Re: We are what's left
Max, I agree with your characterization of Smith. I see the populists as being like the Ricardian socialists in England in the mid 19th Century. In both cases, they saw themselves as believing in markets. Regulations were required to undue the damage created by people or corporations that were not playing fair. They did not see their demands as being opposed to markets at all. They just wanted to make markets work fairly. "Max B. Sawicky" wrote: > > mbs: Nader's focus is not on the state but on the political > parties which run the state, which is the right one IMO. > > The distinction from Smith is that Smith expects a great deal > of social good to come from competitive markets (to be sure, > with a limited state to enforce contracts and the like), > whereas populists expect a great need for remedies to > markets from the state, acting in the name of "the whole people." > You could say populists, not being marxists, saw markets as > something sullied by outside forces -- monopolists, sharp > operators, etc. -- but that is not the thing as being > deluded as to the possibility of marked-based economic > justice. > > mbs -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Nader
>"[Nader] would not advocate public ownership of >productive assets. . . . Well, some, maybe, but virtually all? I mean Do you think he'd support nationalizing all corporations above a certain low level, treating the mines and the factories and fields and offices as belonging to the government and to be controlled by the workers and farmers? Which in some sense is what most of us here, including me, would advocate. jks Not nearly all. Nader is no socialist. I presume perhaps wrongly that 'left' is a broader category than 'socialist.' mbs
RE: Re: We are what's left
I agree with the thrust of this, Max. You have to be pretty pure and very lonely to be a proper lefty by some lights. But, I'd argue that Smith reckoned the good social effects would only come if the self-seeking business fraternity were very closely watched by state agencies, else they'd nefariously combine towards bad social effects. I mbs: quite right. have heard such sentiments from Nader in the past. Now he's saying the state agencies are nefariously combining with the self-seeking businessmen, isn't he? That pretty well matches Jim Devine's recent musings on the state, as I recall. And Jim's plenty left for me. Cheers, Rob. mbs: Nader's focus is not on the state but on the political parties which run the state, which is the right one IMO. The distinction from Smith is that Smith expects a great deal of social good to come from competitive markets (to be sure, with a limited state to enforce contracts and the like), whereas populists expect a great need for remedies to markets from the state, acting in the name of "the whole people." You could say populists, not being marxists, saw markets as something sullied by outside forces -- monopolists, sharp operators, etc. -- but that is not the thing as being deluded as to the possibility of marked-based economic justice. mbs
RE: Re: We are what's left
>I'm not an expert, but I would summarize Smith's theory as the >good social effect resulting from narrow, self-seeking activity. >I defy anyone to find support for that among the old populists >or in Nader's movement. > Smith would not accept this characterization, as you perfectly well know. jks Come again? What vileness are you accusing me of now? mbs
the future of empathy
< http://www.outlookindia.com > Seeking Pain And Reducing Pleasure In most situations, people tend to seek pleasure and avoid pain, which generally makes sense. I want to suggest that at this moment in history, U.S. citizens need to invert that.. Robert Jensen In most situations, people tend to seek pleasure and avoid pain, which generally makes sense. I want to suggest that at this moment in history, U.S. citizens need to invert that. If we want to become human beings in the fullest sense of the term, if we want to be something more than comfortable citizens of the empire, if we want to be something more than just Americans -- then we have to start seeking pain and reducing pleasure. By that I don't mean we must become masochists who live in denial of the joy of being alive. Rather, I mean that to be fully alive we must stop turning away from a certain kind of pain and begin questioning a certain kind of pleasure. I mean this quite literally, and with a sense of urgency; I think the survival of the species and the planet depends on Americans becoming pain-seeking and pleasure-reducing folks. Let me begin to explain what I mean by describing two conversations I had with students recently. One young woman came to my office the day after we had watched a video documentary in class about the Gulf War and its devastatingly brutal effects -- immediate and lingering -- on the people of Iraq. The student also is active in the movement to support the Palestinian freedom struggle, and the day she came to see me came during a period in which Israeli attacks on Palestinians were intensifying. We talked for some time about a number of political topics, but the conversation kept coming back to one main point: She hurt. As she was learning more about the suffering of others around the world, she felt that pain. What does one do about such a feeling, knowing that one's own government is either responsible for, or complicit in, so much of it? How does one stop feeling that pain, she asked. I asked her to think about whether she really wanted to wipe that feeling out of her life. Surely you know people, perhaps fellow students, who don't seem to feel that pain, who ignore all that suffering, I told her. Do you want to become like them? No matter how much it hurts, I said, would you rather not feel at all? Would you rather be willfully ignorant about what is happening? I could see the tears welling in her eyes. She cried. We talked some more. I cried. She left my office, not feeling better in any simplistic sense. But I hope she left at least with a sense that she was not alone and did not have to feel like a freak for feeling so much, so deeply. A couple of hours later another student who had been in a class of mine the previous semester came by. After dealing with the classroom issue she wanted to address, we were talking more generally about her interests in scientific research and the politics of funding research. I made the obvious point that profit-potential had a lot to do with what kind of research gets done. Certainly the comparative levels of research-and-development money that went, for example, to Viagra compared with money for drugs to combat new strains of TB tells us something about the values of our society, I suggested. The student agreed, but raised another issue. Given the overpopulation problem, she said, would it really be a good thing to spend lots of resources on developing those drugs? About halfway through her sentence I knew where she was heading, though I didn't want to believe it. This very bright student wanted to discuss whether or not it made sense to put resources into life-saving drugs for poor people in the Third World, given that there are arguably too many people on the planet already. I contained my anger, somewhat, and told the student that when she was ready to sacrifice members of her own family to help solve the global population problem, then I would listen to her argument. In fact, given the outrageous levels of consumption of the middle and uppers classes in the United States, I said, one could argue that large-scale death in the American suburbs would be far more beneficial in solving the population problem; a single U.S. family is more of a burden ecologically on the planet than a hundred Indian peasants. "If you would be willing to let an epidemic sweep through your hometown and kill large numbers of people without trying to stop it, for the good of the planet, then I'll listen to you," I said. The student left shortly after that. Based on her reaction, I suspect I made her feel bad. I am glad for that. I wanted to make her feel bad. I wanted her to see that the assumption behind her comment -- that the lives of people who look like her are more valuable than the lives of the poor and vulnerable in other parts of the world -- is ethnocentric, racist, and barbaric. That assumption is the product of an arrogant and inhuma
