RE: Re: Duesenberry
It is curious how little notice Duesnberry's book is given. For mine, it destroys the whole neo-classical analysis once and for all. (One of many such destructions that have had no discernible result.) Only in so far as the NCs believe their own hype regarding the status of neoclassical economics as an axiomatic theory based on von Neumann/Morgenstern utility theory. Most of the important results of neoclassical economics were derived utterly independently of this axiomatisation and don't depend on any homoeconomicus assumption, for all that both defenders and critics say that they do. Might I second Michael's endorsement of Machine Dreams by Philip Mirsowski on this subject; I've just started reading it and it's fantastic. dd ___ Email Disclaimer This communication is for the attention of the named recipient only and should not be passed on to any other person. Information relating to any company or security, is for information purposes only and should not be interpreted as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security. The information on which this communication is based has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable, but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice. All e-mail messages, and associated attachments, are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business purposes. ___
Re: Re: FW: Bell-curve racism for nations
Sabri, thanks for making me laugh out loud! Gene Coyle Sabri Oncu wrote: Michael writes: Sabri, please be more respectful of Dr. Rushton. He will probably win the Nobel Prize or even imortatlity, I believe, for having discovered the inverse relation between IQ and penis size. Hey, I always wondered why my IQ is so low. Now I know!.. Sabri
RE: Re: Re: FW: Bell-curve racism for nations
Sabri, please be more respectful of Dr. Rushton. He will probably win the Nobel Prize or even imortatlity, I believe, for having discovered the inverse relation between IQ and penis size. this explains why women are so smart. JD
steel war and globalization
n°9, 08-03-02___http://www.edu-irep.org "guerre de lacier", ou limite de la "mondialisation"? "Steel war", or limit of "globalization"? http://www.edu-irep.org/actu.htm BP 2694267 Fresnes CedexFrance_tél/fax: 33 1 4091 9997
Veneziani, Roemer, Marx
Veneziani, Roemer, Marx by Devine, James Jim D.:Marx's definition of what he meant by capitalism took an entire volume. His understanding of accumulation takes even more (e.g., the last part of vol. III). This is tragic, of course, since Marx never finished volumes II and III or the book on wage-labor. ^^^ CB: The above is contained in a very edifying discussion and debate statement, which I appreciate Jim giving. But just to show I have my critical cap on Would Marx want us to think we have some kind of almost perfect theory of the laws of development of capitalism and capitalist production, as if with it we could reform capitalism as capitalism ? Isn't one of Marx's basic points that it is anarchic and unpredictable in essential features, and only remediable by socialist revolution and organization based on social forethought, as Chris B. puts it , planning, public property ? Doesn't Marx have to be read not only as a whole in all volumes of _Capital_, but the whole of his writings, _The Manifesto of the CP_, The Internationale's memoes and activities, etc. ? Marx would certainly be a PEN-L miserbalist, wouldn't he , Doug ?
Re: Marx vs. Roemer
Re: Marx vs. Roemer by Justin Schwartz 07 March 2002 20:07 UTC Says who? But in short, the main two things where I think R improves on Marx is to to insist (a) that a coherent and defensible notion of exploitation has to be defined in terms of a superior alternative; Marx was wrong not to want to write recipes for the cookshops of the future and ^^^ CB: I take it you mean that a coherent and defensible notion of exploitation AS SOMETHING THAT IS WRONG WITH CAPITALISM must be opposed by Marx with a superior socialist alternative. So, you this is a sort of philosophical version of Thatcherite TINA. Seems something of an overstatement to say that Marx didn't give us very important elements of communism: no state, no war, no poverty. That's an enormously superior alternative to capitalism as it has actually existed. (b) that the labor theory of value, in the form Marx uses it, is indefensible ^ CB: Indefensible from what ? Everytime you raise some attack , it has been very readily refuted. The whole discussion of doubly free labor, labor as a commodity, labor as the source of all new value stands up in the face of what you say. You haven't raised any successful arguments against Marx's law of value, and whole theory of value. and should be scrapped; ^ the notion of exploitation should be reconstructed without it. I don't agree with hwo Roemer does that. My own version of the reconstruction (which I attribute, insofaras the text will allow, to Marx himself) is in my paper What's Wrong with Exploitation, which you have. As far as that goes, I have morethan discharged any burden of proof I may have. CB: OK, The last time I started to raise more specifics of your paper you ended the discussion ( I copy some of the posts below). You can't summarily assert the validity of your critique if you are not going to allow specific extended discussion of your text. When I started that with your paper in front of me, you ended the thread. What's up on that ? I mean you can summarily assert said validity, but it is a fake move not to discuss the specifics of your paper. Now a few of the concepts have come out here and there over many discussions, so some of what you have said has been responded to here. I have not yet seen a point where Marx did not seem to have the better of the disagreement with you. I will address the specifics of your paper, but it is shell game to refuse to discuss it. I have put papers I have written on this list, in case you want to say I am not willing to discuss my own papers. I'll send any and all of my articles for critique if you want to put me on the hot seat. I'm not saying they are on the exact same subject, I am just saying this is not an issue of me not willing to put my writing out on the table where it can be critcized while expecting you to do it. PRIOR POSTS Historical Materialism by Justin Schwartz 03 February 2002 04:25 UTC CB: Before you get to that, isn't the burden on you to demonstrate that the theory alternative to Marx's explains what Marx's theory does ? Justin and the AM's haven't quite proven that to everybody yet. Well, Marx and Engels collected writings are 50 volumes. ^^^ CB: Yes, but more conscious of the need to unite theory and practice than most intelligentsia, they made a lot of effort to state their whole theory in much smaller statements' then their whole body of work. ^^ However, I think I've made a tolerable start by showing how Marx's theory of exploitation, the core of Capital I, can be resttaed without the LTV (this in my two papers on exploitation), and by sketching how the theory of commodity fetishim, the core of Marx's mature theory of ideology, can also be statedwithout it (this in The Paradox of ideology). The papers are available on line, and I think you have copies, Charles. ^^^ CB: Yes, I am reviewing them again now. And of course , we have discussed these issues before when they came around on the merrygo round of this group of related lists. ( Hope the merry go round does go past before I finish something worth saying this time). ^ So, since I put some years into doing that, the ball is now in your court to show how I have failed. ^ CB: Well, I'll take up the volley, although have commented repeatedly over the years of our exchange, for example on the equality/liberty issues. I got The Paradox of Ideology from you almost ten years ago now, in regular mail correspondence. Your arguments are thick, in the sense a lot packed tight, so it rather than trying to discuss every issue that comes to my mind, I have tried to make comments on specific statements, to initiate an exchange. One question I had on the paradox of ideology is that I don't think Marx and Engels fold all theory into ideology in the pejorative sense that they use it in _The German Ideology_ and elsewhere. So, that the theory of
Re: Re: What Does Ravi Think?
