Re: Capitalism versus socialism

["Chris Doss"]

Under communism the economic decisions and property were national and
publicly owned. Over the past 15 years of the transition to capitalism
almost all basic industries, energy, mining, communications, infrastructure
and wholesale trade industries have been taken over by European and US
multi-national corporations and by mafia billionaires or they have been
shut down.
---

Uh, something like 40% of the Russian economy is state-owned. Gazprom is state-owned. 
Almost none of the Russian economy has been sold off to foreigners.

Economic terrorism

[Chris Burford]

For the first time Sunday I heard a British government minister
refer to economic terrorism in connection with Al Qaeda.

This was David Blunkett Home Secretary saying, as I caught it, "the
more they can destabilise our economy and the world economy the better
it will be for their intent" A somewhat unguarded statement
fortunately for them not broadcast in every subsequent news bulletin.

This was in the context of a joint intitiative with the USA to stage a
mock terrorist attack simultaneously on both sides of the Atlantic.

It is consistent with the fact that the mock exercise held in the UK
last year was at the Bank underground station.

It is also consistent with the news that the French rail system has
recently been held to ransom by threats to the whole system.

It is consistent with the little publicised fact that the British
government eventually decided it had to negotiate with the IRA after
the IRA blew up the Baltic Exchange. Why the Baltic Exchange? Not
clearly for the usual purposes of terrorism which is for its supposed
political excitatory role.

No, the Baltic Exchange was featured on an Open University sociology
course available to IRA prisoners in long term detention, as a crucial
link in the re-insurance processes of finance capital.

Baltic Exchange plus threats to attack key road and rail junctions.

So terrorism and the counterploys to terrorism are rapidly evolving.

The WT Centre had a dual role, as one of the prominent symbols of US
power,
and as a key economic target. But even more key for economic rather
than for political terrorism would be a communications hub.

>From a socialist point of view both are reactionary are ultimately
strengthen the hold of the ruling class over the mass of the people.

A lot may depend on whether the terrorists give up their essential use
of political terrorism. If they switch systematically to economic
terrorism, that implies they are far sighted enough to aim at specific
goals as a result of the terrorist war. Ideologically in their own
terms they may feel tht is reformist, and they cannot ask for such
sacrifices for reformist goals.

To the extent the terrorism becomes economic, within the ruling strata
it becomes cheaper for finance capitalism to negotiate. The
multi-lateralist imperialists will win out over the unilateralists.
Finance capitalism in general over the sectional interest of a minor
player like Cheney and his neo-conservative chums.
Bush is that little bit more on the defensive.

Chris Burford

Fw: Fidel watches The Sopranos

[Grant Lee]

[From the New York Post's "Page Six" gossip column...hmmm, how reliable is
this, you NYers? *lol*]

"SOPRANOS" sweetie Jamie-Lynn DiScala says it took a brave man to ask her
out before she married her manager, A.J. DiScala, last July. "I dated one
celebrity during the third season and he didn't treat me very well,"
Jamie-Lynn tells FHM. "Tony Sirico knew who I was dating and he honestly
wanted to find this guy and kill him." DiScala -who has the title role in
the upcoming USA movie "Going Down: The Rise and Fall of Heidi Fleiss" -
also reveals that Fidel Castro is a "Sopranos" fan. "He requested it on
DVD," she said."

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:VTn1NB_hYvIJ:www.nypost.com/gossip/pagesix_u.htm

Argentina v IMF: another round of the game of chicken

[Eubulides]

Argentina and IMF in duel over $3.1bn loan

Larry Elliott and Charlotte Denny
Tuesday March 9, 2004
The Guardian

Argentina was last night on a collision course with the International
Monetary Fund after the heavily indebted Latin American country signalled
it was preparing to default on a $3.1bn (£1.7bn) payment to the
Washington-based lender.

In the biggest trial of strength between the fund and a debtor country in
the fifty-year history of the global lender, the crisis will come to a
head today when Buenos Aires must decide whether to pay the fund.

The dispute is not really over the $3.1bn - the fund promised last October
to rollover its outstanding loans to the country, so Argentina does not
have to make any net repayments this year to Washington.

Argentina also owes $90bn to banks and private investors in Europe and
North America. It has made no payments on these debts since December 2001,
and the fund is insisting the country negotiates a fair deal with its
private creditors before extending its credit line.

"I don't think Argentina is going to pay us without there being a
commitment from us and the board will not give it that," an IMF source
told Reuters last week.