RE: Re: One more question
>Sabri, the housing bubble is real. Some of the bubble has deflated near you, say in Palo Alto. Greenspan has been pushing the idea, and a number of studies support him, that housing wealth has been much more important than stocks in propping up consumption.< it's possible that the housing "bubble" is no longer based on low interest rates and debt accumulation (something that can't be sustained over the years). It could be based instead on the fiscal stimulus of late last year -- which might continue as a sustained military-Keynesian economy (the permanent war economy). In that case, it's no longer a bubble -- JD
Re: One more question
Sabri, the housing bubble is real. Some of the bubble has deflated near you, say in Palo Alto. Greenspan has been pushing the idea, and a number of studies support him, that housing wealth has been much more important than stocks in propping up consumption. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
One more question
Friends, I read Nader, left, public ownership, etc., discussion with great interest and hope that it doesn't end here. But now, I would like to ask an unrelated question that you may want to discuss in paralel. Here is that unrelated question, not necessarily for our American friends only: Is there a real estate/housing buble in the US and if there is, what are its potential implications for the "ongoing" US recovery? Again, let me give the credit to where it is due: I became aware of the article below through Ergin Yildizoglu's Monday column at Cumhuriyet, as well as, got the motivation to ask this question. As you see, "little brothers" are watching you, I being one of them, Sabri +++ THE ECONOMY Is Housing the Next Bubble? Sure, there's some pretty scary stuff going on. But things aren't as crazy as the last time the property market heated up. FORTUNE Monday, April 1, 2002 By Anna Bernasek The signs of recovery are so obvious that only an Olympics figure-skating judge could miss them. The manufacturing sector rebounded in February after an 18-month-long tailspin. Activity in the all-important services sector has now accelerated to its fastest pace in more than a year. Productivity growth has just been revised up to 5.2% for the fourth quarter, a level that's causing 1990s flashbacks. And on the jobs front, employment grew for the first time in seven months. Even capital spending, a longtime trouble spot, seems to be reviving. In fact, the news has been so good that Alan Greenspan, our famously cautious, usually indecipherable Federal Reserve chief, recently proclaimed in plain English: "An economic expansion is already under way." So is that it? Have we just had something like a 15-minute recession, and is it all smooth sailing from here? Not so fast, says a chorus of economists--plenty can still go wrong. Leaving aside such nightmare scenarios as further terrorist attacks, all-out war in the Middle East, or an oil embargo, the thing that spooks some economists the most is housing. That's because while the economy has been on the down escalator over the past several months, the property market has been going in the opposite direction, and that's just not supposed to happen. In fact, housing didn't just hold its own during the slump. It zoomed. Activity has been so strong that sales of new and existing homes hit all-time records last year. Not exactly what you'd expect when around two million people were losing their jobs, is it? What's more, we've seen record growth in mortgage refinancing, and annual home-price increases between 6% and 8% nationally for three years in a row. "That's unsustainable by any measure,'' says David Levy, chairman of the Jerome Levy Forecasting Center. "Especially now that mortgage rates are on the rise." And that's the problem, according to Levy and others. The one sector we've relied on to keep the economy afloat is unlikely to hold up much longer. Worse still, housing could even turn out to be the next bubble--and we all know how that usually ends. So are the worrywarts right? Probably not, but it's certainly worth hearing them out, because even if they're a little right, a weak housing market could help make this recovery pretty darn anemic. There are already signs that housing activity is starting to cool. For the first time in seven years, national home prices fell in the last three months of 2001, by 1.9%. The market for second homes has also weakened since the end of last year. And some banks are tightening up on their mortgage lending. Ken Hackel, chief fixed-income strategist at Merrill Lynch, says one major bank has admitted to recently changing the rules on refinancing, requiring appraisals on every application regardless of whether one had been done in the past year--a telling sign that some lenders expect home values to soften. True, January sales remained incredibly strong, but economists argue that those numbers were probably exaggerated by the unseasonably warm winter across much of the nation. Certain regional markets may already be in trouble. According to data from Case Weiss Shiller, home prices in San Francisco have been dropping precipitously. In the first quarter of 2001 the average price of a single-family home there rose 4%, but by the end of the year had fallen 7%. "We're seeing a bubble bursting right now in San Francisco," says Robert Shiller, an economics professor at Yale University and partner at Case Weiss Shiller. "We've never seen such a sharp drop, and we're expecting it to fall even more." Shiller, who warned of a stock market bubble in the late 1990s and coined the phrase "irrational exuberance," believes there's the risk of a housing bubble in other major cities. At the top of his watch list are Portland, Ore., Seattle, Denver, and New York. If you thought the tech bubble's bursting was bad for the economy, just imagine what a housing bubble could do. Around two-thirds of households own their home, while only half have
Public Ownership
> >Really? Is that what "leftist"means? Never proposed to define it. I'm not sure I would >support such a platform, not given the realities of >political corruption in the US and the experience of large-scale state >ownership in Russia. Wasn't proposing the Soviet model, you know that. I like Schweickart's market socialism. Title's gotta vest somewhere, we're not pro-capitalist, so it doesn't vest in individuals for prodyctive assets. Could vest in worker's coops, but that's too risky in terms of a slide back to capitalism. I don't see any lesser entity than the national state that makes sense--would you suggests what, municipalities? Counties? States? Regions? Any of these will reproduce inequalities that exist and create bars to sensible planbning,w hich I support along with markets. I also support worker self-management and worker control of the profist, less taxes, produced by the enterprises. Maybe tahtw ill help allay your fear of Sovietization. How exactly >would you sell this vision to the American public? > Propaganda, education, agitation, the usual. If you have a better idea, don't keep it a secret! But your question is, will the American people buy it? Let's try and see. Interesting, although I haven't exactly created a mass movement, my experience at talking this up among workers and farmers has been respectful and positive on the whole. jks >Ellen >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >Well, some, maybe, but virtually all? I mean Do you think he'd support > >nationalizing all corporations above a certain low level, treating the > >mines > >and the factories and fields and offices as belonging to the government > >and > >to be controlled by the workers and farmers? Which in some sense is what > >most of us here, including me, would advocate. > > > >jks > > > > > > > >_ > >Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. > >http://www.hotmail.com > > > _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
The best justice money can buy
