically a 40-year repayment schedule, with no payments for the first 10 years and no interest charges other than a 0.75 percent service fee. A meeting in Switzerland last month among representatives of rich countries aimed at finalizing the details concerning the next round of IDA funding. It ended with the U.S. delegation in sharp disagreement with the British and other Europeans, according to participants. The main bone of contention concerned a Bush proposal for the IDA to provide up to half of its aid to the poorest countries as grants rather than as concessional loans. Treasury officials contend that it doesn't make sense to heap additional debt on such countries and that the proposal wouldn't cost the World Bank much, especially in the early years, since countries don't start repaying IDA loans for 10 years anyway. But the British and several northern European countries are vehemently opposed. Part of their reasoning is that poor countries are less likely to squander World Bank aid if they know they have to repay it someday. Some also suspect that the O'Neill Treasury, which has been critical of the World Bank, is plotting to undermine the bank's finances. Also opposed to the U.S. plan, though less strongly, are countries such as France, which has said it favors converting about 10 percent of IDA loans to grants. We will have to meet again, and we will either have to convince the others or compromise, or we won't have an agreement, a Treasury official said yesterday. Most countries said the amount they will put on the table [for new IDA funding] will depend on resolution of the grants issue. I think there's an attitude to reach a compromise, but the U.K. is the most difficult of the group. Before the lower-level officials who attended the Switzerland meeting can work something out, O'Neill will have to bridge his differences with Short and with Gordon Brown, the British chancellor of the exchequer. The next major opportunity to narrow the gap is a Feb. 8-9 meeting of the Group of Seven finance ministers in Canada. Until they do, it will be hard to get to resolution, said John Donaldson, the World Bank's adviser for U.S. affairs. When you have the U.S. starting at 50 percent and some at zero and the French struggling to get to 10, that's a big gap. Everybody knows it's going to end up somewhere in the middle, but they haven't gotten to that point yet. Another source of friction, though less serious than the grant issue, was a U.S. proposal to make the amount of contributions to IDA contingent on the World Bank and poor countries meeting certain performance targets. The administration is planning to contribute a base amount of $850 million annually to IDA for the next three years, up from the current level of $803 million, and provide more -- $950 million in 2003 and $1.05 billion in 2004 -- if the performance targets are met. The proposal reflects O'Neill's oft-expressed concern that much of the money flowing to poor countries is ineffective in boosting growth and productivity, so aid agencies must be more rigorous in
Mark Skousen.
I'm curious. Son of W. Cleon Skousen? Author of one of the nuttier anti-communist classics, The Naked Communist, which cribs from Clinton's mentor at Georgetown, Michael Pugliese
capitalism as we want it to be
Gene Coyle wrote, In my dreams I imagine that an alert CBS journalist immediately asked Lieberman "Just how DO you want capitalism to be?" And in my nightmares I can hear his answer. Wouldn't that just be where the Enronsgive 70% of their campaign contributions to the Demos? Or am I cynical?
Talking points for TV appearance on Four-day work week
The show is on a CTV specialty cable channel and the segment airs at 7:40 p.m. Eastern time this evening. A House of Cards The way we work in North America is a HOUSE OF CARDS and most of us know it at some level or other. When I tell people about the research I do on shorter work time one of the comments I frequently hear is "Oh, thats such a sensible idea -- IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN." As a culture, we seem to be transfixed by the notion that the house of cards cannot fall and the sensible solution cannot be enacted. Why? -- Social policy in North America is highly leveraged by a fixation on "labour force attachment" (unemployment insurance, pensions, health premiums, paid holidays and vacations) This means that although amount of benefit is only loosely tied to labour output, eligibility for benefit is highly restricted and biased against irregular labour force attachment (part time, on call, contract "self-employment") The way that governments finance social benefit programs creates financial incentives for employers to either overwork employees or marginalize them in benefit-lite, contigent work. Eligibility for out-of-work benefits, such as EI and social assistance, are, of course, increasingly restricted by job search requirements. The rhetoric of 'personal responsibility' cuts against the grain both of the original philosophy of social insurance and the bald fact that government anti-inflation policy for decades has relied on deliberately maintaining a certain level of unemployment. The -- Job creation has become the new sorcerers apprentice People used to be afraid that machines, then automation, then computers would destroy jobs. "Oh no," the economists reassured us, "in the long run technology creates more jobs than it destroys." Unfortunately, the economists were both right and irrelevant. In order to create those jobs, jobs, jobs an ever greater proportion of our previously non-economic life and world has to be handed over to economic activity. As Keynes said in the long run were all dead. The steady encroachment of economic values into all aspects of our lives will see to that. A substantial proportion of work being done in North America can only be described as zero-sum 'gate-keeping', 'enabling' 'enticing' and 'healing'. The gate keepers job is to keep you out. The enablers job is to get you in. You can see that the two work somewhat at cross purposes. Similarly, the enticers job is to whittle away at your self-esteem so that youll buy something you dont need. The healers job is to tell you youre O.K. even if you can't afford that new digi-vice. So-called education is the biggest industry in the world. That industry defines itself increasingly by its role in preparing people for the labour force. Ironically, the less effectively it actually performs that function, the more in demand its services are (and the less can education spending be "wasted" on frills like arts and philosophy, except to the extent that those activities are professionalized) and the more actual work is created within the industry. Job training and placement are undoubtedly the biggest make work projects going. The dirty secret is that for the most part such training and placement does little more than place restrictions on job entry and then "train" people to overcome them. A further large amount of productive work goes into supplying the core unproductive services. So even this productive work is ultimately unproductive. -- Unemployment has become the leading leisure activity in North America There are more varieties of unemployment today than the standard definition of being out of work and seeking employment. Many people are underemployed, which means that either some of their skills are not utilized or that for some of their time they are, in effect, unemployed. Many people who have full-time jobs are idle and bored during their non-employment hours because they have nothing better to do. During their free time they vegetate rather than recreate. One consequence of this is that having more free time has little appeal for those whose free time is already unfulfilling. Another is the segregation of non-work social (and asocial) life along lines drawn by employment. Those who are looking for work have fewer opportunities to casually mix with the regularly employed and thus are denied social exposure that could make looking for work unnecessary. -- One thing a House of Cards is not: flexible.What we see instead is the need for greater adaptability from the parts precisely because the whole is so brittle. In a past life contracting on government social policy research, by far the greatest requirement for flexibility from the work force came from the monolithic inflexibility of calendars generated by the divinely ordained fiscal year. Private industry too has their fiscal periods, their product development, retooling, marketing and launch
RE: Re: Re: Two, three many geniuses
I would like to announce that there is no way in Hell that I would ever support J. Lieberman for president. Where have you gone, Monica Moorehead? mbs In my dreams I imagine that an alert CBS journalist immediately asked Lieberman Just how DO you want capitalism to be? And in my nightmares I can hear his answer. Gene Coyle http://www.nightmareanalysis.org Ian
managerialism and elimination of the relative surplus population