"So, Argentina has a choice: to pay us and take their chances or continue
playing hardball." Latin America's second largest economy is only just
recovering from a slump caused by following the fund's advice throughout
the 1990s, but is now being pressed by its private sector creditors to
start making repayments on its enormous debt.

So seriously is Buenos Aires taking these threats that President Nestor
Kirchner cancelled a trip to Europe earlier this year on his official jet,
Tango One, afraid it could be seized as collateral by aggrieved
bondholders.

Mr Kirchner is taking a huge gamble. His stance is winning applause from
Argentina's hardpressed population, but the confrontation with the fund
could end in the country becoming a financial pariah. "Argentina has been
living in a false honeymoon, paying no interest, but the creditors are
banging on the door," said Professor Marcus Miller of Warwick University.

Mr Kirchner and economy minister Roberto Lavagna have offered creditors
25¢ in the dollar. Any more, they argue, would force them to cut spending
on schools and hospitals. The creditors are demanding 65¢ in the dollar
and say Argentina can afford to pay them, now the country is enjoying
healthy growth.

Discussions between the two sides have been deep frozen for months, but
the departure last week of the IMF's managing director Horst Köhler is
likely to bring the crisis to a head. Standing in as acting chief is Anne
Krueger, the fund's deputy director, who is likely to take an
uncompromising line over how much Argentina can afford to pay.

Ms Krueger's tough love stance is receiving backing from some of the
fund's leading shareholders, the rich countries of the West. The issue has
already split the group of seven industrialised countries: in a rare
revolt against the rest of the G7, Britain, Italy and Japan all abstained
from rolling over Argentina's lending programme last January.

There are three possible ways out of the current impasse: either Argentina
capitulates and offers creditors a better deal; the fund backs down and
continues its lending programme despite Buenos Aires's intransigence or a
compromise is agreed.

Prof Miller says the impasse could be resolved without harming Argentina's
recovery. Buenos Aires should float new bonds with returns linked to the
performance of its economy to repay its creditors. If the economy grows
strongly over the next few years, creditors will get a slice of the action
without starving other parts of the economy.

Argentina likes the idea of growth linked bonds but Mr Kirchner has
ratcheted up the rhetoric so it will be difficult give creditors a break.
For the fund, however, Argentina's defiance raises the ultimate spectre: a
domino effect of defaulters that could bankrupt it.

Re: oil crises

[Devine, James]

Aldo Balardini asks me several questions:
>How do you define the price of oil? <
 
the same way most people do.
 
>Cyrus Bina is the only one so far to have attempted to explain the 1970's oil crisis 
>using the standard interpretation of Marx's theory of rent. <
 
I was thinking of his analysis (though I haven't read it in awhile), since Marx's rent 
theory suggests that the price of oil is determined partly by demand (unlike, say, in 
manufacturing). 
 
>Do you agree with Bina that cost conditions in the US, the highest cost region in the 
>international oil, determine the the "world" price of oil?  <
 
it depends on demand. If demand is sufficiently low, cost conditions in the US are 
irrelevant. If it's high, then we might see a higher-cost producer as determining. 
Jim D.

Re: oil crises.

[Devine, James]

so we're both right. What I was saying was that _given its current technology, etc._ 
Iraq was a high-cost producer in 1990 (before it moved into Kuwait). What you are 
saying is tht it _could be_ a lower-cost producer if modern methods were introduced, 
etc. (This, it seems, is a motivation of the Bushwackers' unfriendly take-over bid 
there.)
Jim D.

-Original Message- 
From: dmschanoes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Mon 3/8/2004 6:33 PM 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Cc: 
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] oil crises.



- Original Message -
From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] oil crises.


(a civil conversation)

> DMS:  But Iraq is not a high cost producer of oil, having a
> cost of production approximately
> equal to Saudi Arabia, the low-cost producer.

JD: I have heard otherwise from other sources.

From the US Energy Information Agency

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html

Iraq's oil development and production costs are amongst the lowest in the
world (perhaps $3-$5 billion for each million barrels per day), making it a
highly attractive oil prospect. However, only 17 of 80 discovered fields
have been developed, while few deep wells have been drilled compared to
Iraq's neighbors. Overall, only about 2,300 wells reportedly have been
drilled in Iraq (of which about 1,600 are actually producing oil), compared
to around 1 million wells in Texas for instance. In addition, Iraq generally
has not had access to the latest, state-of-the-art oil industry technology
(i.e., 3D seismic, directional or deep drilling, gas injection), sufficient
spare parts, and investment in general throughout most of the 1990s.
Instead, Iraq reportedly utilized sub-standard engineering techniques (i.e.,
overpumping, water injection/"flooding"), obsolete technology, and systems
in various states of decay (i.e., corroded well casings) in order to sustain
production. In the long run, reversal of all these practices and utilization
of the most modern techniques, combined with development of both discovered
fields as well as new ones, could result in Iraq's oil output increasing by
several million barrels per day

Re: oil crises.