Yugoslavia in 'Crisis' Over U.S. Deadline Sun Mar 31, 8:20 PM ET By Beti Bilandzic BELGRADE (Reuters) - Facing a freeze in U.S. aid for failing to meet a deadline to hand over war crimes suspects, Serbian reformers said Monday that Yugoslavia was in its worst crisis since they ousted Slobodan Milosevic (news - web sites) 18 months ago. "Practically, in six hours temporary sanctions will be imposed on us," Serbian Justice Minister Vladan Batic said after a meeting with Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic and other leaders of the alliance which toppled Milosevic on October 5, 2000. "We want to say that our country is facing its biggest crisis since October 5 because the issue of cooperation with The Hague (news - web sites) has not been resolved," he said after the session which began Sunday evening and ended around midnight (2200 GMT). Putting the blame on Yugoslav federal President Vojislav Kostunica (news - web sites), a self-professed moderate nationalist who sees the U.N. war crimes court as anti-Serb, Batic said the federal government would meet on the divisive issue later Monday. "He should give a final answer if he is for cooperation with The Hague tribunal or for sanctions," the Serbian minister said. Cooperation with the war crimes tribunal remains hugely sensitive in the impoverished state and divisions among its leaders deepened as Washington's latest deadline loomed. Under U.S. legislation, around $40 million earmarked for Serbia -- the dominant of Yugoslavia's two remaining republics -- will be suspended from Monday if Washington has not certified that Belgrade is doing enough to work with the U.N. court. SUSPECTS TO THE HAGUE? Over the last few days, speculation has intensified in the Yugoslav capital that one or several people still at large and accused by the tribunal of atrocities during the Balkan wars of the 1990s would soon be handed over to The Hague. But Yugoslav Foreign Minister Goran Svilanovic, who was also at the meeting, suggested no one would be extradited in time to meet the U.S. midnight deadline, which falls at 7 a.m. Monday in Belgrade as Washington is currently seven hours behind. "There will certainly be no extraditions to The Hague tonight," he said late Sunday, quoted by Beta news agency. Djindjic, seen as a pro-Western pragmatist who engineered last year's handover of Milosevic, argues Belgrade must cooperate with the court to avoid renewed isolation and sanctions. Accusing Kostunica of shirking his responsibilities and expecting the Serbian government to do his dirty work, he told national television: "I think it is worrying that someone is ready to risk the destiny and the future of 10 million citizens for extra rights for several people who destroyed this country." Kostunica says he, too, is for cooperation with the court but insists this must be done in what he calls a legal and civilized way, saying a Yugoslav law governing this is needed. "Dignity more important than dollars," read a headline in the Glas Javnosti daily, summing up the president's position. Under similar pressure a year ago, Serbia's authorities arrested Milosevic just in time for the U.S. deadline. He was handed over to the U.N. court three months later, a day ahead of a donors' conference that yielded $1.3 billion for Yugoslavia. Even if Belgrade looks set to miss this deadline, it may still avoid damage if it acts soon thereafter, observers say. Political analyst Ognjen Pribicevic said he believed one or two people would be shipped to The Hague in the next few days, allowing Washington to continue supporting Yugoslavia. Serbian media have focused on three Milosevic-era officials accused with him of war crimes in the Yugoslav province of Kosovo in 1999 as the most likely to be handed over. They are former Yugoslav Deputy Prime Minister Nikola Sainovic, former army chief-of-staff Dragoljub Ojdanic and Vlajko Stojiljkovic, Serbian interior minister under Milosevic.
Desperate hope based on dubious assumption
From Financial Times, 30-31/3: "...the Saudi leader [Crown Prince Abdullah], who is scheduled to meet with Mr Bush at his Texas ranch next month, insists that the US president will help. 'I have confidence that once Bush is aware of the circumstances and understands the situation, he will do something, because he is a human being.'" Shane Mage "Thunderbolt steers all things." Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64
Easter bunnies in malls
Easter toy expectations rise More malls hire bunnies to lure children, parents into stores By VICTORIA BRETT Associated Press 03/29/2002 The Easter Bunny is making tracks on Santa Claus' turf, using one of the biggest Christian holidays as an opportunity to entice children and their parents to the mall. A majority of malls that hire a Santa for December are now hiring a bunny for at least two weeks before Easter, and there's a growing expectation among children who visit the bunny that he'll leave a toy along with candy in their Easter basket. "We are seeing a lot of pressure through marketing to begin to expect a level of present-giving that [kids] get at Christmas," said Chris Byrne, a New York toy consultant and editor of The Toy Report. According to retailers, Easter has become the second-biggest toy-giving holiday after Christmas. The big bunny is a way for malls to lure customers, said Bonnie Fluck, spokeswoman for Cherry Hill Photo Enterprises in New Jersey, which provides Santas and bunnies for more than 230 malls across the country. "It's not really the same draw as Santa," she acknowledges. Amber Carr's 4-year-old daughter Anastasia wrote a letter to the Easter Bunny asking for gifts and treats. On Easter Sunday, she will get a basket and a present, but she won't be going to church. "It's too complicated," said Carr, of Randolph, Maine. She and her husband were raised with different religious backgrounds and decided not to participate in either as adults, she said. Daniel Akin, dean of theology at the Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, Ky., sees the arrival of the mall bunny as an example of the commercial exploitation of Christianity. "That is not what Easter was about to begin with and it's not what it should be about today," he said. But the Rev. Eric Shafer, director of the Evangelican Lutheran Church in America, says the Easter Bunny is an opportunity to spread the Christian word, like a good ad campaign. "Many churches have Easter egg hunts," he said. "The real question is, do you complain what secular society has done with religious symbols or do you use it as an opportunity. I say the latter." = Check out the Chico Examiner listserves at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DisorderlyConduct http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChicoLeft Subscribe to the Chico Examiner for only $40 annually or $25 for six months. Mail cash or check payabe to "Tim Bousquet" to POBox 4627, Chico CA 95927 __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Greetings - send holiday greetings for Easter, Passover http://greetings.yahoo.com/
Enron's Pawns
This is a very interesting report about how government agencies have supported Enron's vile activities around the world. http://www.seen.org/PDFs/pawns.PDF -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Nader
I know about Arnold. My point was merely that the trustbusters had a very different analysis of the cause of the Depression than the corporatists. They believed that the large corporations cut production and kept prices high causing the Depression to be as destructive as it was. Who brought up Bork? His views were very different. Justin Schwartz wrote: > > > >There were two lines in the New Deal. The corporatists were not dominant > >at first -- the Thurman Arnold, trust-busting line, was. The idea was > >that corporate power caused the Depression by keeping prices high and > >curtailing output. > > > > But Judge Arnold was no fan of unmbridged free markets. Have you head his > The Folklore of Capitalism? A wonderful book. As I said, trust-busting isn't > the same idea as the current Stevens-Bork-Posner line that antitrsutis just > about efficiency. > > jks > > _ > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PEN-L digest 99