Charles Jannuzi wrote: I wasn't so much interested in streaming technology (so far from what I've seen of it, I wish most of it would go away). you have a problem with porn? ;-) i meantion porn because they are at this point the only business that is making money through streaming. there is the success story of nakednews.com, but various other live cam and other such streaming services are drawing in and retaining audience willing to pay $35/month and more. One point was that the US gov't still fosters start-up technology through DARPA and In-Q-Tel. People marvel over US high tech companies, but key government contracts are often what sustains them before there is some sort of perceived trend in which regulated capital piles in. i would agree with that entirely. the only exceptions are non-innovative startups (such as those that sell old products on a new medium: web sites) and probably a few that managed to use star power and other such factors to start off cash rich (transmeta, with linus torvalds on their team, is probably a good example, though i am not sure how original the research behind their product is). apart from DARPA, there are other federal and state grants that fund technology innovation. NIST for instance has a fairly large grant they offer for technology companies. here in NJ, the state govt has a similar grant, albeit smaller. Also, if you go back to the overall thrust of the 'innovations' thread, my hunch was that venture/vulture capital was swarming all over tech groupings, but not to pile on a bubble. Rather, if you look closely at the investing and deals these groups do, it's about either moving in on the distressed companies once a bubble has burst OR by being ahead of a bubble because of the political access they have--which gives them key information about deregulation and liberalization regimes being forced on countries everywhere. The worst aspect of this is how it almost singularly favors private, closely held, unregulated US equity groups, such as Carlyle Group, Ripplewood Holdings, Lonestar, and, until recently, Enron's 'private, offshore' side (there are two huge groups coming out of France, nothing much of size from Japan since Softbank has hit the skids). while you are probably right about investors such as the carlyle group, with deep connections into the govt (and the old political processes), my own experience suggests that the generalization about VCs, during the 1998-2000 bubble, holds. i am afraid my point might be naive: the trend i saw during the internet bubble, in terms of VC investment, was that the successful/smart VCs helped create a bubble around an investment, helping take it to IPO, at which point they cashed out (see NEA, battery ventures, oak, kliner-perkins, etc). the less smart ones attempted much the same, but with lesser success. --ravi
RE: another job
This should be interesting. Stockton is near the beach in South Jersey. In addition to Deb Figart, Paul Lyons is there. He wrote, among other things, _Philadelphia Communists, 1936-1956_ (Temple U. Press). Before he went to Stockton, he was my high school teacher (courses in Communism and Marx and Psychoanalysis--those were the days!). -- To URPE Members and Friends: Sent by: Deb Figart [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Friends, I will be on sabbatical for 2002-2003 and Stockton is hiring a 1-year replacement. The courses to be taught are flexible/negotiable, but would likely include some principles. Teaching load is 3-3. If you would like to be considered, please send your C.V. and cover letter to my Dean (address below) as soon as possible. We will narrow the pool the week of March 18th. I am so sorry about the short notice (that's another long story). Apply to: Will Jaynes Dean, Social Behavioral Sciences Richard Stockton College PO Box 195 Pomona, NJ 08240-0195 USA -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Marx vs. Roemer
Marx was wrong not to want to write recipes for the cookshops of the future and ^^^ CB: I take it you mean that a coherent and defensible notion of exploitation AS SOMETHING THAT IS WRONG WITH CAPITALISM must be opposed by Marx with a superior socialist alternative. So, you this is a sort of philosophical version of Thatcherite TINA. No, it;s the obverse of TINA. TINA is ana rgument for capitalism. To refute it, you have to show TIAA. Seems something of an overstatement to say that Marx didn't give us very important elements of communism: no state, no war, no poverty. That's an enormously superior alternative to capitalism as it has actually existed. No, anyone can list a pie in the sky story about hwo wonderful things will be if only. What is need to show TIAA is to specidy the institiuonal structure in outlinew ithout enough detail to answer plausible objections. If it won't work in theory,w hy think it will work in practice? (b) that the labor theory of value, in the form Marx uses it, is indefensible ^ CB: Indefensible from what ? Everytime you raise some attack , it has been very readily refuted. The whole discussion of doubly free labor, labor as a commodity, labor as the source of all new value stands up in the face of what you say. You haven't raised any successful arguments against Marx's law of value, and whole theory of value. I don't awntto get into this. Obviously I don;t agree, and you won't agree, so let's leave it, eh? I see no point in spinning our wheels on this one. When I started that with your paper in front of me, you ended the thread. What's up on that ? I mean you can summarily assert said validity, but it is a fake move not to discuss the specifics of your paper. Now a few of the concepts have come out here and there over many discussions, so some of what you have said has been responded to here. I have not yet seen a point where Marx did not seem to have the better of the disagreement with you. I will address the specifics of your paper, but it is shell game to refuse to discuss it. Pose me a specific question, and if I ahve the energy and inclination, i will try to answer it. I alsoo lookeda t those exchanges, and I don't read them as evasive or refusing to answer any concrete question. I'm not going to do another round on the LTV, though, I've said my say, I haven't a lot to add to what I've said, I'm not real interested in the point. I've heard y'all's say, we're each not convinced. That's life, let's move on. Note that in WWWE the LTV is only indirectly a target of my atatck: I didn't, except in a footnote, argue aaht it was wrong, just that Marx could get along without it. That a a version of the redundancy theory. jks _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
capitalism's predictability.
[was: RE: [PEN-L:23698] Veneziani, Roemer, Marx] Charles B: Would Marx want us to think we have some kind of almost perfect theory of the laws of development of capitalism and capitalist production, as if with it we could reform capitalism as capitalism ? if you're going to put on your critical cap, I'll have to get out my Ouija board and organize a seance to find out what Marx would want. But I don't know what Marx would want, while posing the question that way seems a distraction from a serious discussion of reform vs. revolution issues. I'm not going to talk about what Marx would think: instead, I'll give my own opinions. Isn't one of Marx's basic points that it is anarchic and unpredictable in essential features, and only remediable by socialist revolution and organization based on social forethought, as Chris B. puts it , planning, public property ? Doesn't Marx have to be read not only as a whole in all volumes of _Capital_, but the whole of his writings, _The Manifesto of the CP_, The Internationale's memoes and activities, etc. ? ... (1) Capitalism is fundamentally unpredictable, but I would say that there's some predictability to it nonetheless. It's like with the law of large numbers: even though individual actions are almost impossible to predict, the average can be predictable. More specifically, capitalism (as far as I can tell) has an inherent tendency toward over-accumulation crises, i.e., to go too far even when too far is measured using capitalist criteria such as the aggregate average profit rate. (In other words, capitalists often foul their own nest -- a nest we have little choice but to live in -- in a way that sometimes seen in the form of a depression of the rate of profit.) Of course, the actual form of over-accumulation crises depends on specific historical conditions. (2) The anarchy of production is just one structural problem that's inherent in capitalism. Another is the aggressive competition amongst capitals (a related issue, but not the same as the anarchy of production). (It's possible that something like that might show up in a different form in a planned system, e.g., as competition amongst state bureaucrats. Maybe that had something to do with the blood purges in the USSR in the 1930s and after.) More important is the structural antagonism between the two main classes. A fully socialist revolution would get rid of all of these structural tensions, replacing anarchy, competition, and class with democracy. This is a big issue. I'm afraid I'm going to have to restrict my participation in further discussons of this thread, since my Spring break is drawing to a close. Jim Devine
Re: Re: Re: What Does Ravi Think?
i wrote: while you are probably right about investors such as the carlyle group, with deep connections into the govt (and the old political processes), my own experience suggests that the generalization about VCs, during the 1998-2000 bubble, holds. ack! i meant does not hold. --ravi
Re: Re: Re: Re: Question Romain K.