[Devine, James]

I think the idea is that if there's overproduction and prices collapse so that 
scarcity rents go toward zero, it creates an incentive to get together to fix prices 
upward. (Inside a country, the price collapse would drive many out of business, so 
that a small number of companies take over.) 
JD

-Original Message- 
From: joanna bujes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Mon 3/8/2004 7:49 PM 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Cc: 
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] oil crises.



I'm sorry, but I don't understand the argument that higher prices are
the result of overaccumulation. What happens to supply/demand idea? This
is not a rhetorical "I don't understand." Please explain,

Thanks,

Joanna

dmschanoes wrote:

>- Original Message -
>From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 8:14 PM
>Subject: Re: [PEN-L] oil crises.
>
>
>(a civil conversation)
>
>
>
>>DMS:  But Iraq is not a high cost producer of oil, having a
>>cost of production approximately
>>equal to Saudi Arabia, the low-cost producer.
>>
>>
>
>JD: I have heard otherwise from other sources.
>
>>From the US Energy Information Agency
>
>http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html
>
>Iraq's oil development and production costs are amongst the lowest in the
>world (perhaps $3-$5 billion for each million barrels per day), making it a
>highly attractive oil prospect. However, only 17 of 80 discovered fields
>have been developed, while few deep wells have been drilled compared to
>Iraq's neighbors. Overall, only about 2,300 wells reportedly have been
>drilled in Iraq (of which about 1,600 are actually producing oil), compared
>to around 1 million wells in Texas for instance. In addition, Iraq generally
>has not had access to the latest, state-of-the-art oil industry technology
>(i.e., 3D seismic, directional or deep drilling, gas injection), sufficient
>spare parts, and investment in general throughout most of the 1990s.
>Instead, Iraq reportedly utilized sub-standard engineering techniques (i.e.,
>overpumping, water injection/"flooding"), obsolete technology, and systems
>in various states of decay (i.e., corroded well casings) in order to sustain
>production. In the long run, reversal of all these practices and utilization
>of the most modern techniques, combined with development of both discovered
>fields as well as new ones, could result in Iraq's oil output increasing by
>several million barrels per day
>
>
>
>

Re: oil crises.

[joanna bujes]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the argument that higher prices are
the result of overaccumulation. What happens to supply/demand idea? This
is not a rhetorical "I don't understand." Please explain,
Thanks,

Joanna

dmschanoes wrote:

- Original Message -
From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] oil crises.
(a civil conversation)



DMS:  But Iraq is not a high cost producer of oil, having a
cost of production approximately
equal to Saudi Arabia, the low-cost producer.

JD: I have heard otherwise from other sources.

From the US Energy Information Agency
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html

Iraq's oil development and production costs are amongst the lowest in the
world (perhaps $3-$5 billion for each million barrels per day), making it a
highly attractive oil prospect. However, only 17 of 80 discovered fields
have been developed, while few deep wells have been drilled compared to
Iraq's neighbors. Overall, only about 2,300 wells reportedly have been
drilled in Iraq (of which about 1,600 are actually producing oil), compared
to around 1 million wells in Texas for instance. In addition, Iraq generally
has not had access to the latest, state-of-the-art oil industry technology
(i.e., 3D seismic, directional or deep drilling, gas injection), sufficient
spare parts, and investment in general throughout most of the 1990s.
Instead, Iraq reportedly utilized sub-standard engineering techniques (i.e.,
overpumping, water injection/"flooding"), obsolete technology, and systems
in various states of decay (i.e., corroded well casings) in order to sustain
production. In the long run, reversal of all these practices and utilization
of the most modern techniques, combined with development of both discovered
fields as well as new ones, could result in Iraq's oil output increasing by
several million barrels per day

the global food supply

[Eubulides]

Starved of the truth

Biotech firms are out to corner the market, so they have to persuade us
something else is at stake

George Monbiot
Tuesday March 9, 2004
The Guardian

The question is as simple as this: do you want a few corporations to
monopolise the global food supply? If the answer is yes, you should
welcome the announcement that the government is expected to make today
that the commercial planting of a genetically modified (GM) crop in
Britain can go ahead. If the answer is no, you should regret it. The
principal promotional effort of the genetic engineering industry is to
distract us from this question.