1) Paul Phillips writes:>The problem has arisen in Canada as a result of declining fish stocks. Apparently, it is not a problem of flushing pills down the drain but with so many women taking birth control pills, the concentration of hormones in waste water (sewage) that is not neutralized by waste water treatment has been affecting (preventing) the reproduction of fish.< is it possible that this kind of thing might explain the low sperm count among human males in some countries? (Monty Python: "every sperm is sacred!") Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine 2) REPLY: Recent work in the UK (reported in a recent Guardian) does suggest an epidemiological association that could be causal. Hari
Re: Nader 31 March 2002 19:37 UTC
Greetings Economists, Ellen F writes, Really? Is that what "leftist"means? I'm not sure I would support such a platform, not given the realities of political corruption in the US and the experience of large-scale state ownership in Russia. How exactly would you sell this vision to the American public? addressed to JKS remarks, Well, some, maybe, but virtually all? I mean Do you think he'd support nationalizing all corporations above a certain low level, treating the mines and the factories and fields and offices as belonging to the government and to be controlled by the workers and farmers? Which in some sense is what most of us here, including me, would advocate. jks Doyle Nationalization of health care would be cheaper than what we have. That is supportable by most people if we had sufficient access to the media. Selling the idea of nationalization more broadly is more than going on television to sell concepts. In my view a key area to nationalize would be the software and pc industries in such a way that a utility regulated by law would provide stable tools for people who use computers in their daily lives. Most software is not driven for example by incorporation of disabled peoples needs. If that were met, then the 70% unemployment rate amongst disabled people would be greatly reduced. Most disabled people understand that and would support their getting such accommodation because to some degree most disabled people already depend upon such government support through rehab, workers comp, and social security. Approximately 15 to 17% of the population is disabled, and a workers movement around full employment and decent wages would have to incorporate disabled people as a matter of course. Computational control of social structures would follow from meeting the marginalized needs of disabled people through nationalization of computed communications. Work regulated by computational communications structures require globalized standards and best practices (see the W3C for the business standards efforts). The costs advantages of implementing such a global system flows out of economies of scale. In particular social organization of people irrespective of distance advances the needs of homosexuals like myself as the well documented global gay rights movement shows. Where our marginalization reflected in low numbers of visible homosexuals make it hard for us to develop a social character outside of the capitalist mode of social structure, nationalization of communications structures would immediately create a renaissance of social formation in the marginalized peoples of the world. Many gays and disabled people would willingly fight for this vision. thanks, Doyle Saylor
Re: Software
Greetings Economists, First off sorry about the mix up the other day sending my unsubscribe message to Pen-L. Sent my temporary unsubscription to the wrong address. Had to go out the door for Los Angeles in a hurry, and of course got tangled up. Charles J. wrote an interesting set of remarks about software to which various people responded. I like what Charles has to say quite a bit. I went to Los Angeles to a conference on disability and technology held yearly by the local state university. While Charles' remarks make some sense concerning about how shoddy software one encounters really is, I thought I would add in some disability perspective that go beyond Charles' perspective. First to quote Charles, Charles, 27 March 2002 02:09 UTC Re: software You might think that the WINTEL duopoly and its minions try to coordinate cycles of planned obsolescence. However, my own observations lead me to conclude that the software and hardware are often out of sync. Sometimes the software is not optimized to make best use of the hardware; sometimes vice versa. ... I still think what most home and small office users need are relatively modest hardware platforms dedicated to well-designed suites of software, with optimization to run as efficiently and trouble-free as possible. Doyle, One would hope to have trouble free software for one's needs in computing. However let's take an example of "Augmented Reality" as discussed in this months Scientific American. The basis of such computing is that one wears the computer. For a disabled person who is visually impaired the performance of the computer... Sci Amer., April 2002, Vol 286 # 4, By Steven K Feiner Augmented Reality: A new Way of Seeing, page 50, "Getting the right information at the right time and the right place is key in all these applications. Personal digital assistants such as the Palm and the Pocket PC can provide timely information using wireless networking and Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers that constantly track the handheld devices. But what makes augmented reality different in how the information is presented: not on a separate display but integrated with the user's perceptions. This kind of interface minimizes the extra mental effort that a user has to expend when switching his or her attention back and forth between real-world tasks and a computer screen. In augmented reality, the user's view of the world and the computer interface literally become one." Doyle, While the above quote is informed by a visual bias, the basic concept applies as well to a blind person who needs navigation aids accurate down to the centimeter for traveling in the real world. Aids capable of labeling a space with information as the blind person faces the space and integrate into space itself. These sorts of performance demands require the computing device function in the real world for the average user. The requirements for this sort of system flow along with 'Web Services' business applications. That is as one goes about where one lives communicating the commercial structure of space is important in real time and moving human beings. This sort of demand upon computing is more than just a modest hardware platform. Universal signage would be necessary for blind people, but also advances the interests of web services for ordinary sighted people. The upshot of my thoughts here is that mobile computing for the average person, much like carrying a cell phone is more than a modest hardware platform. Otherwise though, Charles' remarks reflect my own thoughts on what the Capitalist economy offers up to people. One can't do much about that as a working class movement while capitalism is in power. For the capitalist, if wearable computing becomes necessary to do work, there will be opportunities to analyze what people work with in their daily lives. Where workers aren't served well as disabled people usually aren't, what does it take to strengthen the working class. Especially given many ways in which wearable computing offers new ways of organizing workers we might ask what sort of organizing questions could be better answered. thanks, Doyle Saylor
Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Nader
Really? Is that what "leftist"means? I'm not sure I would support such a platform, not given the realities of political corruption in the US and the experience of large-scale state ownership in Russia. How exactly would you sell this vision to the American public? Ellen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Well, some, maybe, but virtually all? I mean Do you think he'd support >nationalizing all corporations above a certain low level, treating the >mines >and the factories and fields and offices as belonging to the government >and >to be controlled by the workers and farmers? Which in some sense is what >most of us here, including me, would advocate. > >jks > > > >_ >Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. >http://www.hotmail.com >