In addition to the piece quoted by Rakesh and cited by me previously from An American Dilemma Revisited, there are: Racial Inequality in the Managerial Age: An Alternative Vision to the NRC Report (in The National Research Council's Report on the Status of Black Americans, 1940-85) by William A. Darity Jr. The American Economic Review, Vol. 80, No. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the Hundred and Second Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association. (May, 1990), pp. 247-251. The Managerial Class and Industrial Policy by William A. Darity, Jr. Industrial Relations, Spring, 1986, 25, pp. 212-227. Darity also cites Ehrenreich and Ehrenreich The Professional Managerial Class in Pat Walker, ed.: Between Labor and Capital, Boston: South End Press, 1979. Some of the issued are also discussed in Darity and Myers, The Black Underclass: Critical Essays on Race and Unwantedness, and in an article by Darity in the Journal of Economic Issues June 1999 I believe. Social management policies are used to eliminate the relative surplus population no longer functioning even as a reserve army of labor: increased incarceration, institutionalization, population control policies, etc. -Original Message- From: F G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 8:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:21453] Re: RE: RE: Re: RE: Re: crisis causes the end of capitalism? From: Forstater, Mathew [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:21408] RE: RE: Re: RE: Re: crisis causes the end of capitalism? Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 13:56:55 -0600 I don't know if anyone is familiar with Darity's thesis about managerial society or the managerial mode of production, which he believes has developed out of capitalism. I am not sure if I agree that managerial society is a distinct mode of production that had superceded capitalism, but I think the thesis that managerial capitalism is another stage of capitalism has something to it. In the managerial society, experts run things and the system is based on credentialism. I can find the cites if anyone';s interested. mat Mathew, I am not familiar with this thesis (though I recall you bringing it up on this list earlier) but I am very interested in it. The thesis appears to have some surface cogency, especially with regards to credentialism, the explosion in jail population in the U.S., populist authoritarianism in politics on the rise since 1980, etc. I would appreciate those citations. -Frank G. _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
combating misrepresentation
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:... the question is how are crises overcome? jim's theory leads to one conclusion--raising consumption and/or prices should work to restore a crisis of overaccumulation as jim d defines it ... This is a misrepresentation of my viewpoint. It would be like saying that Fred Moseley advocates higher unemployment and wage cuts as a way of solving the current crisis. Both assertions are wrong. Rather, as I said, I believe that crisis tendencies are inherent in capitalism, so that to abolish them it is necessary to replace it with another mode of production (though that mode may have its own crises, as the old USSR did). In the case of over-accumulation relative to consumer demand (one topic of my 1994 RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY article and the specific form of my crisis theory being criticized by Bhandari), raising consumption does help deal with the immediate problem, but that is an abstract and superficial solution. It's the kind of thing that makes sense only within the halls of academe or some other equally isolated location. That is, it isn't a solution _at all_, since in the real world of today's capitalism you can't raise consumption without changing the concrete way in which capitalism operates, i.e., what I've been calling the regime. (Similarly, you can't simply raise prices -- to avoid a Fisherian debt deflation -- without changing the regime.) Specifically, that means a very difficult transition from a weak labor regime to a strong labor one. By the names I give the regimes, it should be very clear -- except to those who refuse to understand -- that the transition would involve _massive class struggles_. I said this before, but maybe this time it will sink in... Frankly, given the globalized nature of capitalism these days, it is very hard to imagine that a transition to a strong labor era would arrive in the near future (i.e., during the next few decades). Even with this kind of transition, there would be crises. But -- and this is a major point of my theory -- the form of these crises would be different from that of a weak labor era. BTW, if anyone wants to characterize my views of crisis theory, here's a very abstract summary: if the orthodoxy among macroeconomists (e.g., Brad deLong) can be described as short-term Keynesian/long-term classical, I would say that I'm a short-term Keynesian/long-term Marxist. That is, Keynes (and sometimes even modern orthodox economists) can provide important insights on the nature of capitalist dynamics in the short run, especially when it concerns financial issues. (Even when these folks do not have anything to contribute, it's important to take them seriously rather than simply dismissing them.) But in the long run (roughly, a decade or more), the dynamics of capitalism are those of accumulation driven by the rate of profit, with the system driving itself into a crisis of one sort or another (ecological, economic, etc.) How this works in practice depends on concrete circumstances. For example, the North moderated serious crises for decades by dumping many of their costs on the South and on nature. I know that this is heresy to some, but I only want to hear how it is illogical, contrary to specific data, one-sided (leaving out important parts of the societal totality), etc. Giving vague references to empirical data, worshiping Big Name thinkers, misrepresenting my opinions, or accusing me of lacking theoretical purity simply prove such critics to be shallow or dogmatic. Jim Devine
Re: combating misrepresentation
now, now, Jim, who's becoming unhinged? Rakesh Bhandari wrote:... the question is how are crises overcome? jim's theory leads to one conclusion--raising consumption and/or prices should work to restore a crisis of overaccumulation as jim d defines it ... This is a misrepresentation of my viewpoint. at least it was not said behind your back; moreover, it is the same idea that Fred got from your argument. It would be like saying that Fred Moseley advocates higher unemployment and wage cuts as a way of solving the current crisis. Both assertions are wrong. Situation is not parallel at all. You say that increased consumption would stabilize capitalism at least in the short term. Marxian theory says that this is false but Marxian theory also says that accepting wage cuts will not stabilize capitalism in the long run anyway--as you rightly said massive devaluation and destruction of capital is also needed; so therefore instead of attempting to help capitalists solve their problem of profitability at the workers' expense, workers should protect themselves and in organizing to do so should prepare themselves to overthrow this mode of production that visits oppressions and barbarity on humanity. Rather, as I said, I believe that crisis tendencies are inherent in capitalism, so that to abolish them it is necessary to replace it with another mode of production (though that mode may have its own crises, as the old USSR did). It does not matter whether we phrase monger about the contradictions of capitalism; it matters how those contradictions are explained in systematic theory. Grossman's presentation remains the key event in the history of Marxian economic thought, but he has been developed in fruitful ways by, say, Carchedi--who's another of one those really big name thinkers whom I worship. In the case of over-accumulation relative to consumer demand (one topic of my 1994 RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY article and the specific form of my crisis theory being criticized by Bhandari), raising consumption does help deal with the immediate problem, but that is an abstract and superficial solution. well according to marxian theory it's no solution at all to the problem of crisis, and it is not a solution either. It's the kind of thing that makes sense only within the halls of academe or some other equally isolated location. you're going to have make a clear point to ensure that it's not misrepresented. That is, it isn't a solution _at all_, so what does in fact deal with the immediate problem is not a solution at all. it seems to me that you're playing with words. since in the real world of today's capitalism you can't raise consumption without changing the concrete way in which capitalism operates, i.e., what I've been calling the regime. yes this is Marx's critique of Mill. But I also doubt that changing the regime--that is installing a social democratic one--would heal capitalism of its crises. (Similarly, you can't simply raise prices -- to avoid a Fisherian debt deflation -- without changing the regime.) Specifically, that means a very difficult transition from a weak labor regime to a strong labor one. but that regime shift--which would leave the relations of production in tact--would not remove the cause of crises. By the names I give the regimes, it should be very clear -- except to those who refuse to understand -- that the transition would involve _massive class struggles_. I said this before, but maybe this time it will sink in... you are advocating class struggles to better the distribution of income, not to abolish the commodity-, money-, capital- and wage-forms themselves which are the root causes of the crisis. Frankly, given the globalized nature of capitalism these days, it is very hard to imagine that a transition to a strong labor era would arrive in the near future (i.e., during the next few decades). but this is a matter of hypothetical reasoning; even if there were such a shift, the problem would not be solved. That's the Marxian argument. Even with this kind of transition, there would be crises. But -- and this is a major point of my theory -- the form of these crises would be different from that of a weak labor era. so you seem to be saying--and I must guess because you are hardly clear here at all--there could be crises if your strong labor regime were not coupled with some kind of planning; that is, you are saying the anarchy of production would still result in departures from equilibrium growth. But then a strong labor/high consumption regime with state guidance of investments would only solve underconsumption and disproportionality crises, but the cause of general crises is not in maldistribution of value between workers and capitalists or among capitalists. It is in the production of surplus value itself. Overcoming crises then requires an abolition of the vertical exploitative relations of production, that is