GM technology permits companies to ensure that everything we eat is owned
by them. They can patent the seeds and the processes that give rise to
them. They can make sure that crops can't be grown without their patented
chemicals. They can prevent seeds from reproducing themselves. By buying
up competing seed companies and closing them down, they can capture the
food market, the biggest and most diverse market of all.

No one in her right mind would welcome this, so the corporations must
persuade us to focus on something else. At first they talked of enhancing
consumer choice, but when the carrot failed, they switched to the stick.
Now we are told that unless we support the deployment of GM crops in
Britain, our science base will collapse. And that, by refusing to eat GM
products in Europe, we are threatening the developing world with
starvation. Both arguments are, shall we say, imaginative; but in public
relations, cogency counts for little. All that matters is that you spin
the discussion out for long enough to achieve the necessary result. And
that means recruiting eminent figures to make the case on your behalf.

Last October, 114 scientists, many of whom receive funding from the
biotech industry, sent an open letter to the prime minister claiming that
Britain's lack of enthusiasm for GM crops "will inhibit our ability to
contribute to scientific knowledge internationally". Scientists
specialising in this field, they claimed, were being forced to leave the
country to find work elsewhere.

Now forgive me if you've heard this before, but it seems to need
repeating. GM crops are not science. They are technological products of
science. To claim, as Tony Blair and several senior scientists have done,
that those who oppose GM are "anti-science" is like claiming that those
who oppose chemical weapons are anti-chemistry. Scientists are under no
greater obligation to defend GM food than they are to defend the
manufacture of Barbie dolls.

This is not to say that the signatories were wrong to claim that some
researchers who have specialised in the development of engineered crops
are now leaving Britain to find work elsewhere. As the public has rejected
their products, the biotech companies have begun withdrawing from this
country, and they are taking their funding with them. But if scientists
attach their livelihoods to the market, they can expect their livelihoods
to be affected by market forces. The people who wrote to Blair seem to
want it both ways: commercial funding, insulated from commercial
decisions.

In truth, the biotech companies' contribution to research in Britain has
been small. Far more money has come from the government. Its Biotechnology
and Biological Sciences Research Council, for example, funds 26 projects
on GM crops and just one on organic farming. If scientists want a source
of funding that's unlikely to be jeopardised by public concern, they
should lobby for this ratio to be reversed.

But the plight of the men in white coats isn't much of a tearjerker. A far
more effective form of emotional blackmail is the one deployed in the
Guardian last week by Lord Taverne, the founder of the Prima PR
consultancy. "The strongest argument in favour of developing GM crops," he
wrote, "is the contribution they can make to reducing world poverty,
hunger and disease."

There's little doubt that some GM crops produce higher yields than some
conventional crops, or that they can be modified to contain more
nutrients, though both these developments have been overhyped. Two
projects have been cited everywhere: a sweet potato being engineered in
Kenya to resist viruses, and vitamin A-enhanced rice. The first scheme has
just collapsed. Despite $6m of funding from Monsanto, the World Bank and
the US government, and endless hype in the press, it turns out to have
produced no improvement in virus resistance, and a decrease in yield. Just
over the border in Uganda, a far cheaper conventional breeding programme
has almost doubled sweet potato yields. The other project, never more than
a concept, now turns out not to work even in theory - malnourished people
appear not to be able to absorb vitamin A in this form. However, none of
this stops Lord Taverne, or George Bush, or the Nuffield Council on
Bioethics, from citing them as miracle cures for global hunger.

But some trials of this kind are succeeding, i

Re: oil crises.

[dmschanoes]

- Original Message -
From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] oil crises.


(a civil conversation)

> DMS:  But Iraq is not a high cost producer of oil, having a
> cost of production approximately
> equal to Saudi Arabia, the low-cost producer.

JD: I have heard otherwise from other sources.