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nader
Justin Schwartz wrote: > > But Judge Arnold was no fan of unmbridged free markets. Have you head his > The Folklore of Capitalism? A wonderful book. As I said, trust-busting isn't > the same idea as the current Stevens-Bork-Posner line that antitrsutis just > about efficiency. > I stumbled across that book when I was a college freshman 55 years ago -- and it was the first book I had encountered that gave me the experience of not quite mastering what I was reading. I found it wonderful but couldn't quite make it cohere at the time. Carrol
Re: Krugman, Globalism and Steel
Ian's posting on Bush's commitment (sic) to free trade and Krugman's comments about "antiglobalism" brought to mind the following comment by Bruce Little, a business columnist in the Globe and Mail, this past week commenting on the steel and softwood lumber cases. Please note that Little is a middle-road, but thoughtful, regular contributer to Canada's leading business and corporate newspaper. "Domestic politics skews U.S. view of fair trade" Globe and Mail, March 28, 2002. by Bruce Little The fact that the United States has deep-sixed our softwood lumber industry with deeply punitive import duties should be a reminder that the Americans are not our best friends and probably not our friends at all: they arre simply our neighbours. You might even say that the Americans have no real friends. Rather, they have interests -- entirely domestic -- that must be appeassed. They are only following one of the oldest adages of international statecraft; succinctly enunciated by a 19th-centruy British prime minister, Viscount Palmerston: "England has no permanent friends; she has only permanent interests." In Washington, the permanent interest of those who make trade policy lies in winning elections. In this, an election year, it especially lies in winning control of Congress and the Senate. Such imparatives leave no room for the interest or concerns of even permanent neighbours. Typically, U.S. trade protection measures are gussied up in the language of fairness. Americans fabour free trade, they will say, but it must be fair trade. The playing field must be kept level for all comers. The devil (for foreigners like us) is in the definition. A level playing field is one on which Americans win, because, as every American knows in his bones, Americans always win a fair fight. If they lose, the fight is, by definition, unfair. And if the compeitors are foreigners who don't vote in U.S. elections, so much the better. They can be trampled with domestic impunity. PaulPhillips
Martin J. Sklar on Progressivism and Corporate Liberalism
http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~shgape/sklar2.html
RE: We are what's left
Does Ralph Nader oppose capitalism? -Original Message- From: Max B. Sawicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 9:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:24496] We are what's left Yesterday I learned that Nader, who draws thousands of people to his rallies to hear him and others rail against corporations, globalization, Republicans, and Democrats, and in support of industrial action, labor rights, regulation, and the welfare state is not a leftist.
Nader, when he was a Libertarian (The Freeman, 1962)
>From The FreemanOCTOBER 1962 Quotes about the magazine Order Form Back-issues January 2000 February 2000 March 2000 April 2000 May 2000 June 2000 July 2000 August 2000 Search this site: How Winstedites Kept Their Integrity by Ralph Nader "OPPOSE a public housing project! You might just as well come out against Mother and Social Security." In the face of this typical defeatist attitude, the rejection of a federal housing project in three successive referendums in Winsted, Connecticut, is of more than local significance. The issue first arose in this New England mill town of 10,000 people in December 1957 when the local housing authority brought before a Town Meeting a proposal for fifty federal housing units. Despite public apathy, the proposal was defeated by the tiny vote of 20 to 16. However, it was re-submitted the following month and approved by a voice vote. The townspeople seemed largely unconcerned through the next two years of preliminary preparations for construction. But in January 1960, a young housewife's letter in the local paper questioned the whole idea of public housing, pointed to some of the likely injurious consequences, and berated citizens for letting it be imposed upon them by default. In short order, 550 signatures were secured petitioning for a referendum on the project; and when the vote was counted in April 1960, after the largest referendum turnout in recent history, the project had been rejected two to one. By then, however, the local housing authority had spent some $20,000 of federal disbursements; and housing proponents petitioned for another referendum, which was held in August 1960. The vote, even heavier than that of April, again spelled a resounding rejection. The next move came when the federal Public Housing Authority called a meeting of selectmen and local housing officials to offer what it called a "redirected" program. The earlier proposal had involved 40 low-rent units and 10 units for the elderly. The new alternative was to reverse that ratio. And in some unexplained way, the adoption of the "redirected" program would also absorb the $20,000 otherwise to be billed against the town. Their "concern for the elderly" prompted the selectmen to call for a new referendum. On April 28, 1962, aroused but weary voters rejected the program for the third time--a most remarkable showing of integrity in the face of formidable pressure. Enabling Legislation In Connecticut, the state enabling act for the creation of local housing authorities by municipalities sets the official tone. The statute declares that a serious slum condition exists, unrelieved through private enterprise. This supposedly justifies the use of tax- collected funds to provide housing accommodations. As in other states, local housing authorities are given autonomous status which shields them from both the town governing body and the voters and thus fails to encourage responsible action. The statute is so drawn that the members of the housing authority, who serve without pay (which can be very costly), may delegate all powers and duties to the executive director. This had been done in Winsted. The statute does not require that local housing authorities make any housing surveys or other studies before proposing public housing. When the law itself encourages rather than safeguards against abuse and bureaucratic dominance, freewheeling and irresponsible projects are likely to result. Unrestrained by legal standards and used to public apathy, housing officials at federal, state, and local levels are prone to assume that they need only decree a project to have it carried out. Under the U.S. housing law, the local authority is permitted the use of federal funds to acquaint the public with any housing proposal. Prior to each of the first two Winsted referendums, the authority drew upon federal funds for newspaper advertisements in behalf of its program, for "progress," "growth," and sympathy for one's less fortunate neighbors." Need for Information A group of citizens, sought to break the authority's monopoly of significant facts, requesting the selectmen to send the authority a list of questions concerning costs, consequences to the Town, and the alleged need for the project. But, secure in its autonomy, the authority rejected brusquely this bid for public information. Such agencies can maintain their secrecy with near impunity, since resort to the courts is expensive and time-consuming and seldom satisfactory, anyway, in suits against housing authorities. To rely on the popular vote is not an entirely satisfactory alternative. A majority decision may be unjust, though democratic, and the rights of a minority may be violated. Moreover, the right to vote is impaired in substance when there is not access to information upon which to base judgment. Nevertheless, the referendum appears to be
Re: We are what's left