Re: Re: combating misrepresentation
Come on now. I am not concentrating on e-mail, trying to finish Mirowski's new book -- but first you characterize Jim repeatedly and then say he is coming unhinged. You have too much to contribute to get into all this personal stuff. This discussion has been for the most part very useful. Let's keep it that way. On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 03:46:55PM -0800, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: now, now, Jim, who's becoming unhinged? Rakesh Bhandari wrote:... the question is how are crises overcome? jim's theory leads to one conclusion--raising consumption and/or prices should work to restore a crisis of overaccumulation as jim d defines it ... This is a misrepresentation of my viewpoint. at least it was not said behind your back; moreover, it is the same idea that Fred got from your argument. It would be like saying that Fred Moseley advocates higher unemployment and wage cuts as a way of solving the current crisis. Both assertions are wrong. Situation is not parallel at all. You say that increased consumption would stabilize capitalism at least in the short term. Marxian theory says that this is false but Marxian theory also says that accepting wage cuts will not stabilize capitalism in the long run anyway--as you rightly said massive devaluation and destruction of capital is also needed; so therefore instead of attempting to help capitalists solve their problem of profitability at the workers' expense, workers should protect themselves and in organizing to do so should prepare themselves to overthrow this mode of production that visits oppressions and barbarity on humanity. Rather, as I said, I believe that crisis tendencies are inherent in capitalism, so that to abolish them it is necessary to replace it with another mode of production (though that mode may have its own crises, as the old USSR did). It does not matter whether we phrase monger about the contradictions of capitalism; it matters how those contradictions are explained in systematic theory. Grossman's presentation remains the key event in the history of Marxian economic thought, but he has been developed in fruitful ways by, say, Carchedi--who's another of one those really big name thinkers whom I worship. In the case of over-accumulation relative to consumer demand (one topic of my 1994 RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY article and the specific form of my crisis theory being criticized by Bhandari), raising consumption does help deal with the immediate problem, but that is an abstract and superficial solution. well according to marxian theory it's no solution at all to the problem of crisis, and it is not a solution either. It's the kind of thing that makes sense only within the halls of academe or some other equally isolated location. you're going to have make a clear point to ensure that it's not misrepresented. That is, it isn't a solution _at all_, so what does in fact deal with the immediate problem is not a solution at all. it seems to me that you're playing with words. since in the real world of today's capitalism you can't raise consumption without changing the concrete way in which capitalism operates, i.e., what I've been calling the regime. yes this is Marx's critique of Mill. But I also doubt that changing the regime--that is installing a social democratic one--would heal capitalism of its crises. (Similarly, you can't simply raise prices -- to avoid a Fisherian debt deflation -- without changing the regime.) Specifically, that means a very difficult transition from a weak labor regime to a strong labor one. but that regime shift--which would leave the relations of production in tact--would not remove the cause of crises. By the names I give the regimes, it should be very clear -- except to those who refuse to understand -- that the transition would involve _massive class struggles_. I said this before, but maybe this time it will sink in... you are advocating class struggles to better the distribution of income, not to abolish the commodity-, money-, capital- and wage-forms themselves which are the root causes of the crisis. Frankly, given the globalized nature of capitalism these days, it is very hard to imagine that a transition to a strong labor era would arrive in the near future (i.e., during the next few decades). but this is a matter of hypothetical reasoning; even if there were such a shift, the problem would not be solved. That's the Marxian argument. Even with this kind of transition, there would be crises. But -- and this is a major point of my theory -- the form of these crises would be different from that of a weak labor era. so you seem to be saying--and I must guess because you are hardly clear here at all--there could be crises if your strong labor regime were not coupled with some kind of planning; that is, you are saying the anarchy of
Re: Re: Re: combating misrepresentation
Come on now. I am not concentrating on e-mail, trying to finish Mirowski's new book -- but first you characterize Jim repeatedly and then say he is coming unhinged. I characterized Jim as a social democrat after he himself spoke favorably of such a regime in terms of doing good for the capitalist class itself. And I drew the same implication from his theorizing that Fred did. Now Jim's mad because I don't understand what he means when he says by solution he did not mean 'solution'. Rakesh
up next; the globalization of accounting standards
The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com Accounting for Enron: Global Ripple Effects Eric Pfanner International Herald Tribune Thursday, January 17, 2002 Failure Brings Call for Tougher Standards LONDON The collapse of Enron, the giant energy trading company, has challenged the notion that U.S. companies' accounting is the most reliable and transparent in the world, some experts say, potentially taking a bit of the shine off the U.S. financial markets' appeal to international investors. While analysts question whether any rules could have prevented the failure of Enron, they say the spectacular downfall of what was once the world's seventh-most valuable company could also heighten the push for international accounting and auditing standards to replace the patchwork of country-by-country guide lines that exist today. Because of the collapse of Enron - and the seeming inability of its auditor, Arthur Andersen, to head off trouble - many international investors are taking a more critical look at other U.S. shareholdings, analysts say. One of the fundamental strengths of the U.S. stock market, even in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, has been the idea that American companies offer the most reliable earnings streams. But a series of accounting scandals, culminating with Enron, and the increased use of questionable ways companies report their financial results, appear to have shaken that notion somewhat. There is no sign yet that people have lost confidence in corporate America, said David Bowers, chief investment strategist at Merrill Lynch. But this will be something to watch. If you can't figure out what a company is earning, how can you value it? Some analysts say international accounting and auditing standards, being put forth by several industry groups, could make that task easier, at least for cross-border investors. The new standards could also force accounting firms to more rigorously separate their auditing operations from the lucrative consulting work that they often do for the same clients. European regulators have been in the vanguard in adopting rules proposed by the London-based International Accounting Standards Board, aimed at creating uniform standards around the world. By 2005, any company whose stock is traded on a European exchange will have to adhere to this code. American regulators have been seen as more reluctant to adopt these rules, in part because of lobbying from U.S. companies that object to how stock options would have to be accounted for under those guidelines. One expert, who insisted he not be named, said the attention generated by the Enron case was likely to lead to some sort of compromise under which U.S. and international regulations would move more closely together, leading to their adoption in the United States, too. There has been a perception for years that U.S. standards were the best in the world, said John Collier, secretary-general of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales. Now that notion has been at least challenged. American accounting standards have long