- Original Message - From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 12:45 AM Subject: [PEN-L:23661] Re: Re: Re: Question Romain K. Romain Kroes wrote: Because historical materialism has become a label. I don't get it. Literary Criticism has become a label. Frying Bacon has become a label. We still don't usually put them in scare quotes. I don't think that Literary Criticism nor Frying Bacon can be understood in many meanings, even for people who never consumed literature nor bacon. As for Historical Materialism, what does it mean for people who have not read Preface to a Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy nor Anti-Dühring? Only one thing: it is one label of marxist philosophy, with Dialectical Materialism which is as absconse as the former, in the eyes of anybody having not read a marxist book. Unless they understand history of materialism or an historical event the name of which should be materialism, you name the next. Additionally, the very meaning of historical materialism is a pure esotericism. Example: This fixation of social activity, this consolidation of what we ourselves produce into an objective power above us, growing out of our control, thwarting our expectations, bringing to naught our calculations, is one of the chief factors in historical development up till now. (German ideology). Regards, RK
RE: Re: Re: Marx vs. Roemer
No, it;s the obverse of TINA. TINA is ana rgument for capitalism. To refute it, you have to show TIAA. Well, I can show you TIAA. In fact, I can show you CREF. (They are parts of my retirement package.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Marx vs. Roemer
Please do not let flame wars from other lists spill into this thread. By the way, I suspect that the thread will not prove to be very productive. You cannot prove Marx, the Labor Theory of Value, or Neoclassical economics to be wrong. You can show an inconsistency, but mostly the inconsistencies have to do with setting up a straw man. Of course, Marx never finished capital and does have some inconsistencies around the edges, but they are not really central to his theory. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fwd: Moslem Migrants/Chicago Tribune
From: behzad yaghmaian [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Moslem Migrants/Chicago Tribune Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 07:58:32 -0500 Hi Folks, I wanted to share with you an Op-ED piece I recently published in Chicago Tribune about migration to the West from Moslem countries. Be well. Behzad Migration of Muslims to West will continue Chicago Tribune; Chicago, Ill.; Feb 28, 2002; Behzad Yaghmaian, Associate professor of Economics, Ramapo College of New Jersey; Abstract: The Sept. 11 tragedy changed the world of migration. Combating terrorism and halting illegal migration coincided. A new enemy was created--Muslim migrants from the Middle East and North Africa. They were potential terrorists. They had to be kept out. Borders were closed. New walls were erected. The West closed its gates to migrants from the region. But the underlying causes of the migration of Muslims to the West persist. Thousands continue to venture into the dangerous journey of migration with the hope of finding salvation in the West. They flee war, political conflict, poverty and the hellish life under Islamic fundamentalism. Full Text: (Copyright 2002 by the Chicago Tribune) The Sept. 11 tragedy changed the world of migration. Combating terrorism and halting illegal migration coincided. A new enemy was created--Muslim migrants from the Middle East and North Africa. They were potential terrorists. They had to be kept out. Borders were closed. New walls were erected. The West closed its gates to migrants from the region. But the underlying causes of the migration of Muslims to the West persist. Thousands continue to venture into the dangerous journey of migration with the hope of finding salvation in the West. They flee war, political conflict, poverty and the hellish life under Islamic fundamentalism. For many, international migration is the only escape from the cultural and political violence of fundamentalism. Plagued by unending wars and sociopolitical instability, and driven away from the possibility of a life of peace at home, many have become voyagers in search of survival in faraway lands. This seems to be the story of most Iraqi, Afghani and Kurdish migrants caught behind borders in the West. Devastated by war and political violence, millions have also been subject to destructive economic changes beyond their control: the globalization of economics and culture. Displacement and migration have been the result. The introduction of market relations and the transformation of subsistence economies have changed the nature of work in many countries. Millions have joined the ranks of wage laborers, swelling the labor force in most urban areas. In the past 30 years, the labor force increased by 176 percent in the Middle East and North Africa. The unprecedented increase in the labor force has not been matched by a growth in job creation and improvement in the standard of living. High unemployment rates persist in most countries in the Middle East and North Africa. Poverty has been on the rise in many countries in the region. Intoxicated by the flashy images of the West, a large number of socially aspiring and culturally adventurous young men and women have joined the ranks of migrants in recent years. They, too, flee home for a better world. The recent migratory movement of young Iranians is a telling example of this development. The Iranian youth echo the inner aspirations of millions of young people across the Muslim world--a desire for life with dignity, freedom and the possibility of work with livable pay. There seems to be no reversal of the existing migration flow to the West from the Middle East and North Africa in the near future. A growing number of displaced Muslim men, women and children will be facing closed borders in Europe. The result will be increased clandestine border crossings, desperate use of more dangerous routes and methods of migration, exploitation and abuse by smugglers and human traffickers, and death. A policy revision is necessary to stop this human drama. _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com Chicago Tribune.doc Description: MS-Word document
Re: Re: Against existing socialist contry
Comrade Waistline Thank you your reply I will carefully consider your comments and my inaccurate grasp you point out. Please give me some times to respond your comment. Thank you again.
Re: Marx vs. Roemer
Question to Roemer readers: If we assume that the LTV and/or the LOV is, at best, redundant, does the concept of total social labor exist in a quantative form? In other words, without Marx's notion of value, how can one add up labor time? Or, do we just add up concrete labor hours and say that's that. Or do we just dismiss the notion as 19th Century nonsense? thanks
BLS Daily Report
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, DAILY REPORT, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 2002: RELEASED TODAY: In January, most regional and state unemployment rates either declined or were little changed over the month, but were higher than a year earlier, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports. The national jobless rate decreased to 5.6 percent in January. Nonfarm employment increased in 30 states. (Employment and unemployment data for Michigan, and therefore the East North Central division and the Midwest region, were not available at the time of release). Several state legislatures approved major changes in workers' compensation laws during 2001, including coverage of security personnel in the recent Winter Olympic games, according to an article in the Bureau of Labor Statistics' January Monthly Labor Review. BLS economist Glenn Whittington describes state coverage changes, as well as increases in some benefits levels. The article provides a state-by-state summary of last year's significant changes in workers' compensation laws (Daily Labor Report, page A-2; article in E-1). William C. Barron, acting director of the U.S. Census Bureau, will retire this summer after 34 years as a federal employee to accept a one-year appointment as a professor at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Most of his career was spent at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and for 15 years Barron was deputy commissioner of labor statistics. In 1998, Barron, 56, left BLS to become deputy undersecretary of commerce to oversee planning and budgeting for the 2000 Census. He became deputy director of the Census Bureau in May 1999 and then acting director when Kenneth Prewitt resigned in January 2001. (The Washington Post, page A17). Orders to U.S. factories rose by 1.6 percent in January, lifted by stronger demand for cars, computers and machinery, providing new evidence that the battered manufacturing sector is turning a corner. The advance followed a 0.7 percent rise in December and was the third increase in the last 4 months, the Commerce Department reported today. A host of recent economic reports has indicted the recession, which began in March 2001, has probably ended and will be recorded as one of the mildest in U.S. history (Jeannine Aversa, Associated Press, http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-020406econ.story). If you were one of the 7.9 million Americans looking for work in January, there's probably very little doubt in your mind that the economy was -- or at least had been -- in a recession. But for the 141.4 million who never lost their jobs, this recession may have come and gone so quickly that they didn't even notice (Jeannine Aversa, Associated Press, http://www.nandotimes.com/business/story/286012p-2561158c.html). If this recession has now ended -- as most economists, including Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan apparently think -- then there will be a supreme irony in its passing. What has transfixed Americans these past few years has been the so-called New Economy, with its dazzling technologies, its visions of instant riches, and its astronomical stock market valuations, writes Robert J. Samuelson in The Washington Post (page A19). But spending on housing, automobiles, furniture, toys, fast food, physicians and dentists -- almost every thing that is routine and unrevolutionary -- has rescued the economy from the collapsed investment in telecom networks and dot-com and from the depressing effects of fallen stock prices. Samuelson quotes Susan Sterne of Economic Analysis Associates as saying this consumer recession was almost entirely a travel recession -- terrorism's aftershock. Luggage sales declined 2.1 percent; hotel and motel spending was down 12.7 percent. Greenspan said he expected any recovery to be subdued. New York City lost far more jobs last year than anyone (except maybe the unemployed) realized: almost 36,000 more than the state's original estimate of 96,500, according to a new tally released yesterday by the State Department of Labor. The new data, which have been revised to reflect information from corporate unemployment tax filings, show that the city lost 132,400 jobs last year, up by one-third from the Labor Department's original estimate. The drop is the steepest since 1991, which was the worse year of the recession that lasted from 1989 through 1992. Most of the loss reflects the economic aftershocks of the attack on the World Trade Center. But the new data also show that the national recession hit New York's services sector slightly earlier, and a lot harder, than economists realized. But there were some bright spots in the data. For one thing, the number of jobs on Wall Street last year was revised upward by 10,000, to 175,500 (The New York Times, page A21). With corporate profits and many stock prices down, pay for the chief executives of large companies fell slightly last year, according to a survey by Pearl Meyer Partners, an
BLS Daily Report
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, DAILY REPORT, THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 2002: RELEASED TODAY: The Bureau of Labor Statistics today reported revised fourth-quarter seasonally-adjusted annual rates of productivity change -- as measured by output per hour of all persons -- and revised annual changes for the full year 2001. Percent changes in business and nonfarm business productivity were: Business sector, 5.1 for the fourth quarter; 1.9 annual average, 2000-2001; nonfarm business sector, 5.2 for the fourth quarter, 1.9 annual average, 2000-2001. In both sectors, fourth-quarter productivity was higher than originally reported due to upward revisions to the output measures. In the manufacturing sector, increases in productivity were: Manufacturing sector, 4.1 percent for the fourth quarter, 1.1 annual average 2000-2001; Durable goods manufacturing sector, 2.7 percent fourth quarter, 0.5 annual average 2000-2001; nondurable goods manufacturing, 5.2 fourth quarter, 1.6 annual average 2000-2001. The productivity of U.S. workers rocketed past expectations in the final 3 months of last year to post the biggest increase since the second quarter of 2000, the government said today. The Labor Department said productivity, or worker output of goods and services per hour outside the farm sector, rose at a 5.2 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter, revised upward from an initial estimate of 3.5 percent. The increase surpassed analysts' expectations for a 4.5 percent rise (Reuters, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53802-2002Mar7.html). Unemployment rates decreased in 26 states in January, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports. North Dakota reported the lowest unemployment rate for the ninth consecutive month, 2.8 percent. Oregon and Washington reported the highest rates -- 8.0 percent and 7.5 percent, respectively. No state's jobless rate has been as high as 8.0 percent since July 1997, BLS says (Daily Labor Report, page D-1). The number of American workers lining up for state unemployment benefits fell last week, the government said today, in a report providing yet more evidence the U.S. economy is on a firmer footing. In addition, the 4-week moving average, seen as a more reliable labor market gauge because it smoothes out weekly fluctuations, dropped to pre-Sept. 11 levels. Layoffs are heading back down...which makes sense as the economy is turning, said Jim Glassman, senior economist at J.P. Morgan. The airline and hotel industries are getting back on their feet (http://www.bayarea.com/mld/bayarea/business/2811342.htm). New claims for unemployment insurance for the work week ending March 2 fell by a seasonally adjusted 5,000 to 376,000, the Labor Department reports. Claims peaked last year on September 9 at 535,000, and have remained below 400,000 so far this year. In a separate report today, the Labor Department said worker productivity grew at an even faster pace in the fourth quarter of last year than previously indicated. Productivity, which is the amount of output per hour of work increased at an annual rate of 5.2 percent in the October-December quarter. That compares with the 3.5 percent previously reported for the quarter. For the entire year, productivity increased just 1.9 percent compared with 3.3 percent in all of 2000 (Leigh Strope, Associated Press, http://www.nandotimes.com/business/story/288533p-2572704c.html). Economic activity remains mixed throughout the country, but a majority of the Federal Reserve's 12 district banks said there are signs that conditions have been improving, the central bank reports. Although the labor markets have continued to soften in most districts, the tone of the Federal Reserve's latest Beige Book report suggests that activity in the retail, manufacturing and banking sectors was bottoming out. Some of the most encouraging signs have come from retailers in the Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Kansas City districts, who reported that sales were higher in early 2002 than they were a year ago (Daily Labor Report, page D-9; The Washington Post, page E2; The New York Times, page C1; The Wall Street Journal, page A2; USA Today, page 3B; Reuters, http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2002-03-06-beige-book.htm). As the recovery builds, the less educated go to the end of the employment line, says Alan B. Krueger, Bendheim Professor of Economics and Public Affairs, Princeton University, and editor of The Journal of Economic Perspectives in The New York Times (page C2). He points out that when Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, who will appear before the Senate Banking Committee today, commented on the possibility of the end of the recession, he did not mention that the lingering effects of high unemployment early in a recovery tend to be concentrated among the unskilled and minorities. This is true even though recessions are becoming more egalitarian. An accompanying graph shows that in the early part of the latest recession, job prospects deteriorated more for
BLS Daily Report
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, DAILY REPORT, FRIDAY, MARCH 8, 2002: RELEASED TODAY: The unemployment rate was essentially unchanged at 5.5 percent in February, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Nonfarm payroll employment was up by 66,000 in February, following several months of large job losses. February gains in several industries, however, can be attributed to special factors. Manufacturing employment continued to decline, although at a slower pace. The rapid turnaround in the U.S. economy reached the nation's job market last month as payroll employment rose for the first time in seven months, the jobless rate ticked down and the number of industries adding workers continued to rise, the Labor Department reported today. After digging into the details of today's report, a number of analysts said the unemployment rate might well increase again somewhat in coming months as employers concentrate on using their current employees more intensively in order to hold down costs and boost profits. Meanwhile, the increase in average hourly earnings of workers has slowed, the department said. Last month hourly earnings rose two cents to $14.63. That was 3.7 percent higher than the figure a year ago and the smallest increase for a 12-month period since that ending in September 2000. (http://www.washingtonpost.com) The nation's unemployment rate unexpectedly slipped to 5.5 percent in February as businesses, after slashing payrolls for six straight months, added 66,000 new workers. It was the strongest signal yet that the country's first recession in a decade is over. The Labor Department reported Friday that the jobless rate dropped by 0.1 percentage point in February to the lowest level since October. Before the report was released, private economists had been looking for the jobless rate to rise by 0.1 percentage point. The addition of 66,000 jobs during the month followed losses that had averaged 146,000 a month since the recession started in March 2001. It was the largest payroll increase since February 2001. In the jobs report, the largest increases last month occurred in retail, though Labor Department economists stressed caution in interpreting the numbers as a sign of strength in that industry. Retail businesses added 58,000 jobs in February. Large seasonal layoffs always occur in retailing in January and February following the holiday-season buildup. But holiday hiring last year was well below normal, so there were fewer workers to lay off. (http://www.boston.com) Economists had forecast an unemployment rate of 5.8 percent and little change in payrolls, according to Briefing.com. The report was especially surprising because the unemployment rate typically lags the rest of the economy, worsening even as the economy recovers because businesses usually delay hiring until they're convinced a rebound is underway. The unemployment rate also fell in January, but some economists attributed the drop to a shrinking labor force, since it seemed some workers had stopped looking for jobs, taking themselves out of the labor force. But the labor force grew by 821,000 in February, making the drop in the unemployment rate much more meaningful. What's more, the number of people who still want a job but haven't looked for one in four weeks - meaning they're no longer counted as part of the labor force - fell by 449,000. But some economists still were hesitant to read too much into the report, expressing skepticism that the labor market could possibly be bouncing back so soon. (http://cnn.com) Nonfarm business productivity increased at an annual rate of 5.