> >I'm not an expert, but I would summarize Smith's theory as the >good social effect resulting from narrow, self-seeking activity. >I defy anyone to find support for that among the old populists >or in Nader's movement. > Smith would not accept this characterization, as you perfectly well know. jks _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
Re: RE: Re: Re: Nader
> >untrue. > >http://www.tap.org/ > >mbs > > > >"[Nader] would not advocate public ownership of >productive assets. . . . > Well, some, maybe, but virtually all? I mean Do you think he'd support nationalizing all corporations above a certain low level, treating the mines and the factories and fields and offices as belonging to the government and to be controlled by the workers and farmers? Which in some sense is what most of us here, including me, would advocate. jks _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nader
> >There were two lines in the New Deal. The corporatists were not dominant >at first -- the Thurman Arnold, trust-busting line, was. The idea was >that corporate power caused the Depression by keeping prices high and >curtailing output. > But Judge Arnold was no fan of unmbridged free markets. Have you head his The Folklore of Capitalism? A wonderful book. As I said, trust-busting isn't the same idea as the current Stevens-Bork-Posner line that antitrsutis just about efficiency. jks _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
RE: Re:: Nader
hese search terms have been highlighted: alan brinkley new deal fdr Copyright © 1995 The Johns Hopkins University Press. All rights reserved. This work may be used, with this header included, for noncommercial purposes within a subscribed institution. No copies of this work may be distributed electronically outside of the subscribed institution, in whole or in part, without express written permission from the JHU Press. Reviews in American History 23.4 (1995) 710-715 FROM NEW DEAL TO NEW LIBERALISM William R. Brock Alan Brinkley. The End of Reform: New Deal Liberalism in Recession and War. New York: Knopf, 1995. x 271 pp. Archival sources, notes, and index. $27.50. This is an important addition to New Deal historiography, but, as with many other academic monographs, the subtitle tells more than the title. The book's primary purpose is not to examine the end of reform but to explain how and why American liberalism was transformed. In that it brings together much that is already known and advances no startling new interpretations, it can be described as a synthesis; but it is synthesis of a high order. No other book covers the ground with such mastery and at numerous points a new insight or citation illuminates what has hitherto been obscure. Seventy-two archival sources and eighty-one pages of notes (several of them condensed historiographical essays) demonstrate the width and depth of his learning. Even more telling is the good judgment with which the material is handled. The New Deal gave birth to a new species of liberalism. In Roosevelt's words, quoted by Brinkley, its leading characteristic was "a changed concept of the duty and responsibility of government toward economic life." Progressive moralism slipped into the background, city bosses were flattered rather than challenged, all forms of populism were distrusted as antiintellectual and irrational, racial questions were avoided, gender was not yet an issue, and so far as the New Dealers were concerned anyone could imbibe as much alcohol as they wished. What the New Deal liberals did have in overflowing measure was intellectual energy harnessed to the conviction that society could be reconstructed on just, rational, and efficient lines, and that the intelligent use of political power would make general welfare more than an empty phrase. To these liberals of the New Deal everything seemed possible after the election of 1936; then came recession to show that it was not. Worse followed with the ill- fated attempt to reform the Supreme Court, the loss of the Executive Reorganization Bill, and the resurgence of conservative and frequently virulent opposition. In the next five years appropriations for the Works Progress Administration were cut and cut again until it expired, other New Deal innovations were dropped or rendered ineffective, and the National Resources Planning Board -- repository for so many liberal hopes -- was [End Page 710] killed. During the war industrialists won praise but mismanagement in the wartime agencies discredited government direction of the economy. Faced by these setbacks and operating in a cold climate liberals so modified their own attitudes and aims that Brinkley can write with authority of a "new liberalism" emerging during the years of disillusion and war, and maintain that it rather than the New Deal was the parent of liberalism as it is known today. The new liberalism was less adventurous than the old and not merely because intellects grew weary. In the heady days of the early New Deal, liberals had assumed that capitalism would remain but could be transformed; new liberals recognized that in all essentials it would remain the same. Despite a few attempts at resuscitation the ideas that had inspired the NRA were dead. Big business might still be unpopular, but political antimonopoly faded away. Facing a future in which corporate power would survive and probably grow stronger, liberals shifted their emphasis from regulation to fiscal management, from disciplining producers to protecting consumers, from emergency measures of relief to a permanent and expanding welfare system. They dropped the idea that the economy was mature and looked for growth, putting profits into private pockets with the proviso that it must also provide full employment. Victory of a sort came with Truman's triumph in 1948 but the Fair Deal was separated by an intellectual gulf from the New Deal. Brinkley's introduction and epilogue provide a stimulating overview of this decisive stage in the history of American liberalism. The ten chapters that make up the body of the book provide massive substance to support his generalizations, but close argument and much detail should not deter readers. His style is fluent, lucid, readable, and devoid of pretentious jargon. Also the text is enlivened by perceptive pen portraits of leading personalties. It is for the most part an insiders' story. The greatest insider, FDR himself, is a tow
RE: Re: Re: Re: Nader
fROM A WEBPG. ON aLAN bRINKLEY Michael Pugliese >...The End of Reform discusses the erosion of the New Deal after the 1937 recession and the experience of World War II. Brinkley notes how FDR, a consummate pragmatist, had held no design for recovery but rather relied on "bold experimentalism" to carry the day. Under this rubric of experimentalism, many different ideologies got their time in the sun, including budget-balancers, "New Freedom" decentralization, "New Nationalist" federalism, and Hoover-style associationalism. When the 1937 recession hit, destroying what little recovery had occurred since the Great Slump, FDR finally began to rely on what we now consider the New Deal's prime legacy - Keynesian fiscal spending. This emphasis on pump-priming [a.k.a. throwing money at problems, with no underlying civic mission] was set in stone by the financial necessities of the war effort. By the time the dust had settled in 1945, all other strands of progressivism had been discarded and forgotten, leaving only the convenient yet strangely disempowering monolith of "postwar liberalism" on the political landscape. Step by unfolding step, Brinkley relates the men of various philosophies who crafted the New Deal, and how they all ultimately came to embrace the tenets of the liberalism now floundering in our nation's capital. >--- Original Message --- >From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: 3/31/02 9:07:49 AM > >There were two lines in the New Deal. The corporatists were not dominant >at first -- the Thurman Arnold, trust-busting line, was. The idea was >that corporate power caused the Depression by keeping prices high and >curtailing output. > >On Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 02:29:55PM +, Justin Schwartz wrote: >> >> Actually the old New Deal (pre 1937) was opposed to competition and very >> much in favor of corporativist planning. The New Dealers were very impressed >> by the successes of the WWI War economy and the apparant successes of the >> USSR in those days in avoiding the ravages of the Great Depression, and if >> you read the histories of the period, they utterly rejected the invisible > >-- >Michael Perelman >Economics Department >California State University >Chico, CA 95929 > >Tel. 530-898-5321 >E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: Re: Re: Nader