been seen as the strictest. In part because U.S. companies face a greater threat of shareholder lawsuits, U.S. rules are more detailed than those in Europe, which are based more on broad principles than on specific guidelines. That kind of flexibility has benefits, Mr. Collier said. He said that an Enron-style disaster would have been less likely to occur in Britain, where accounting standards more closely mirror the international guidelines, because the company would have been unable to keep the special partnerships, which are the focus of the company's demise, off its balance sheet. Another expert on international accounting rules disagreed, saying that the problem with Enron was not the rules but whether they were followed properly by the company and its auditor, Andersen. Some experts predict that new international restrictions are likely to deal with what they see as inherent conflicts between auditing and consulting work. Critics contend that these arrangements - highlighted by the Enron case - lead auditors to give less careful scrutiny to company's books for fear of losing the consulting contracts. The European Commission, for example, is currently drafting new guidelines on the auditing industry, and the Enron collapse could prompt regulators to call for greater separation of consulting and auditing work, said Michael Bromwich, a professor at the London School of Economics. There's a very strong view in Continental Europe that consulting and auditing should be separated, he said. This will give impetus to that. Bush Advisers Reviewed Enron President George W. Bush's economic team, led by Lawrence Lindsey, a former Enron adviser, conducted an internal review of whether the company's collapse would hurt the overall economy and concluded there was little risk, Reuters reported from Washington. Mr. Lindsey and other aides were doing their jobs by
Mommy what's a catfish?
The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com Catfish Are Catfish, Unless They're Caught in a Trade War Elizabeth Becker New York Times Service Thursday, January 17, 2002 BALCH, Arkansas With blue herons circling overhead as fishermen pull in the day's catch, Joey Lowery explains why he is doing battle with the Vietnamese to save his own and other Mississippi Delta catfish farms. To him, the issue is simple. Vietnam should stop labeling imported basa fish as catfish and thereby end what he calls its unfair piggybacking on an industry built from scratch by farmers in Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi. We're not protectionists. I've never been against the Vietnamese selling their fish in this country - I just want them to label them properly and call a spade a spade, said Mr. Lowery, 38, a farmer who carved out 55 ponds on a farm he inherited from his father. To Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona and a celebrated prisoner of war in Vietnam, the issue is equally clear. Just when the United States finally reached a trade agreement with its old and bitter enemy, a clutch of Mississippi Delta farmers got Congress to erect an offensive trade barrier. No doubt, Mr. McCain said, on behalf of several large, wealthy U.S. agribusinesses that will handsomely profit by killing competition from Vietnamese catfish imports. In the bruising tug of war over how to manage global trade, few issues cut closer to the bone than agriculture and its cousin aquaculture. On one side are industrial nations that use farm policy not only to promote their agribusinesses overseas but to protect their markets and farmers at home. European countries have also used their agricultural subsidies to defend the pastoral countryside from the onslaught of urbanization. Working against them are developing countries like Vietnam that are trying to raise their standard of living by breaking into those very markets with less expensive products like catfish. By translating the name of its tra fish as catfish rather than basa, the common English name of that species, the Vietnamese have captured 20 percent of the U.S. catfish market. Tra looks like catfish; tra tastes like catfish. Since Americans consume 120 million pounds (55 million kilograms) of catfish fillets, that is a lucrative niche. In Arkansas alone, the catfish industry brought in $750 million last year, according to Ted McNulty, the Arkansas state official who oversees aquaculture. This fall Congress sided with the delta farmers and temporarily forbade the Vietnamese from using catfish in their labels. Now, as the Senate prepares to take up the farm bill when it returns later this month, it is debating whether to make that a permanent ban. Understandably, the Vietnamese do not want to give up their market. We're totally against changing our name, said Pham Binh Ninh, deputy chief of mission at the embassy of Vietnam in Washington. On its Web site, the Vietnamese Embassy takes more direct aim at American catfish farmers. More than 20 years after their failure during the Vietnam War, they opt to launch a new war, as they declare, not to fight communism, but to combat Vietnamese tra and basa catfish. To their frustration, American catfish farmers complain that they are being penalized for doing exactly what the Agriculture Department claims is needed in rural America. They have created a new agricultural industry for faltering farmers who turned their rice and soybean fields into profitable fish farms in one of the poorest regions of the country. By giving up crop farming, these catfish farmers also gave up heavy use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, a plus for the environment. And they gave up farm subsidies - another important goal for lawmakers looking to get the government out of farming. Above all, the catfish farmers say, they have preserved an important part of the sportfishing culture of the South, as well as a culinary staple. We've done what we were supposed to do, said Mr. Lowery. When I stopped plowing and built the fish ponds, I stopped using the chemical pesticides and fertilizers that cause the pollution. In his farm in the northeastern corner of Arkansas, Mr. Lowery overseas 460 acres (185 hectares) of ponds where he raises catfish along with large carp, which eat much of the algae and help keep the water clean. On a recent morning his crew of six fishermen threw out a large seine, or net, and harvested 10,000 pounds of carp to be shipped live to several Chinese restaurants in New York City the next day. That's good, tighten the seine, Mr. Lowery shouts to the fishermen who are clothed in wetsuits on this windy winter day. Agriculture inspectors have checked the ponds, and the fish are checked routinely at the processing plants for any traces of contaminants. Mr. Lowery says he knows that his counterparts in Vietnam are not put through the same rigorous inspections. He also said he doubts they are the ones making money
from the Right
Off and on over the years, a few capitalists have done more to de-legitimize capitalism than America's impotent socialist critics ever did or today's moribund left could hope to. It is the Republicans' special responsibility to punish such capitalists. George Will http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/54559_will16.shtm l
one take on the FSC decision
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com WTO vindicated EDITORIAL [ THURSDAY, JANUARY 17, 2002 12:09:05 AM ] The ruling of the WTO's appellate body on tax treatment of Foreign Sales Corporations in the United States could well mark a significant milestone in the development of the World Trade Organisation. This not just because of the specifics of this case, though they are undoubtedly interesting in themselves. The distinction the American tax system makes between sales abroad and at home has been found by the WTO to hide export subsidies. The tax benefits offered to those using domestically produced inputs have also been found to go against WTO norms. These findings can cause substantial pain to the US economy, which is already in the midst of a recession. If the US changes its tax laws, several major American companies would be seriously hurt. And if it doesn't, Europe will have an opportunity to impose trade sanctions against the US of a magnitude that will be the largest in the history of the WTO. It is, of course, possible that Europe may opt to make a deal with the United States rather than go in for sanctions. And with India having joined the European Union in the case against the United States, it is also possible that India could claim a share in any compromise. However, the real lessons may well be on the functioning of the WTO itself. The dominance of a few major economic powers in WTO negotiations has often been taken to mean that countries of the South cannot expect to gain from the emerging WTO regime. Indeed, the minimalist strategy that Indian governments have tended to adopt is based on the feeling that there is little to gain from actively working towards strengthening and expanding the WTO. But the Appellate Body's report on Foreign Sales Corporations reiterates the fact that no country is immune to adverse rulings from the WTO. The task before countries like India is to build an effective challenge. This task is, to a considerable extent, dependent on the quality of argumentation. But it is also a matter of gaining prominent and effective allies. And the FSC case once again demonstrates that India's most effective allies need not always be from the South. The sooner we realise that, the better we will be able to defend our case.