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2001 because of upward revisions to the output measures, according to revised figures released March 7 by the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics. The increase was much stronger than economists had expected in the midst of a recession. In testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said the revised fourth quarter productivity numbers were suspiciously too strong. The surprisingly strong fourth quarter gain was not only remarkably robust, but very unlikely, Greenspan said. But if you smooth out fluctuations in the data over the long term, you will see that fundamental changes have occurred that will allow productivity to continue to grow at a faster rate than it did in the 1980s and early 1990s, he said. (Daily Labor Report, page D-1) U.S. workers and companies are emerging from the economic contraction leaner and more productive than earlier thought, according to new data from the Labor Department. Nonfarm productivity--a measure of output per hour worked-- grew by an annualized 5.2 percent in the final three months of 2001, up from a previous estimate of 3.5 percent, the department said. For all of 2001, productivity grew by 1.9 percent, down from 3.3 percent in 2000 and 2.6 percent in the late 1990s, but still regarded by economists as
Veneziani on Roemer, Marx, and Skillman
Concerning the thread with a similar name to the title of this message, Roberto Veneziani sends me the following comments corrections (which I've renumbered): [begin quote] 1) I agree that price = value is only fairness in exchange and that this is Roemer's and not Marx's view. I have tried to clarify this in the new version. All references to value pricing as fair pricing have been eliminated. 2) Your summary of the main conclusions of the paper is perfect, except on one issue, namely that Roemer's story of exploitation self-destructs ... due to accumulation, including worker's accumulation (your message). I agree that in accumulation models or in a subsistence economy with non-zero savings Roemer's theory breaks down immediately. (Roemer himself acknowledged the knife-edge properties of his accumulation models.) You have forcefully shown this in your paper with Prof. Dymski, and I did not want to just provide mathematical clothes to your convincing logical and economic argument. My point is that even in the most favourable case to Roemer's theory, i.e. in an interior Reproducible Solution with NO SAVINGS and NO ACCUMULATION [in short, in a solution with no savings] the theory does not work. I think this result is rather strong because it falsifies Roemer's claim (in his reply to your EP critique) that his models prove that DOPA [the differential ownership of productive assets, i.e., wealth inequality] is logically primary and exploitation and classes emerge prior to accumulation, etc. And it falsifies the claim at what he considers to be the relevant level of abstraction. 3) Given that my results obtain only thanks to the POSSIBILITY of savings, and with no actual savings by either capitalists or workers, they do not undermine Marx's vol.I/ch.25 argument. These results only undermine microfounded - analytical marxist - models, by showing that they are unable to model Marxian exploitation as a persistent phenomenon, and raise doubts about Roemer's narrow definition of exploitation and classes. Actually, as shown in an unpublished paper by Prof. Skillman, if the Walrasian framework is retained, the only way to have persistent exploitation is to assume that agents have different time preferences, i.e. the typical result of neoclassical models, where differences in wealth are due to differences in preferences. [end quote] [My comment:] if persistent exploitation is based on different classes having different time preferences, we have returned to the theory that Marx was attacking in his discussion of primitive accumulation and other matters, i.e., that the rich are rich because they are forward-thinking, while the poor are poor because they are short-sighted. Roberto says that he may be joining pen-l soon. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http:/bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. -- Richard Feynman.
RE: Krugman on Steel
It's interesting that a foreign-tradefinance expert like PK never mentions that a lot of the steel industry's problems recently have been due to the steep appreciation of the dollar (relative to its biggest trading partners) since 1995. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine [no mention of the 'Mexico' bailout as a form of protectionism...] [NYTimes] March 8, 2002 Testing His Metal By PAUL KRUGMAN Just a few days ago, some supporters of George W. Bush hoped that he would show his mettle by standing up to steel industry demands for tariff protection. Instead he capitulated, with a cravenness that surprised even his critics. It's quite a contrast with Bill Clinton, who - like Mr. Bush - declared his belief in the benefits of free trade, but - unlike Mr. Bush - was willing to spend a lot of political capital in support of that belief. Many Democrats are protectionists, so Mr. Clinton reached out for Republican support to pass both the North American Free Trade Agreement and the treaty creating the World Trade Organization. He defied intense bipartisan opposition to rescue Mexico from its 1995 financial crisis, which might have destroyed Nafta, and resisted pressure to limit imports, including steel imports, during the Asian financial crisis of 1997-1998. It's possible that Mr. Clinton's determination to do what he believed was right on international trade cost the Democrats the White House - not just because West Virginia's electoral votes provided Mr. Bush with his winning margin, but because Mr. Clinton's free-trade policies fueled Ralph Nader's spoiler campaign. Now we know for sure what some of us already suspected: that the Bush administration is all hat and no cattle when it comes to free trade, and probably free markets in general. Never mind Mr. Bush's claim that his decision to impose high tariffs on imported steel was simply a matter of enforcing the law. Nothing in U.S. law obliged him to impose tariffs - and it's pretty clear that the tariffs violate our international trade treaties. We can also dismiss the claim that this was temporary relief so that the industry could restructure itself. Traditional steel producers are in long-term decline, the result less of imports than of competition from so-called mini-mills, exacerbated by the fact that an increasingly service-oriented economy uses far less steel per dollar of G.D.P. than it used to. A temporary import tariff won't turn this trend around. True, the steel industry does have a special problem: legacy costs, the benefits steel companies promised to retired workers in happier days. These costs mean that the failure of major companies would cause disproportionate hardship; they also make it hard for the industry to reorganize itself, because no investor wants to buy a company burdened with huge liabilities. But economists long ago concluded that import restrictions are the wrong way to deal with domestic problems. Such problems should, instead, be dealt with at the source - in this case, by having the government take over at least some of those liabilities. Trying to mitigate the problem with tariffs will be far less effective, and will impose a lot of collateral damage. As one harsh critic of the administration's action declared, tariffs are nothing more than taxes that hurt low- and moderate-income people. Oh, sorry - that wasn't an administration critic. That's what Robert Zoellick, Mr. Bush's trade representative, said a few weeks before his master decided that protectionism in the pursuit of political advantage is no vice. If Mr. Bush really felt he had to do something for the steel industry, why not address the legacy costs? His excuse - that such action is up to Congress, not the White House - was, like the claim that he was just upholding the law, a weak (and characteristic) effort to shift the blame. (Am I the only one who thinks of this as the 'Johnny did it!' administration?) The real reason, presumably, was that direct help to the industry would be an explicit budget item, while the costs of protectionism - though far larger - are mostly hidden. In addition to being bad economics, the steel tariffs are terrible diplomacy. Our staunchest allies are outraged: Britain's prime minister, Tony Blair, pronounced the move unwarranted, unacceptable and wrong. Even before the steel verdict, the United States was developing a reputation for hypocrisy - ready and willing to criticize others for failing to live up to their responsibilities, but unwilling to live up to its own. Now that our free-trade rhetoric has proved empty, who will listen to our preaching? Let's be clear: Many Democrats were on the wrong side of the steel issue. But it was up to Mr. Bush to show leadership, to demonstrate that he really cares about the principles he espouses. I guess not.