>From the US Energy Information Agency

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html

Iraq's oil development and production costs are amongst the lowest in the
world (perhaps $3-$5 billion for each million barrels per day), making it a
highly attractive oil prospect. However, only 17 of 80 discovered fields
have been developed, while few deep wells have been drilled compared to
Iraq's neighbors. Overall, only about 2,300 wells reportedly have been
drilled in Iraq (of which about 1,600 are actually producing oil), compared
to around 1 million wells in Texas for instance. In addition, Iraq generally
has not had access to the latest, state-of-the-art oil industry technology
(i.e., 3D seismic, directional or deep drilling, gas injection), sufficient
spare parts, and investment in general throughout most of the 1990s.
Instead, Iraq reportedly utilized sub-standard engineering techniques (i.e.,
overpumping, water injection/"flooding"), obsolete technology, and systems
in various states of decay (i.e., corroded well casings) in order to sustain
production. In the long run, reversal of all these practices and utilization
of the most modern techniques, combined with development of both discovered
fields as well as new ones, could result in Iraq's oil output increasing by
several million barrels per day

Capitalism versus socialism

[Louis Proyect]

Rebelión, March 1, 2004

Capitalism versus socialism: The great debate revisited
James Petras
http://www.rebelion.org/petras/english/040304capitalism.htm

The debate between socialism and capitalism is far from over. In fact the 
battle of ideas is intensifying. International agencies, including the 
United Nations, the International Labor Organization (ILO), the Food and 
Agricultural Organization, the World Health Organization and reports from 
NGO's, UNESCO and independent experts and regional and national economic 
experts provide hard evidence to discuss the merits of capitalism and 
socialism.

Comparisons between countries and regions before and after the advent of 
capitalism in Eastern Europe, Russia and Central Europe as well as a 
comparison of Cuba and the ex-communist countries provide us with an 
adequate basis to draw some definitive conclusions. Fifteen years of 
"transition to capitalism" is more than adequate time to judge the 
performance and impact of capitalist politicians, privatizations, free 
market policies and other restoration measures on the economy, society and 
general welfare of the population.

Economic Performance: Growth, Employment and Poverty

Under communism the economic decisions and property were national and 
publicly owned. Over the past 15 years of the transition to capitalism 
almost all basic industries, energy, mining, communications, infrastructure 
and wholesale trade industries have been taken over by European and US 
multi-national corporations and by mafia billionaires or they have been 
shut down. This has led to massive unemployment and temporary employment, 
relative stagnation, vast out-migration and the de-capitalization of the 
economy via illegal transfers, money laundering and pillage of resources.

In Poland, the former Gdansk Shipyard, point of origin of the Solidarity 
Trade Union, is closed and now a museum piece. Over 20% of the labor force 
is officially unemployed (Financial Times, Feb. 21/22, 2004) and has been 
for the better part of the decade. Another 30% is "employed" in marginal, 
low paid jobs (prostitution, contraband, drugs, flea markets, street 
venders and the underground economy). In Bulgaria, Rumania, Latvia, and 
East Germany similar or worse conditions prevail: The average real per 
capita growth over the past 15 years is far below the preceding 15 years 
under communism (especially if we include the benefits of health care, 
education, subsidized housing and pensions). Moreover economic inequalities 
have grown geometrically with 1% of the top income bracket controlling 80% 
of private assets and more than 50% of income while poverty levels exceed 
50% or even higher. In the former USSR, especially south-central Asian 
republics like Armenia, Georgia, and Uzbekistan, living standards have 
fallen by 80%, almost one fourth of the population has out-migrated or 
become destitute and industries, public treasuries and energy sources have 
been pillaged. The scientific, health and educational systems have been all 
but destroyed. In Armenia, the number of scientific researchers declined 
from 20,000 in 1990 to 5,000 in 1995, and continues on a downward slide 
(National Geographic, March 2004). From being a center of Soviet high 
technology, Armenia today is a country run by criminal gangs in which most 
people live without central heat and electricity.

In Russia the pillage was even worse and the economic decline was if 
anything more severe. By the mid 1990's, over 50% of the population (and 
even more outside of Moscow and St. Peterburg - formerly Leningrad) lived 
in poverty, homelessness increased and universal comprehensive health and 
education services collapsed. Never in peace-time modern history has a 
country fallen so quickly and profoundly as is the case of capitalist 
Russia. The economy was "privatized" - that is, it was taken over by 
Russian gangsters led by the eight billionaire oligarchs who shipped over 
$200 billion dollars out of the country, mainly to banks in New York, Tel 
Aviv, London and Switzerland. Murder and terror was the chosen weapon of 
"economic competitiveness" as every sector of the economy and science was 
decimated and most highly trained world class scientists were starved of 
resources, basic facilities and income. The principal beneficiaries were 
former Soviet bureaucrats, mafia bosses, US and Israeli banks, European 
land speculators, US empire-builders, militarists and multinational 
corporations. Presidents Bush (father) and Clinton provided the political 
and economic backing to the Gorbachov and Yeltsin regimes which oversaw the 
pillage of Russia, aided and abetted by the European Union and Israel. The 
result of massive pillage, unemployment and the subsequent poverty and 
desperation was a huge increase in suicide, psychological disorders, 
alcoholism, drug addiction and diseases rarely seen in Soviet times. Life 
expectancy among Russian males fell from 64 years in the last year o

Re: oil crises

[Aldo Balardini]

Devine: 
How do you define the price of oil? Cyrus Bina is the only one so far to have 
attempted to explain the 1970's oil crisis using the standard interpretation of Marx's 
theory of rent.  Do you agree with Bina that cost conditions in the US, the highest 
cost region in the international oil, determine the the "world" price of oil?   