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: social democracy
Date sent: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 19:06:39 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[PEN-L:21439] Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: social democracy Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This whole discussion about social democracy and marxist economics disturbs me (disgusts me?) on two levels. First, on the practical level, if it weren't for SD I would never have had the chance to arrive above the level of the working class. My grand parents were miners, my parents were able to become school teachers, and I and my wife could become professionals --all on the basis of social democratic party politics. ( My grandparents and parents were both active in labour/social democratic politcal parties politics.) so the kind of sh.. that we get from the rigid marxists is not something I have much respect for. My grandparents and parents were deeply involved with the Winnipeg General Strike and the basic strikes and social strugles for human, racial and political rights during the 1930s through the 1960s so this kind of academic shit I don't want to hear about. I have done research in Sweden, Britain, Yugoslavia, Australia, and eastern Europe (and published in acceptable academic (including Marxist economic journals such as Monthly Review and Canadian Dimension.) The level of discussion of soci al democratic economics on this list is appalling. I would not accept it as acceptable at a second year university level. If we are so ignorant of social democratic theory and practice we would be better off not to advertise the fact. The same should be said of institutional theory from Berles and Meanes, Galbraith, Darity and all the other institutionalists. Pen-L should not parade its ignorance of alternative economic paradigms. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba Michael Perelman wrote: Another Swedish question. Doesn't Sweden have one of the most concentrated industrial structures in the world? Yup, think it does. The Wallenberg family's Investor trust controls some enormous portion of Swedish industry. Such structures are good for social democracy; dispersed stockowner structures like the U.S.'s are its enemy. Doug
Smithies/Schumpter
The American Economy in the Thirties (in The American Economy in the Interwar Period) Arthur Smithies The American Economic Review, Vol. 36, No. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the Fifty-eighth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association. (May, 1946), pp. 11-27. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
canadian concentration
an earlier version of the paper is at http://eres.bus.umich.edu/docs/dwpname.html Inherited Wealth, Corporate Control and Economic Growth: The Canadian Disease RANDALL MORCK University of Alberta ; Harvard University ; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) DAVID A. STANGELAND University of Manitoba BERNARD YIN YEUNG New York University November 1998 NBER Working Paper No. W6814 Abstract: Countries in which billionaire heirs' wealth is large relative to G.D.P. grow more slowly, show signs of more political rent-seeking, and spend less on innovation than do other countries at similar levels of development. In contrast, countries in which self-made entrepreneur billionaire wealth is large relative to G.D.P. grow more rapidly and show fewer signs of rent seeking. We argue that this is consistent with wealthy entrenched families' having objectives other than creating public shareholder value. Also, the control pyramids through which they are entrenched give wealthy families preferential access to capital and enhanced lobbying power. Entrenched families also have vested interest in preserving the value of existing capital. To investigate these arguments, we use firm-level Canadian data. Heir-controlled Canadian firms show low industry-adjusted financial performance, labor capital ratios, and RD spending relative to other firms the same ages and sizes. We argue that concentrated, inherited corporate control impedes growth, and dub this the Canadian disease.' Further research is needed to determine the international incidence of this condition. Finally, heir-controlled Canadian firms' share prices fell relative to those of comparable firms on the news that the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement would be ratified. A key provision of that treaty is capital market openness. Under the treaty, heir-controlled Canadian firms' labor capital ratios rose, while the incidence of heir-control fell. We suggest that openness, especially of capital markets, may mitigate the ill effects of concentrated inherited control. If so, capital market openness matters for reasons not captured by standard international trade and finance models. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
pen-l archives moving??