Re: Re: Marx vs. Roemer
Question to Roemer readers: If we assume that the LTV and/or the LOV is, at best, redundant, does the concept of total social labor exist in a quantative form? In other words, without Marx's notion of value, how can one add up labor time? Or, do we just add up concrete labor hours and say that's that. Or do we just dismiss the notion as 19th Century nonsense? Not at all. I think that Marx's notion of SNALT is a useful one, but it's not necesasrily a notion of value, or anyway doesn't exhause the notion. Btw it is important to distinguisg between the theses that SNALT is the measure of value and that labor is the source of all value. The first is true in a limited way; as Roemer among other argues, anything can be the numaire, labor, corn, iron. The question, from thsi point of view, is whether it is useful or illuminating to use labor as the numaire, and that is where the redundancy theory kicks in. The other matter, whether labor is the sole source of value, is a different quesion: labor might be the source and not the measure (and vice versa). Here I think that labor is _a_ source of value, anda major one. But not the only one. Ina nay case, Marx simply uses the first version, and trues tos hwo that using the laboras the measure you get interesting results. As to thesecond, hewassumes taht it is true as a matter of definition, with only a passing swipe at subjectivist theories, which were underdeveloped in those days. jks _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
the worst is yet to come in Afghanistan?
History shows that after the war comes the real battle The US must look to the past to determine Afghanistan's future Martin Woollacott Friday March 8, 2002 The Guardian [UK] It is usually supposed that victory crowns a military campaign. In Afghanistan it seems to be working out the other way round. The nasty skirmishes between rival bosses in the regions, the violence that took the life of a member of the interim authority in Kabul, the very limited reach of the small international force in the capital, and now the genuine battles going on with Taliban and al-Qaida forces near Gardez all suggest that much remains to be done. Hamid Karzai, the chairman of the authority, may say that the fighters in the Shahkot mountains are the last isolated base of terrorism in his country, but such sentiments have been heard before and in any case the Taliban and al-Qaida are far from being the country's only problems. Afghanistan always surprises, old hands say. But historically the pattern of victories followed by hard campaigning has actually been the norm. Just as in Vietnam, the Americans should have looked at history but on the whole did not, so they - and other countries - should consult the same lesson book in Afghanistan. This is not so much a matter of the now rather too often retold stories of Afghan resistance to invaders as of looking at the general nature of colonial war. When the French landed near Algiers in 1830, for example, they were tackling a problem, the Barbary pirates, not wholly unlike that represented by al-Qaida. They overwhelmed the dey of Algiers within a month, and pirates of the maritime kind soon afterwards. Then the hard part began as the French moved inland. As one French soldier wrote, this time of Indochina, The pirate - meaning the rebel of any kind - is a plant which grows only on certain grounds. The land must be enclosed and then sow it with good grain which is the only means to make it unsuitable to the tares. The French identified two phases in colonial war, that of the winning of apparently decisive victories, followed by that of insurrection. Later, out of difficult experience in north Africa and Indochina, outstanding commanders such as Louis Hubert Lyautey focused on a third phase, in which the prime function of their forces was not to fight battles, although this was sometimes necessary, but to be, in his phrase, an organisation on the march. French arms were to be exerted to create markets, expand trade, and build schools, and to reinforce certain strengths of the indigenous society. In Morocco, Lyautey believed that the opening of department stores in Casablanca and the holding of a great agricultural fair there in 1915 were achievements on a par with any of his military successes. Of course much of the civilising mission was dross, concealing barbarities, land theft, and a ruthless attitude to the values of the conquered. But the part that was genuine, in this soldier's version, was the recognition that if military operations are not part of a comprehensive approach to a society, they lead nowhere, even if they are technically successful. The distinction the American government makes between fighting a war and nation building is the antithesis of this approach. The point that was apparent to Lyautey and to successful imperial commanders of other nations, if in a deeply distorted way, was that the two are indivisible. The debate over the place of outside military force in Afghanistan revolves around questions Lyautey would have recognised. Do you make extensive use of auxiliaries because they know the ground and spare you casualties? The Americans did at Tora Bora, only to find their offers topped, according to plausible reports, by the Taliban, who paid handsomely to escape the trap. Do you take the risks of a country-wide occupation of both a military and civilian kind or do you depend on what the French would have called columns, heavily armed expeditions dispatched here and there in response to emergencies, like the coalition forces now in the Shahkot range? What is now being reluctantly considered by Britain and other countries, and has been asked for by Hamid Karzai, is, after all, a dilute form of occupation. The talk is apparently of doubling the size of the international security assistance force to 9,000 and deploying it to some but not all of the regions. Some who have studied the problem think a body with a minimum strength of 20,000, deployed everywhere, and with ironclad guarantees of American military support, would be barely sufficient for the task. Mr Karzai, however, may be more interested in the uses of such a force in the north, the base area of most of his fellow members of the interim authority, than in the south and east. That is perhaps because the politics of the north are in a way more fractious. The fundamental question raised by the international presence in Afghanistan, political and military, is to what extent it is either
Fidel vs. the New Economy; More Axis of Evil Ahead?
STUDYING CUBA'S ABILITY USE NET TO DISRUPT U.S. A senior U.S. government official says that the Bush administration has begun a review of Cuba's ability to use the Internet to disrupt this country's military communications or damage other U.S. interests. Last month, White House technical advisor Richard Clarke told a congressional subcommittee that if the U.S. is attacked through cyberspace, it could respond militarily: We reserve the right to respond in any way appropriate: through covert action, through military action, and any of the tools available to the president. (AP/USA Today 7 Mar 2002) http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2002/03/07/cuba-cyberattack.htm -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Re: Re: Marx vs. Roemer
Justin, I suspect that you merely have a different idea about what value is than I do. It does not mean that either of us would be wrong. Marx, as I read him, is saying that value is a particular social relationship unique to capitalism; only living labor creates surplus value; dead labor cannot. He does not mean that nature is unimportant or that machines do not have an important place, but that in capitalism, the key relations for him is what sort of social relations exist under capitalism. You may read him differently; if so, labor may not be the sole source of value in your interpretation, but that does not mean that Marx is wrong. For that reason, I don't see how this debate can lead anywhere. Justin Schwartz wrote: Not at all. I think that Marx's notion of SNALT is a useful one, but it's not necesasrily a notion of value, or anyway doesn't exhause the notion. Btw it is important to distinguisg between the theses that SNALT is the measure of value and that labor is the source of all value. The first is true in a limited way; as Roemer among other argues, anything can be the numaire, labor, corn, iron. The question, from thsi point of view, is whether it is useful or illuminating to use labor as the numaire, and that is where the redundancy theory kicks in. The other matter, whether labor is the sole source of value, is a different quesion: labor might be the source and not the measure (and vice versa). Here I think that labor is _a_ source of value, anda major one. But not the only one. Ina nay case, Marx simply uses the first version, and trues tos hwo that using the laboras the measure you get interesting results. As to thesecond, hewassumes taht it is true as a matter of definition, with only a passing swipe at subjectivist theories, which were underdeveloped in those days. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Fidel vs. the New Economy; More Axis of Evil Ahead?