Re: oil crises.

[Devine, James]

(a civil conversation)

>From me:
> Accumulation pulls up demand for energy and thus oil prices, 
> as in the 1970s. This
> is not due to OPEC, etc., except to the extent that OPEC and 
> the like take advantage
> of high demand conditions to try to grab a bigger chunk of 
> the scarcity rents. This
> is not due to long-term "natural" scarcity of oil as much as 
> due to the
> short-term inability to expand the quantity of oil supplied, 
> given existing wells,
> pipelines, etc. and the short-term inability to conserve on 
> oil use. (In jargon,
> both supply and demand are inelastic.)
> ___
 
> DMS:  But this is not what actually took place in 1973, 1979, 
> 1990, 1999.  In 1973 the
> price rise engineered after the Yom Kippur war also occurred 
> after the absolute expansion
> of the productive apparatus with the subsequent decline in 
> the rate of return on investment
> in the oil industry.  There was no shortage of extractable 
> supplies.  On the contrary, it was
> exactly the development of the means of extraction, 
> depressing the rate of return, that created
> the basis for the price rise.  Similarly in 1979, the price 
> rise followed hard upon a period
> of growth of  fixed assets, and the price rise triggered the 
> drastic, draconian,
> liquidation of those assets, across the board in oil, steel, 
> etc.   The price jump in 1999 comes directly
> after the price collapse brought forth by increased 
> production and the drop in production costs
> below the historic low of 1949.  The jump likewise occurs 
> after the rate of return in the oil industry
> returned to low single digits.  If OPEC didn't exist, the US 
> would have invented it.  OPEC did exist
> and the US still invented it, 3 times.
> ___

I don't know enough about the emprical data to agree or disagree. On the abstract 
level, however, it is quite possible that over-investment in oil would lead to 
over-production and cartelization. 

 me:
> All else constant, an oil crisis hurts the
> profits of manufacturing and similar industries, which are 
> largely based in the
> richest capitalist countries. The division between 
> oil-producing and oil-using countries
> encourages the main reactions to the crisis.
> ___
> 
> DMS:  Oil prices rearrange profits and price increases have 
> strengthened the US at the
> expense of Japan and Europe.  In addition, significant 
> portions of developing country debt are
> secured with oil revenues.  Citibank hit some big skids when 
> oil prices declined after 1986 (but
> not for that reason alone, the lost decade in Latin America 
> had finally taken a little toll on
> the bankers who destroyed the decade to begin with).
> ___

this seems a different topic.

me: 
> This crisis doesn't simply encourage longer-term exploration 
> of new oil fields and
> a move toward greater conservation (as in neoclassical 
> stories). It also encourages
> recession and other attacks on the working class in order to 
> restore profitability.
> The problem with the latter is that it prevents full 
> adjustment of the oil market,
> i.e. adjustment of supply and demand. The defense of old 
> wasteful ways of using
> oil -- as personified by the Bush administration -- also 
> prevents demand-side adjustment
> (conservation).
> ___
> 
> DMS:  Actually, conservation had occurred.  The amount of 
> energy, the amount of oil required
> for each dollar of GDP had declined by approximately 30% from 
> the 1973 mark (I think, don't
> have my notes with me right now).  The proportion of IMPORTED 
> oil used in that total energy
> reduction INCREASED  dramatically.

I agree that conservation occurred. (I once had a fruitless discussion with Mark Jones 
on this matter.) The problem is that not enough occurred. The US, for example, could 
emulate Europe and impose bigger taxes on oil. But that hasn't happened.

me:  
> In the period after an oil crisis, the various reactions 
> combine to create over-production
> of oil, of the sort that encouraged the oil "un-crisis" of 1986 (rapid
> fall in the real price of energy). This is encouraged by the 
> coming on-line of oil
> that was discovered and/or exploited starting during the 
> "crisis" period.
> (There's a bit of a corn/hogs cycle here.)  As noted, low oil 
> prices discourage
> conservation (as with the renaissance of gas-guzzling cars in 
> the US). It also encourages
> the high-cost producers of oil to seek ways of restoring 
> their fortunes (e.g, Iraq's
> invasion of Kuwait). It also encourages the eventual recovery 
> of accumulation, which
> sends the system into another "energy crisis."
> ___
> 
> DMS:  But Iraq is not a high cost producer of oil, having a 
> cost of production approximately
> equal to Saudi Arabia, the low-cost producer.  