The pen-l archives will probably be moved fairly soon. I will keep you posted. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: social democracy
Date sent: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 19:06:39 -0500 To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:21439] Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: social democracy Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This whole discussion about social democracy and marxist economics disturbs me (disgusts me?) on two levels. First, on the practical level, if it weren't for SD I would never have had the chance to arrive above the level of the working class. My grand parents were miners, my parents were able to become school teachers, and I and my wife could become professionals --all on the basis of social democratic party politics. ( My grandparents and parents were both active in labour/social democratic politcal parties politics.) so the kind of sh.. that we get from the rigid marxists is not something I have much respect for. My grandparents and parents were deeply involved with the Winnipeg General Strike and the basic strikes and social strugles for human, racial and political rights during the 1930s through the 1960s so this kind of academic shit I don't want to hear about. who has said anything against strikes? the criticism has not been of social democratic gains and worker actions; it has been of the inability of the capitalist system to be reformed or to allow for the maintainence of the hard won fought gains of the past. by the way, Jim Devine has himself agreed to that though I find the theoretical reasoning for his conclusion to be inadequate. I have done research in Sweden, Britain, Yugoslavia, Australia, and eastern Europe (and published in acceptable academic (including Marxist economic journals such as Monthly Review and Canadian Dimension.) obviously you wrote in a different manner for those publications than you write here. The level of discussion of social democratic economics on this list is appalling. the discussion here is not of social democratic economics but the root causes of capitalist crises and whether Keynesian demand management can solve the underlying problems with the capitalist system. Now yes my sophistication may be appalling to someone who may well know more quite a bit more than me. But you seem to have missed what the debate is about. I would not accept it as acceptable at a second year university level. i have actually received one paper back in my life as not satsifactory; it was for a Harvard graduate seminar in which I tried to answer the question of why the US had supplied repressive technology to various tottering tyrannies. If we are so ignorant of social democratic theory and practice we would be better off not to advertise the fact. Professor Phillips, I think you are ignorant of the basic schools in Marxist crisis theory. Jim D is trying to develop the underconsumption strand into an overinvestment one which makes more room for fixed capital investment and credit operations. This is a respectable tradition. In it stand Bauer, Lederer, Sweezy and Devine. Jim D also wants to add a disproportionality strand. In that strand stands Lenin (an argument can be made). I am subscribing (and doubtless not adequately defending) the falling rate/mass of profit strand. In this tradition stands Grossman, Mattick, Moseley and some others I have mentioned. There are clear political implications to each school of thought. And as someone who touts himself as an expert, I think you should not advertise your obvious ignorance of the most basic questions in Marxian economic crisis theory. Rakesh
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: social democracy
Rakesh, please stop calling people ignorant and please stop informing the list about how incorrect Jim D.'s ideas are -- even though he keeps saying that you are mischaracterizing him. On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 06:55:40PM -0800, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: Date sent: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 19:06:39 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From:Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:21439] Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: social democracy Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This whole discussion about social democracy and marxist economics disturbs me (disgusts me?) on two levels. First, on the practical level, if it weren't for SD I would never have had the chance to arrive above the level of the working class. My grand parents were miners, my parents were able to become school teachers, and I and my wife could become professionals --all on the basis of social democratic party politics. ( My grandparents and parents were both active in labour/social democratic politcal parties politics.) so the kind of sh.. that we get from the rigid marxists is not something I have much respect for. My grandparents and parents were deeply involved with the Winnipeg General Strike and the basic strikes and social strugles for human, racial and political rights during the 1930s through the 1960s so this kind of academic shit I don't want to hear about. who has said anything against strikes? the criticism has not been of social democratic gains and worker actions; it has been of the inability of the capitalist system to be reformed or to allow for the maintainence of the hard won fought gains of the past. by the way, Jim Devine has himself agreed to that though I find the theoretical reasoning for his conclusion to be inadequate. I have done research in Sweden, Britain, Yugoslavia, Australia, and eastern Europe (and published in acceptable academic (including Marxist economic journals such as Monthly Review and Canadian Dimension.) obviously you wrote in a different manner for those publications than you write here. The level of discussion of soci al democratic economics on this list is appalling. the discussion here is not of social democratic economics but the root causes of capitalist crises and whether Keynesian demand management can solve the underlying problems with the capitalist system. Now yes my sophistication may be appalling to someone who may well know more quite a bit more than me. But you seem to have missed what the debate is about. I would not accept it as acceptable at a second year university level. i have actually received one paper back in my life as not satsifactory; it was for a Harvard graduate seminar in which I tried to answer the question of why the US had supplied repressive technology to various tottering tyrannies. If we are so ignorant of social democratic theory and practice we would be better off not to advertise the fact. Professor Phillips, I think you are ignorant of the basic schools in Marxist crisis theory. Jim D is trying to develop the underconsumption strand into an overinvestment one which makes more room for fixed capital investment and credit operations. This is a respectable tradition. In it stand Bauer, Lederer, Sweezy and Devine. Jim D also wants to add a disproportionality strand. In that strand stands Lenin (an argument can be made). I am subscribing (and doubtless not adequately defending) the falling rate/mass of profit strand. In this tradition stands Grossman, Mattick, Moseley and some others I have mentioned. There are clear political implications to each school of thought. And as someone who touts himself as an expert, I think you should not advertise your obvious ignorance of the most basic questions in Marxian economic crisis theory. Rakesh -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: socialdemocracy
Rakesh, please stop calling people ignorant and please stop informing the list about how incorrect Jim D.'s ideas are -- even though he keeps saying that you are mischaracterizing him. Michael, you're joking right! Paul Phillips went bonkers against me. He called me ignorant of social democratic economics (though my guess is I know galbraith's and darity's work better than he does) and expressed moral repulsion against me; i just replied that he was ignorant of marxian crisis theory. As for Jim D, he has--AS I UNDERSTAND HIM--two major pieces of evidence against the falling profit theory: (1)profit rates had shown no falling trend before investment demand collapsed (2)the explanation for FROP is a rising OCC the proxy for which also has shown no upward trend. I responded (1)there is now evidence (anecdotal yes) that books had been cooked, exaggerating the profit trend going into this recession. I think for example it is certain that investment demand for software companies was not as strong as reported profits indicated, and we have this mess of offbook accounts as Gretchen Morgenson (sp?) has been reporting in the NYT. (2)whether the existing capital was being valorized, *new* investments were not proving profitable, leading firms to instead buy back their own stock as inventories were thus building up in dept I; this inventory build up then led to steep price competition and steep profit rate declines, e.g., Intel vs. AMD. (3)the recession insofar as it is ending is not ending due to stronger prices or consumption (though these can result from a pick up in investment activity) but the restoration of profitability in production due (for example) to the cheapening of constant capital. Now when Fred finds the time he will give another and doubtless more empirically rich answer to Jim D's important challenges. I have given no answer to Jim D's point 2 yet, in part because I am trying to understand whether the proxy is adequate. RB
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: social democracy