the US gov. is attacked every day by hackers from all over the planet. Where's Dr Strangelove? Ian - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 3:38 PM Subject: [PEN-L:23719] Fidel vs. the New Economy; More Axis of Evil Ahead? STUDYING CUBA'S ABILITY USE NET TO DISRUPT U.S. A senior U.S. government official says that the Bush administration has begun a review of Cuba's ability to use the Internet to disrupt this country's military communications or damage other U.S. interests. Last month, White House technical advisor Richard Clarke told a congressional subcommittee that if the U.S. is attacked through cyberspace, it could respond militarily: We reserve the right to respond in any way appropriate: through covert action, through military action, and any of the tools available to the president. (AP/USA Today 7 Mar 2002) http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2002/03/07/cuba-cyberatt ack.htm -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
redefining efficiency
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/61220_fuelcell07.shtml $1 billion wasted on study of efficient cars Feds shift gears to favor research on fuel cells powered by hydrogen Thursday, March 7, 2002 By ROBERT McCLURE SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER American taxpayers have forked out more than $1 billion over the last nine years helping the Big Three automakers develop cars efficient enough to travel 80 miles on a single gallon of gas. Yet with the U.S. Senate now debating a long-delayed energy bill, supporters of more stringent fuel-efficiency standards face a formidable task in persuading lawmakers to require new cars to average a mere 35 miles per gallon -- by 2013. The debate in the Senate follows the Bush administration's abandonment of a 9-year-old fuel-efficiency research effort known as the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, or PNGV. Instead, Bush wants to launch a multidecade research program to develop a gasolineless car propelled by a hydrogen-powered fuel cell. A vision like this can transform everything -- the way industry and government work together, the kinds of fuels we use, and the kinds of cars we buy, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said in announcing the program in January. The Freedom Car program, though, has drawn fire from environmentalists, who say automakers are going back on their promise early in the Clinton administration to develop 80 mpg cars by 2004. By embarking on a new research program, environmentalists charge, Bush is giving car companies an excuse to delay installation of fuel-efficient improvements -- the very improvements discovered with taxpayer-funded research. The big problem with PNGV is that it never stipulated that the Big Three actually mass-produce and sell those cars, said Alex Veitch of the Sierra Club. The weak rules allowed the Big Three to make fancy prototypes. It did not make them produce clean cars. ... It turned into an excuse to avoid making progress on overall fuel economy. Overall, fuel efficiency of the U.S. passenger fleet has decreased slightly in recent years as consumers bought more gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles, minivans and pickups. The efficiency required of new U.S. cars is the same as when this year's high school seniors were born: 27.5 mpg. SUVs, minivans and pickups must average just 20.7. Environmental groups want Congress to order automakers to employ some gas-saving devices discovered over the last decade. There's a lot of value in investment in fuel cells in the long-term. But there's nothing for the short-term, said David Friedman of the Union of Concerned Scientists. How is it that the government spent all that money on technologies to save gasoline and protect the environment and now is hesitating to impose a seemingly modest fuel-efficiency standard? The answers are multiple, but a chief one is the cost. Putting the kind of lightweight materials and other innovations used in the prototypes into a mass-produced car is estimated to add $7,000 to $10,000 to the cost of a family sedan, said Bob Culver, executive director of the U.S. Council for Automotive Research, the Big Three-government research collaboration. We were pretty much there, Culver said of the technology. The big problem is, they weren't cost-effective. In announcing the Bush administration's change of course, Abraham agreed, saying the PNGV wasn't moving a competitive automobile to the showroom. As a member of the Senate, Abraham fought efforts to tighten fuel-efficiency standards, and was derisively referred to by environmentalists as the senator from General Motors. The fuel-cell technology Abraham is pursuing faces some stiff challenges. It's attractive because the hydrogen-powered fuel cells would employ a chemical reaction to produce energy, leaving water as the only waste product. Ultimately, the goal is to provide transportation without using fossil fuels. For now, fuel cells are too expensive and big to fit into a passenger car. But there's a gas-saving alternative already available -- hybrid cars powered by a combination of a gasoline engine and an electric motor. While American automakers only recently announced plans for such cars, Toyota's Prius sedan offers over 40 mpg and Honda's two-seat Insight can get 56 mpg. Both are big sellers in the Seattle area. Hybrids aren't a total answer, though. What the Senate is arguing about is average fuel efficiency of new cars, pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles and minivans. A proposal by Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, would require 36 mpg by 2016. Another by Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Ernest Hollings, R-S.C., has been included in the Democratic leadership's proposal and would mandate 35 mpg by 2013. In order to achieve those savings, lots of fuel-miserly hybrids would have to be sold, and improvements would have to be made to trucks, SUVs and minivans that have gotten a break from fuel-economy rules. With current technology, said the
Re: Re: Fidel vs. the New Economy; More Axis of Evil Ahead?
Like Hitler the US seems to be dreaming of war without end, war as the resolution to every inconvenience. Greg --- Message Received --- From: Ian Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 15:52:59 -0800 Subject: [PEN-L:23721] Re: Fidel vs. the New Economy; More Axis of Evil Ahead? the US gov. is attacked every day by hackers from all over the planet. Where's Dr Strangelove? Ian - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 3:38 PM Subject: [PEN-L:23719] Fidel vs. the New Economy; More Axis of Evil Ahead? STUDYING CUBA'S ABILITY USE NET TO DISRUPT U.S. A senior U.S. government official says that the Bush administration has begun a review of Cuba's ability to use the Internet to disrupt this country's military communications or damage other U.S. interests. Last month, White House technical advisor Richard Clarke told a congressional subcommittee that if the U.S. is attacked through cyberspace, it could respond militarily: We reserve the right to respond in any way appropriate: through covert action, through military action, and any of the tools available to the president. (AP/USA Today 7 Mar 2002) http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2002/03/07/cuba-cyberatt ack.htm -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901 Greg Schofield Perth Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ ___ Use LesTecML Mailer (http://www.lestec.com.au/) * Powerful filters. * Create you own headers. * Have email types launch scripts. * Use emails to automat your work. * Add comments on receive. * Use scripts to extract and check emails. * Use MAID to create taylor-made solutions. * LesTecML Mailer is fully controlled by REXX. * A REXX interpreter is freely available. ___ ___
Asia-Pacific prepaid mobile connections jump Gartner
The Times of India THURSDAY, MARCH 07, 2002 Asia-Pacific prepaid mobile connections jump: Gartner REUTERS SINGAPORE: The number of prepaid cellular connections in the Asia-Pacific region including Japan surged from 33.6 million to 108.2 million between the fourth quarters of 2000 and 2001, Gartner Dataquest said on Wednesday. Prepaids constituted 76.2 per cent of new cellular connections in 2001, the market research firm said in a statement. Prepaid growth in developed markets such as Australia, Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea were slow. In Singapore, the number fell by about 23,000 connections, partly due to consolidation of the customer base towards the end of 2001, Gartner said. But developing countries like China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand grew at a rapid rate. Following is a table of Asia-Pacific prepaid cellular connections by country (in thousands): Country Q4 2000 Q4 2001 Change Australia 2,115 3,317 1,202 China11,490 66,196 54,706 Hong Kong 1,0611,417 356 India 1,059 2,4661,407 Indonesia2,092 4,754 2,662 Japan 722 1,234512 Malaysia 2,678 4,485 1,807 New Zealand 1,150 1,687537 Philippines 4,953 10,146 5,193 Singapore 706 683 -23 South Korea 400785 385 Taiwan3,8575,917 2,060 Thailand 522 3,248 2,726 Rest of region 7931,876 1,083 Total 33,598108,211 74,613 Copyright © 2001 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved.