I have heard otherwise from other sources. 

>Iraq's

Contracts in Iraq?

[Mike Ballard]

If you, or your clients, are involved in post-war Iraq
contracts, please contact us to discuss your
requirements and receive sample GIS data.
http://www.goleaddog.com/iraq_data.htm
***

Just thought you might like to see a sample.

Cheers,
Mike B)

=

Beers fall into two broad categories:
Those that are produced by
top-fermenting yeasts (ales)
and those that are made with
bottom-fermenting yeasts (lagers).

http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com

Re: Crisis at the peak

[Michael Perelman]

You cannot reach a conclusion if people just recycle the same
arguements.  That is not communication.

On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:56:08PM -0500, DMS wrote:
> Re Michael's comment:  How can you reach your conclusion about what is
> important if you terminate the actual analysis of the issue.   It is exactly not
> about perception or what people feel, it is about the basis for this
> scarcity theorizing and its real political impact-- like get ready for declining
> living standards which we will blame on the evil Sultans, Chavezistas, the
> ungrateful Mexicans, and those pesky Ecuadoreans who have dropped their
> 38% national partnership demand for their fields too late for us to
> be interested in the bidding?
>
> Re the other comments:  Can't we all just get along?
>
>
>
> dms

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

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu

Re: oil crises.

[DMS]

Guess what?  I miscounted.  Only used 4, so I have one more, you lucky stiffs..

>From JD:


Accumulation pulls up demand for energy and thus oil prices, as in the 1970s. This
is not due to OPEC, etc., except to the extent that OPEC and the like take advantage
of high demand conditions to try to grab a bigger chunk of the scarcity rents. This
is not due to long-term "natural" scarcity of oil as much as due to the
short-term inability to expand the quantity of oil supplied, given existing wells,
pipelines, etc. and the short-term inability to conserve on oil use. (In jargon,
both supply and demand are inelastic.)
___

DMS:  But this is not what actually took place in 1973, 1979, 1990, 1999.  In 1973 the
price rise engineered after the Yom Kippur war also occurred after the absolute 
expansion
of the productive apparatus with the subsequent decline in the rate of return on 
investment
in the oil industry.  There was no shortage of extractable supplies.  On the contrary, 
it was
exactly the development of the means of extraction, depressing the rate of return, 
that created
the basis for the price rise.  Similarly in 1979, the price rise followed hard upon a 
period
of growth of  fixed assets, and the price rise triggered the drastic, draconian,
liquidation of those assets, across the board in oil, steel, etc.   The price jump in 
1999 comes directly
after the price collapse brought forth by increased production and the drop in 
production costs
below the historic low of 1949.  The jump likewise occurs after the rate of return in 
the oil industry
returned to low single digits.  If OPEC didn't exist, the US would have invented it.  
OPEC did exist
and the US still invented it, 3 times.
___

JD:

All else constant, an oil crisis hurts the
profits of manufacturing and similar industries, which are largely based in the
richest capitalist countries. The division between oil-producing and oil-using 
countries
encourages the main reactions to the crisis.
___

DMS:  Oil prices rearrange profits and price increases have strengthened the US at the
expense of Japan and Europe.  In addition, significant portions of developing country 
debt are
secured with oil revenues.  Citibank hit some big skids when oil prices declined after 
1986 (but
not for that reason alone, the lost decade in Latin America had finally taken a little 
toll on
the bankers who destroyed the decade to begin with).
___
JD

This crisis doesn't simply encourage longer-term exploration of new oil fields and
a move toward greater conservation (as in neoclassical stories). It also encourages
recession and other attacks on the working class in order to restore profitability.
The problem with the latter is that it prevents full adjustment of the oil market,
i.e. adjustment of supply and demand. The defense of old wasteful ways of using
oil -- as personified by the Bush administration -- also prevents demand-side 
adjustment
(conservation).
___

DMS:  Actually, conservation had occurred.  The amount of energy, the amount of oil 
required
for each dollar of GDP had declined by approximately 30% from the 1973 mark (I think, 
don't
have my notes with me right now).  The proportion of IMPORTED oil used in that total 
energy
reduction INCREASED  dramatically.