As everybody else on the list know, I am not joking. Why is it Jim, Carrol, and, you add, Paul get into arguments with you? I think that abrasiveness detracts from the exchanges. Give us your information, but spare us your disputatious approach. Thanks. On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 07:28:04PM -0800, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: Rakesh, please stop calling people ignorant and please stop informing the list about how incorrect Jim D.'s ideas are -- even though he keeps saying that you are mischaracterizing him. Michael, you're joking right! Paul Phillips went bonkers against me. He called me ignorant of social democratic economics (though my guess is I know galbraith's and darity's work better than he does) and expressed moral repulsion against me; i just replied that he was ignorant of marxian crisis theory. As for Jim D, he has--AS I UNDERSTAND HIM--two major pieces of evidence against the falling profit theory: (1)profit rates had shown no falling trend before investment demand collapsed (2)the explanation for FROP is a rising OCC the proxy for which also has shown no upward trend. I responded (1)there is now evidence (anecdotal yes) that books had been cooked, exaggerating the profit trend going into this recession. I think for example it is certain that investment demand for software companies was not as strong as reported profits indicated, and we have this mess of offbook accounts as Gretchen Morgenson (sp?) has been reporting in the NYT. (2)whether the existing capital was being valorized, *new* investments were not proving profitable, leading firms to instead buy back their own stock as inventories were thus building up in dept I; this inventory build up then led to steep price competition and steep profit rate declines, e.g., Intel vs. AMD. (3)the recession insofar as it is ending is not ending due to stronger prices or consumption (though these can result from a pick up in investment activity) but the restoration of profitability in production due (for example) to the cheapening of constant capital. Now when Fred finds the time he will give another and doubtless more empirically rich answer to Jim D's important challenges. I have given no answer to Jim D's point 2 yet, in part because I am trying to understand whether the proxy is adequate. RB -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Sweden
Doug, Schumpeter's creative destruction does not occur in the context of weak demand. It is a theory of investment-led aggregate demand, followed by an overshooting, and then a crash. Mellon's scheme might work, but it sure took a long time for the economy to get going. Without World War II, how much longer. Prior to Keynes, there was a contingent of US economists who wrote about underconsumption and secular stagnation. On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 12:28:38PM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote: Wouldn't many bourgeois economists and executives agree? Liquidate, said Mellon; creative destruction, said Schumpeter; Enron's just the say things work, said Paul O'Neill just the other day. What's specifically Marxist about the notion? It's the Keynesians who are the odd ones out. Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: social democracy
- Original Message - From: Rakesh Bhandari [EMAIL PROTECTED] No thanks, Kick me off the list anytime you want. I shall continue to respond in the style that I respond. I am not here to share information as if I am an information processing machine but to discuss and debate and learn. I of course have my own explanation for why Marxists such as Carrol, Jim D, and Paul Phillips get into arguments with me and themselves resort freely to ad hominem arguments. At any rate, I certainly can't be accused of laying into Phillips first! And the whole idea that debates among Marxists should not be disputatious is just--well--so not like Marx himself. Rakesh === Disputing and discussing ideas and strategies is one thing but you *still* aren't winning friends and influencing people. Ian
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re:social democracy
As everybody else on the list know, I am not joking. Why is it Jim, Carrol, and, you add, Paul get into arguments with you? I think that abrasiveness detracts from the exchanges. Give us your information, but spare us your disputatious approach. Thanks. No thanks, Kick me off the list anytime you want. I shall continue to respond in the style that I respond. I am not here to share information as if I am an information processing machine but to discuss and debate and learn. I of course have my own explanation for why Marxists such as Carrol, Jim D, and Paul Phillips get into arguments with me and themselves resort freely to ad hominem arguments. At any rate, I certainly can't be accused of laying into Phillips first! And the whole idea that debates among Marxists should not be disputatious is just--well--so not like Marx himself. Rakesh
RE: Re: combating misrepresentation
Oy vey, fellow cmrdes! William J. Blake mentioned. Married to Christina Stead, the novelist. http://www.google.com/search?hl=enq=+Christina+Stead+William+J.+Blake+ Michael Pugliese --- Original Message --- From: Rakesh Bhandari [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 1/16/02 3:46:55 PM now, now, Jim, who's becoming unhinged? Rakesh Bhandari wrote:... the question is how are crises overcome? jim's theory leads to one conclusion--raising consumption and/or prices should work to restore a crisis of overaccumulation as jim d defines it ... This is a misrepresentation of my viewpoint. at least it was not said behind your back; moreover, it is the same idea that Fred got from your argument. It would be like saying that Fred Moseley advocates higher unemployment and wage cuts as a way of solving the current crisis. Both assertions are wrong. Situation is not parallel at all. You say that increased consumption would stabilize capitalism at least in the short term. Marxian theory says that this is false but Marxian theory also says that accepting wage cuts will not stabilize capitalism in the long run anyway--as you rightly said massive devaluation and destruction of capital is also needed; so therefore instead of attempting to help capitalists solve their problem of profitability at the workers' expense, workers should protect themselves and in organizing to do so should prepare themselves to overthrow this mode of production that visits oppressions and barbarity on humanity. Rather, as I said, I believe that crisis tendencies are inherent in capitalism, so that to abolish them it is necessary to replace it with another mode of production (though that mode may have its own crises, as the old USSR did). It does not matter whether we phrase monger about the contradictions of capitalism; it matters how those contradictions are explained in systematic theory. Grossman's presentation remains the key event in the history of Marxian economic thought, but he has been developed in fruitful ways by, say, Carchedi--who's another of one those really big name thinkers whom I worship. In the case of over-accumulation relative to consumer demand (one topic of my 1994 RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY article and the specific form of my crisis theory being criticized by Bhandari), raising consumption does help deal with the immediate problem, but that is an abstract and superficial solution. well according to marxian theory it's no solution at all to the problem of crisis, and it is not a solution either. It's the kind of thing that makes sense only within the halls of academe or some other equally isolated location. you're going to have make a clear point to ensure that it's not misrepresented. That is, it isn't a solution _at all_, so what does in fact deal with the immediate problem is not a solution at all. it seems to me that you're playing with words. since in the real world of today's capitalism you can't raise consumption without changing the concrete way in which capitalism operates, i.e., what I've been calling the regime. yes this is Marx's critique of Mill. But I also doubt that changing the regime--that is installing a social democratic one--would heal capitalism of its crises. (Similarly, you can't simply raise prices -- to avoid a Fisherian debt deflation -- without changing the regime.) Specifically, that means a very difficult transition from a weak labor regime to a strong labor one. but that regime shift--which would leave the relations of production in tact--would not remove the cause of crises. By the names I give the regimes, it should be very clear -- except to those who refuse to understand -- that the transition would involve _massive class struggles_. I said this before, but maybe this time it will sink in... you are advocating class struggles to better the distribution of income, not to abolish the commodity-, money-, capital- and wage-forms themselves which are the root causes of the crisis. Frankly, given the globalized nature of capitalism these days, it is very hard to imagine that a transition to a strong labor era would arrive in the near future (i.e., during the next few decades). but this is a matter of hypothetical reasoning; even if there were such a shift, the problem would not be solved. That's the Marxian argument. Even with this kind of transition, there would be crises. But -- and this is a major point of my theory -- the form of these crises would be different from that of a weak labor era. so you seem to be saying--and I must guess because you are hardly clear here at all--there could be crises if your strong labor regime were not coupled with some kind of planning; that is, you are saying the anarchy of production would still result in departures from equilibrium growth. But then a strong labor/high consumption regime with state guidance of investments would only solve underconsumption and
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: social democracy