There were two lines in the New Deal. The corporatists were not dominant at first -- the Thurman Arnold, trust-busting line, was. The idea was that corporate power caused the Depression by keeping prices high and curtailing output. On Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 02:29:55PM +, Justin Schwartz wrote: > > Actually the old New Deal (pre 1937) was opposed to competition and very > much in favor of corporativist planning. The New Dealers were very impressed > by the successes of the WWI War economy and the apparant successes of the > USSR in those days in avoiding the ravages of the Great Depression, and if > you read the histories of the period, they utterly rejected the invisible -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: We are what's left
Max, I like Nader. I admire him very much. His main refrain is corporate and government abuse -- people not playing fairly. He is not dogmatic, but that is his central line. That does not mean that he would not support labor rights and the welfare state. I would have expected that you, who probably know as much about the populists as anybody on the list, would have agreed with that characterization. On Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 10:53:37AM -0500, Max B. Sawicky wrote: > "Ralph Nader is not a leftist. I doubt that he would call himself a > leftist. Is much more in line with the old populists, who believe in the > theory of Adam Smith . . . " > > Thank god for PEN-L. You learn something every day here. > > Yesterday I learned that Nader, who draws thousands of people > to his rallies to hear him and others rail against corporations, > globalization, Republicans, and Democrats, and in support of > industrial action, labor rights, regulation, and the welfare state > is not a leftist. > > Presumably that leaves just PEN-L and Looey. Overnight, the ranks > of the left have been depleted by 99 percent. Oh, the humanity!!! > > I'm not an expert, but I would summarize Smith's theory as the > good social effect resulting from narrow, self-seeking activity. > I defy anyone to find support for that among the old populists > or in Nader's movement. > > mbs > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: We are what's left
Rob writes:>Jim's plenty left for me. < thanks. BTW, there was a recent effort to pin down the extremely vagud left/right metaphor by a couple of political scientists (I don't remember their names, but it was reported by SLATE magazine and by Paul Krugman). Their project was to draw a "map" in which U.S. senators who voted in similar ways were close together in space (the way Perth and Brisbane seem to be close together for those of us who've never been down under). Surprisingly, there are only two dimensions to their "map." "Up vs. down" in U.S. politics refers to civil rights issues, while "left" vs. "right" is about class and inequality. The former dimension has become less important over time, say these folks, but the latter still works. One of my senators (Barbara Boxer) ends up on the extreme left, which may say something about the limits of this research. More importantly to me, it seems that the meaning of "the middle" changes over time. JD
Re: We are what's left
G'day Max, > I'm not an expert, but I would summarize Smith's theory as the > good social effect resulting from narrow, self-seeking activity. > I defy anyone to find support for that among the old populists > or in Nader's movement. I agree with the thrust of this, Max. You have to be pretty pure and very lonely to be a proper lefty by some lights. But, I'd argue that Smith reckoned the good social effects would only come if the self-seeking business fraternity were very closely watched by state agencies, else they'd nefariously combine towards bad social effects. I have heard such sentiments from Nader in the past. Now he's saying the state agencies are nefariously combining with the self-seeking businessmen, isn't he? That pretty well matches Jim Devine's recent musings on the state, as I recall. And Jim's plenty left for me. Cheers, Rob.
RE: Re: Re: Nader
untrue. http://www.tap.org/ mbs "[Nader] would not advocate public ownership of productive assets. . . .
We are what's left
"Ralph Nader is not a leftist. I doubt that he would call himself a leftist. Is much more in line with the old populists, who believe in the theory of Adam Smith . . . " Thank god for PEN-L. You learn something every day here. Yesterday I learned that Nader, who draws thousands of people to his rallies to hear him and others rail against corporations, globalization, Republicans, and Democrats, and in support of industrial action, labor rights, regulation, and the welfare state is not a leftist. Presumably that leaves just PEN-L and Looey. Overnight, the ranks of the left have been depleted by 99 percent. Oh, the humanity!!! I'm not an expert, but I would summarize Smith's theory as the good social effect resulting from narrow, self-seeking activity. I defy anyone to find support for that among the old populists or in Nader's movement. mbs
Re: Re: Nader
. > > > > Nader is sort of a New Deal (FDR) liberal who used to believe in >competitive > > markets, anti-trust, and some kinds of deregulation (e.g., breaking up >the > > Civil Aeronautics Administration and the Interstate Commerce Commission, >the > > old government cartels in airlines and ground transport). He's been >moving > > away from this for awhile, seemingly in the direction of those on this >list. > > I'll have to read his book to find out more. JD > > Actually the old New Deal (pre 1937) was opposed to competition and very much in favor of corporativist planning. The New Dealers were very impressed by the successes of the WWI War economy and the apparant successes of the USSR in those days in avoiding the ravages of the Great Depression, and if you read the histories of the period, they utterly rejected the invisible hand ideology that is dominant today. This is reflected, e.g., in the National Recovery Administration, struck down by the SCt in the last Lochner-era decision, the early interpretation of the SEC Acts, the expressly pro-labor (pre-Taft-Hartly) NLRA, which made unionization a prefered option, and in the earlier interpretations of antitrust law by both the FTC and the New Deal SCt--antitrust law didn't go aggressively pro-competitive as opposed to anti-trust until the 1970s. It's a legacy of the early (pre-liberal) Justice Stevens. Nader may be a New Deal liberal when it comes to social programs. But he's a believer in free markets and competition. That's not a criticism from me--I am too. Nader is not a leftist in the sense of being anticapitalist--as I am, btw, anticapitalist, that is. He's anticorporate and proregulation, but unlike me and most of us, here would not advocate public ownership of productive assets. He's about as far left, however, as anyone could be and not be considered utterly insane in terms of normal American political discourse. Insanely yours jks _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Comparative advantage of poverty