our president
Stolen from Tim Bousquet's local mailing list: Can't make this up. This is from Lloyd Grove's regular column from the Washingtom Post, and if you don't believe me see it for yourself at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45517-2002Mar6.html It reads (toward the bottom): Here's a vignette we're dying to see on the ABC broadcast of Sunday's Ford's Theatre Presidential Gala: When Stevie Wonder sat down at the keyboard center stage, President Bush in the front row got very excited. He smiled and started waving at Wonder, who understandably did not respond. After a moment Bush realized his mistake and slowly dropped the errant hand back to his lap. 'I know I shouldn't have,' a witness told us yesterday, 'but I started laughing.' -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Interesting quote on floating currencies
G'day pen-pals, Just came across this little quote from January 6 1990: economic historians will look back on the 1980s as the decade in which the experiment with floating currencies failed ... What matters is that these swings failed to do what they were supposed to do: instead of reducing economic volatility, they increased it ... far from narrowing the gaps between international costs, the dollar's fluctuations widened them ... the time has come to peg currencies again. So ignored or forgotten a sentiment, one'd conclude these must've been the mewlings of some marginalised old protectionistist or lefty-finance-baiter. Not descriptions likely to bring The Economist straight to mind, eh? Cheers, Rob.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx vs. Roemer
Justin, I suspect that you merely have a different idea about what value is than I do. It does not mean that either of us would be wrong. Marx, as I read him, is saying that value is a particular social relationship unique to capitalism; only living labor creates surplus value; dead labor cannot. This is suppose to be a theorem that follows from some of the assumptions I sketched below, plus a bunch of other stuff. I don't think it is a theorem, or anyway, that it is an interesting one if it is. The real issue about SV is where profits come from: do they derive from the exploitation of labor? I agree that they do, mainly, I also think that Marx shows this. He also thinks that you need the assumption that they derive only from living labor, that you need the notion of SV defined in labor theoretic terms to show this. There I disagree. He does not mean that nature is unimportant or that machines do not have an important place, but that in capitalism, the key relations for him is what sort of social relations exist under capitalism. Agreed. You may read him differently; if so, labor may not be the sole source of value in your interpretation, but that does not mean that Marx is wrong. For that reason, I don't see how this debate can lead anywhere. Maybe not, I have so repeatedly. jks _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Japan
Japan's recession deepens Ministers say decline is worst since war but insist that US recovery will feed through Jonathan Watts in Tokyo Saturday March 9, 2002 The Guardian The Japanese government yesterday said the country was in its deepest recession since the second world war, as the collapse of a medium-sized bank underlined the persistent fragility of the financial sector. Fears of a banking system meltdown were eased, however, by a spurt in share prices on the Tokyo stock exchange on hopes that the United States, Japan's biggest trading partner, will emerge strongly from the downturn. Japan's problems are far more protracted. Yesterday's data showed that the world's second-biggest economy contracted by a worse-than-expected 1.2% in the final three months of last year. This fall, equivalent to 4.5% on a yearly basis, represented the third consecutive quarter of decline - the worst nine-month period that Japan has recorded since the second world war. As well as the long-standing problems of deflation and a banking system buckling under the weight of trillions of yen of bad loans, Japan was hit by an outbreak of mad cow disease and the September 11 terrorist attacks, which hurt the tourist and aviation industries. In response to the slide in global markets, especially the US, corporations such as NEC, Hitachi and Matsushita beat a hasty retreat, cutting business investment by 12% - the steepest quarterly decline recorded. Government ministers joined many analysts, however, in expressing a belief that Japan will benefit from the pick-up that has taken place overseas. I hope that the economy has now bottomed out, said economic minister Heizo Takenaka. I don't get the impression that the poor conditions have deteriorated since the end of last year. Recent statistics paint an unclear picture. On the plus side, personal consumption is up and exports have been given a boost by the weakening of the yen, which improves the competitiveness of Japanese products overseas. Among the biggest beneficiaries has been the carmaker Honda, which reported a surge in sales at the end of last year. Unemployment has eased to 5.3% from its record high of 5.6%, inventories have been reduced and surveys of business confidence show the majority of firms expect an improvement in their operations. Yet the bright spots of a cyclical upturn remain overshadowed by longer-term structural problems. Japan is the only industrial power since the 1930s to suffer deflation, which prime minister Junichiro Koizumi has declared the biggest concern for the economy. Despite repeated government attempts to get to grips with the problem, wholesale prices fell by 1.3% in February, marking the 17th consecutive month of decline. The banking sector continued its protracted shake-out yesterday with the collapse of Chubu Bank, a second-tier regional institution. For the past year, Japan's small banks and credit unions have been failing at the rate of almost four a month. But concerns of a systemic failure ahead of the annual book-settling deadline of March 31 have subsided thanks to the stock market rally, which will support bank balance sheets.
Dervis on Turkey
Dervis: Turkey's Successful Foreign Policy And Its Strong Economic Program Helped It Overcome The Economic Crisis OXFORD, March 7 (A.A) - State Minister Kemal Dervis has said that Turkey's successful foreign policy following Sept.11 attacks and the strong economic program helped it overcome the economic crisis. Dervis addressed to academicians and students at the historical building of Oxford University in Britain on Thursday. Dervis said that like everywhere in the world, the economic crisis had a high cost for Turkey as well as certain positive effects. He explained that economies which can survive such crises usually become stronger after those periods. Dervis said that the Turkish economy did well in 1980s but then the high inflation became chronical in 1990s. Dervis indicated that the economic program which was put into practice in 2000 was a good program but the economy was not strong enough because of lack of discipline in monetary policies. Dervis said that Turkey realized all the structural reforms that were the basic elements of the program but this was interrupted by the consequences of tragic Sept.11 attacks. ''The results of all those efforts were under risk. Nobody could see the future. That's why Turkey asked more support from the IMF,'' he said. Dervis said that Turkish economy started giving the first indications of recovery last October. ''Turkey's successful foreign policy and its cooperation in the international fight against terrorism were important elements,'' he continued. ''Another element was implementing a strong economic program. Without one of these, Turkey could have been destroyed like Argentina.'' Dervis said that the structural changes were very radical. ''Many things were accomplished in a very short time. Because the society was ready for it. This wasn't a sudden magical change. The reformists had already started the preparations long before.'' Dervis said that the young population supported these radical changes and the wish to integrate with Europe was the basis of this support. He added that Turkish people believed that these reforms were a must in order to join the EU. ''There's no chance that Turkey could return to the crisis in 2001. I believe that Turkey left this risk behind,'' he said. ''The next ten years will be much better. Turkey's EU membership is very important. Turkish people want to become a member of the European family,'' Dervis said. Dervis will attend a meeting held by the Brisith Industrialists and Businessmen Confederation in London on Friday. He is expected to leave Britain on Sunday. http://www.turkishpress.com/turkishpress/news.asp?ID=5300
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx vs. Roemer
- Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 8:55 PM Subject: [PEN-L:23729] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx vs. Roemer I believe that it is a disservice to Marx to make him out to be an academic economist trying to work via theorems. Also, Marx was not really trying to show where profits come from, but to show the perverse consequences of the social relations of value. === Ok, so if Marx wasn't using theorems as he understood them, wasn't doing theory, wasn't engaged in creating a representation of capitalism a la Hegel, Ricardo, Locke, Smith, Carey, Leibniz, winding back to Aristotle in order to make normative claims and back them up with hypotheses etc. then what was he doing when claiming social relationships manifest perversity? Ian
Re: redefining efficiency
How is it that the government spent all that money on technologies to save gasoline and protect the environment and now is hesitating to impose a seemingly modest fuel-efficiency standard? The answers are multiple, but a chief one is the cost. Putting the kind of lightweight materials and other innovations used in the prototypes into a mass-produced car is estimated to add $7,000 to $10,000 to the cost of a family sedan, said Bob Culver, executive director of the U.S. Council for Automotive Research, the Big Three-government research collaboration. We were pretty much there, Culver said of the technology. The big problem is, they weren't cost-effective. If they went to a much more efficient fleet requirement, Toyota, Honda and Mitsubishi would put Ford and GM out of business. All three of these companies make the leanest of gasoline engines, and Toyota and Honda have hybrid cars that are already on the highways. It may be that fuel cell cars are not practical in a long, long time, but just think how much fuel could be saved and how much pollution reduced if hybrid cars started replacing the gas guzzlers now. A strict requirement would change the rules of the game and we can't have that. Charles Jannuzi