Debating and learning are at the core of what we are trying to do. Personal attacks get in the way. No thanks, Kick me off the list anytime you want. I shall continue to respond in the style that I respond. I am not here to share information as if I am an information processing machine but to discuss and debate and learn. I of course have my own explanation for why Marxists such as Carrol, Jim D, and Paul Phillips get into arguments with me and themselves resort freely to ad hominem arguments. At any rate, I certainly can't be accused of laying into Phillips first! And the whole idea that debates among Marxists should not be disputatious is just--well--so not like Marx himself. Rakesh -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tariq Ali on Saudi Arabia
http://www.indexonline.org/news/401_20011018_ali.shtml
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re:Re: Re: social democracy
Debating and learning are at the core of what we are trying to do. Personal attacks get in the way. As I said, Phillips laid into me first. So, Michael, you have to ask yourself why you said something to me. I said nothing to him. I don't even know who he is. rb
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re:Re: Re: social democracy
Title: Re: [PEN-L:21509] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: === Disputing and discussing ideas and strategies is one thing but you *still* aren't winning friends and influencing people. ian, isn't it a bit pretentious for you to think that you know what every-one who reads this list is thinking? and that you are implicitly suggesting that i should approach discussion and debate in the mendacious way that dale carnegie recommends suggests a deep commitment to the values of a salesman. How to Win Friends Influence People Dale Carnegie One of the best-selling books of all time, for over 60 years the rock-solid, time-tested advice in this program has carried thousands of people up the ladder of success in their business and personal lives. Learn the six ways to make people like you, the twelve ways to win people to your way of thinking, etc. There is room at the top, when you know How radical indeed are these anti globalization activists! rb
delicate times for the left
Did the left lose the war? Kabul fell in five weeks. The Islamic world has not erupted. So did the left get it all wrong - and does it matter? Andy Beckett Thursday January 17, 2002 The Guardian Guy Taylor is a political activist of great height and confidence. He used to be an organiser for the Socialist Workers Party. Nowadays he is a prominent member of Globalise Resistance, a loose network of British anti-capitalists. Since it was set up last February, he has loomed at demonstrations outside arms fairs and meetings of international leaders with his appropriately cropped hair and small, intense glasses. He talks in a clear, level voice, loud and relentless as a stand-up comedian, always optimistic, never stuck for an argument, throwing in the odd joke but without a flicker of self-doubt. In anti-capitalist circles, Taylor and his organisation have become so ubiquitous some rival groups call them Monopolise Resistance. Since September 11, however, Taylor has felt the need to adjust his political behaviour in a small way. A few months before the attacks on America, while taking part in the protests against last summer's European Union summit in Gothenburg, he bought a new T-shirt. It said terrorist across the front. He says he wasn't trying to look menacing - political violence in his view achieves very little - but he thought the T-shirt was a neat statement against the official tendency, then just becoming apparent, to brand all anti-globalisation activists as potential bombers and gunmen. He wore it on and off for the rest of the summer. Then, in mid-September, it stopped feeling so clever. He can't quite explain why. It just seemed... He pauses. Inappropriate? He smiles a little. You don't want to... pick arguments... offend people unnecessarily. His office is in Mile End, after all, not Hampstead. After several more pauses, enough time for him, usually, to summarise the entire workings of contemporary capitalism, he finally arrives at a position. I just thought I should be a bit more careful. These are delicate times for the left, in Britain and elsewhere. First, two of its traditional enemies, the Pentagon and New York's financial district, were bloodily assaulted. Then, the leaders of this revolt against American dominance of the world were revealed, almost certainly, to be religious radicals of considerable ideological ambiguousness. Then the traditional instruments of American oppression in the eyes of its critics - bombing and the use of dubious allies - were deployed in response, with apparent success. And a solid majority of the British public approved, as did the great majority of left-of-centre politicians in Britain and abroad. Immediately before September 11, the outlook had seemed reasonably favourable for the left. Around the world, the long business boom of the past decade seemed to be collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions. In America, George Bush's government of tycoons and missile enthusiasts had just lost its senate majority and its momentum. In Britain, Tony Blair's attempt to convert the Labour party and the public to free-market thinking appeared to be struggling. Then there were the failings of Railtrack and the Private Finance Initiative, the swelling profile of anti-corporate protests since Seattle, the polemics against international trade and sweatshops selling well in high street book shops, the apparent revival of militancy in some unions - Anglo-Saxon capitalism was in a state, says Tariq Ali, the veteran leftwinger and critic of America. Bush was virtually on the floor. Now they've been able to cover it up. From every progressive point of view, September 11 has been a disaster. In November, an editorial in the British leftwing magazine Red Pepper spoke of a widespread feeling of powerlessness, even paralysis. The daily news makes you want to retreat back under the sheets. In a new book rushed out since the autumn's events, simply titled 9-11, Noam Chomsky, the dissident American academic who is probably the biggest influence on modern anti-capitalists, writes gloomily: It is certainly a setback... Terrorist atrocities are a gift to the harshest and most repressive elements on all sides, and are sure to be exploited to accelerate the agenda of militarisation, regimentation, reversal of social democratic programmes, transfer of wealth to narrow sectors, and undermining democracy. Taylor puts it more plainly: Standing protesting outside Gap is a bloody strange thing to do when civilians are being killed in Afghanistan. Other people have been less polite. Within days of the deaths in New York and Washington, anyone, it seemed, who had ever been publicly critical of America or globalisation suddenly found themselves accused of complicity with Osama bin Laden - and worse. In the British press alone, they have been described as defeatist and unpatriotic, nihilist and masochistic, and both Stalinist and fascist; as a Prada-Meinhof gang, the handmaidens
Re: social democracy
I am sorry if i missed Paul's attack. I lost about a week of e-mail when our system crashed at CSU. I only looked at some posts on the archives. Rakesh Bhandari wrote: . As I said, Phillips laid into me first. So, Michael, you have to ask yourself why you said something to me. I said nothing to him. I don't even know who he is. rb -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: : Re: social democracy
Title: Re: [PEN-L:21509] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: - Original Message - From: Rakesh Bhandari To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 8:36 PM Subject: [PEN-L:21512] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: social democracy ===Disputing and discussing ideas and strategies is one thingbut you *still* aren't winning friends and influencing people. ian, isn't it a bit pretentious for you to think that you know what every-one who reads this list is thinking? and that you are implicitly suggesting that i should approach discussion and debate in the mendacious way that dale carnegie recommends suggests a deep commitment to the values of a salesman. How to Win Friends Influence People Dale Carnegie One of the best-selling books of all time, for over 60 years the rock-solid, time-tested advice in this program has carried thousands of people up the ladder of success in their business and personal lives. Learn the six ways to make people like you, the twelve ways to win people to your way of thinking, etc. There is room at the top, when you know How radical indeed are these anti globalization activists! rb When did you lose your sense of humor Rakesh? What's anti-globalization? Ian
Tue., Jan. 22: Randall Robinson, The Debt'
The topic of the next President and Provost's Diversity Lecture Series at the Ohio State University is The Debt: What America Owes Blacks, featuring Randall Robinson, president of TransAfrica and the TransAfrica Forum. Robinson is the author of _The Debt_, a social and political text about the crime of slavery and its impact on persons of African descent. In it, he calls for the U.S. government and corporations to pay African Americans reparations for the damages caused by slavery and oppression. He will speak at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, January 22 in the Ohio Union Ballrooms on the first floor of the Ohio Union (here's the floor plan of the Ohio Union: http://www.ohiounion.com/meeting.html). The Ohio Union is located at 1739 North High St., at the corner of 12th Ave. and High St. in Columbus, OH. Cf. Randall Robinson on the Net: http://past.thenation.com/issue/000313/0313robinson.shtml; http://www.afrst.uiuc.edu/randallrobinson.html; and http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow/dn20010830.html. TransAfrica Forum: http://www.transafricaforum.org/ -- Yoshie * Calendar of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html * Anti-War Activist Resources: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/