The Europhile resident correspondent in Paris of the International Herald Tribune promoting European interventionist economics rather than Bush's liberal world market. Chris Burford Bush's remedy is only half a loaf William Pfaff International Herald Tribune Thursday, March 28, 2002 PARIS The great policy debates tend by nature toward caricature. The issues themselves tend to get settled in practice, but the vocabulary of confrontation is confiscated and perpetuated by partisans. The U.S. argument in Monterrey last week was that market development is better for poor countries than assistance or loans from the international development agencies leading to state action. Experience and pragmatism say that the answer to that is yes - or no - or both. Obviously, it is better to provide people with the mechanisms of self-improvement than to hand out charity. The microloan technique, for example, originated in Bangladesh, giving tiny loans to women to create tiny enterprises, gets certain communities more effectively out of poverty than certain top-down development projects of the kind traditionally favored by the international lending agencies. On the other hand, you can't attack the grave social ills of lack of education, public health and corruption, or create infrastructure, with microloans. Foreign investment is Washington's remedy for poverty, as President George W. Bush again made plain with his speech in Monterrey. This works by drawing societies into the international economy. And this, as experience again shows, has negative, as well as positive, consequences. When it works, it is because - to use David Ricardo's term - being poor is the comparative advantage possessed by the poor. Because poor countries are poor, they can furnish investors with low-cost and docile labor. This is an advantage that automatically disappears if development is successful. The investors move on. Ricardo, an 18th-century English economist, was also the author of what he called the iron law of wages, which says that wages tend to stabilize at just above subsistence level. This is because if wages rise, so does demand for the jobs, and the competition for employment will tend to force wages back down. This until recently has been largely theoretical, since the theory only works if the labor supply is infinite - and in practical terms, because of geographical, political, craft and trade union barriers, the available labor supply in most situations is limited. For labor, the unfortunate consequence of globalization has been that it has at last created the world of David Ricardo's theory, in which the pool of labor is virtually unlimited. That is what has been at the heart of the debate over globalization for the past decade. In Europe, where free markets have never enjoyed quite the unqualified enthusiasm they enjoy in the United States, centrally directed development is again gaining respect because of the contrast between the highly successful state infrastructure development of certain continental countries and the fiasco of infrastructure privatization in Britain. Continental Europe's steadily enlarging network of high-speed railways has had an enormously beneficial effect on economic and political decentralization and the internationalization of industry. Public enterprise does not even have to be state- financed. Some European superhighway systems have been built by public corporations using private investment, guaranteed by toll income. Privatization of these corporations now is under consideration in France, but the highways would never have been built by the private sector acting alone. A recent Milken Institute Review article about America's economic "myths," by three former high officials of the Johnson administration - Charles Zwick, Peter Lewis and Robert A. Levine - cites some of the public institutions that have been essential to the success of the modern American economy. These include the Federal Deposit Insurance System, the Federal Housing Administration, the Interstate highway system, rural electrification and the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the National Institutes of Health. Economic development is not spontaneous. It has to be directed. That was not part of the American message at Monterrey, but it should have been.
India's fx reserves cross $53 bn mark, BoP surplus at $5.56 bn
Hindustantimes.com March 30, 2002 India's forex reserves cross $ 53 bn-mark, BoP surplus at $ 5.56 bn Agencies Mumbai , 30-03-2002 India's foreign exchange reserves rose by a record $ 1.128 billion in the week-ended March 22, the highest ever inflow in the recent past, to soar past the $ 53 billion mark. During the past three weeks, foreign exchange inflows have shot up by more than $ two billion. The foreign exchange reserves touched a new record high of $ 53,317 million following fresh inflows in the reporting week, according to Reserve Bank of India's weekly statistical supplement issued here on Saturday. This record rise was due to foreign exchange earnings, revaluation of the Rupee and foreign investment inflows, RBI sources said. The foreign currency assets (FCA), which ended the week at $ 50,255 million, were solely responsible for this massive jump, RBI said. Gold at $ 3,052 million and special drawing rights at $ 10 million were unchanged for the week ended March 22. Loans and advances to central government decreased by Rs 3,664 crore to touch a nil balance while that to states rose by Rs 303 crore at Rs 6,925 crore. April-Dec BoP surplus $5.569 bn Reuters reports: India's balance of payments (BOP) surplus in the nine months ended December 2001 was $5.569 billion against a surplus of $2.735 billion in the same period of the previous year, data released by RBI showed. The data showed the trade deficit in April-December narrowed to $9.482 billion from $12.045 billion in the same period last year. The country posted a BoP surplus of $5.86 billion in 2000-01. RBI said foreign investment, including portfolio and direct flows, was higher at $3.5 billion in April-December compared with $2.491 billion in the same period of the previous year. The current account showed a deficit of $726 million in April-December, down from $3.186 billion a year ago. For the October-December quarter, the current account surplus was $785 million and the balance of payments surplus, $3.624 billion. Send your feedback at [EMAIL PROTECTED] ©Hindustan Times Ltd. 1997. Reproduction in any form is prohibited without prior permission.
Re: Re: Nader
In his _Exit, Voice, and Loyalty_, Hirschman places Nader's campaigns in the EVL approach. Mohammad Maljoo >From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [PEN-L:24485] Re: Nader >Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 19:59:44 -0800 > >Jim's Thurmon Arnold comparison is very apt. > >On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 07:51:50PM -0800, Devine, James wrote: > > [was: RE: [PEN-L:24482] Re: FW: Krugman] > > > > Sabri asks: >Here is a question to our American friends: Is Ralph Nader >is a > > leftist?< > > > > it's a matter of definition and political definitions are not only hard >to > > make but are political footballs. > > > > Nader is sort of a New Deal (FDR) liberal who used to believe in >competitive > > markets, anti-trust, and some kinds of deregulation (e.g., breaking up >the > > Civil Aeronautics Administration and the Interstate Commerce Commission, >the > > old government cartels in airlines and ground transport). He's been >moving > > away from this for awhile, seemingly in the direction of those on this >list. > > I'll have to read his book to find out more. JD > > > >-- >Michael Perelman >Economics Department >California State University >Chico, CA 95929 > >Tel. 530-898-5321 >E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
Re: US & Israel; alone
I believe this is the URL Ian intended to send: http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1907/19070430.htm WORLD AFFAIRS A WAR OF HORRORS The 'war on terror' led by the United States is perhaps on the verge of unveiling new horrors that the world could take long to recover from. SUKUMAR MURALIDHARAN TEN days into an odyssey through the region that has been designated as the central theatre in the second phase of the "war on terror", U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney conferred his benediction on the Palestinian Authority chairman, Yasser Arafat. After two days of intimate discussions with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Cheney announced that he would be willing to meet with Arafat at an early date, if violence against Israel were to cease. Clearly suggesting prior agreement and close coordination between the two countries, Israel announced concurrently that it would be willing to allow Arafat to travel to the end-March Arab League summit in Beirut, if he were to fulfil the minimum conditions imposed on him. [snip] Sabri