___
JD

In the period after an oil crisis, the various reactions combine to create 
over-production
of oil, of the sort that encouraged the oil "un-crisis" of 1986 (rapid
fall in the real price of energy). This is encouraged by the coming on-line of oil
that was discovered and/or exploited starting during the "crisis" period.
(There's a bit of a corn/hogs cycle here.)  As noted, low oil prices discourage
conservation (as with the renaissance of gas-guzzling cars in the US). It also 
encourages
the high-cost producers of oil to seek ways of restoring their fortunes (e.g, Iraq's
invasion of Kuwait). It also encourages the eventual recovery of accumulation, which
sends the system into another "energy crisis."
___

DMS:  But Iraq is not a high cost producer of oil, having a cost of production 
approximately
equal to Saudi Arabia, the low-cost producer.  Iraq's costs are well below Russia's, 
offshore
deep and shallow water, North Sea, Brunei, etc.Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was based 
primarily
on Kuwait's refusal to abide by its quota, and other actions taken regarding 
transportation that
damaged Iraqi revenues.
_


BTW, I don't believe in a long-term "oil crisis" as a result of natural
limits. Instead, the natural limit comes from the pollution associated with the
use of oil and other hydrocarbons. Capitalism has a strong tendency to encourage
the dumping of costs on the environment and the avoidance of conservation. This
is encouraged by the cyclical crisis theory sketched above.

Jim

Re: Crisis at the peak

[Michael Perelman]

Like Michael Y., I know, respect, and personally like both Doug and Lou.  I have not
asked Doug to unsub because, as Michael Y. noted, Doug's jabs seem relatively mild,
but many of us know where they are aimed.  I do not want the list to lose either
party.  I only want both to keep their personal animosity off list.  Both have a
great deal to offer.

On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 10:49:33AM -0800, MICHAEL YATES wrote:
> I have been on this mailing list, on and off, for about 15 years, long before I knew 
> Louis and Doug.  I respect both of them.  They offer us a lot of good commentary and 
> analysis.  And they point us to interesting things to read and think about.  I have 
> had drinks with both of them.  Louis had let me use his apartment on several 
> occasions,;even before we met, he let me do this. Doug has had me on his radio show 
> a couple of times, for which I am grateful.
>
> Having said this, I don't know why Doug has to keep making snide comments aimed at 
> Louis on pen-l, knowing that they will be provocative.  After all, he has his own 
> list, and he can attack Louis and anyone else he cares to to his heart's content.  
> Similarly Louis can do the same to Doug on his list.
>
> Doug has a kind of passive-aggressive way of attacking Louis (with plausible 
> deniability). And generally he seems to get away with it.  Louis always seems to get 
> publicly chastised by the moderator while Doug almost never does, unless it is by 
> way of the moderator chastising Louis.
>
> BTW, Louis has aimed some sharp barbs my way in the past.
>
> Michael Yates
>   - Original Message -
>   From: Louis Proyect
>   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 10:31 AM
>   Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Crisis at the peak
>
>
>   I have been on this mailing list now for 3 years at least. In that
>   entire time, I have not once directed a comment at Henwood. I am even
>   careful to refrain from attacking those that he identifies with like
>   Michael Hardt. If I criticize the Nation Magazine, I don't do so with
>   the attention of hurting Henwood's tender feelings. Since this is the
>   number one voice of the left in the USA, I would be remiss not to answer
>   its attacks on the section of the left I identify with. Over the past
>   couple of weeks, Henwood has now directed 3 snide comments in my
>   direction. I shouldn't have to put up with this crap. Why don't you ask
>   him to unsub himself for a couple of weeks like you asked me to?
>
>   Michael Perelman wrote:
>   > Come on.  Doug should not have started this and you should just let it
>   > pass.
>   >
>   > On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:19:00PM -0500, Louis Proyect wrote:
>   >
>   >>Another bullshit provocation from the Living Marxist.
>   >>
>   >>Doug Henwood wrote:
>   >>
>   >>>Michael Perelman wrote:
>   >>>
>   >>>
>   I think that we have heard enough about whether or not we face the
>   prospect of scarcity of petrochemicals.
>   >>>
>   >>>
>   >>>Translation: this is a topic that annoys certain volatile
>   >>>participants, so best steer clear of it.
>   >>>
>   >>>.
>   >>>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>--
>   >>
>   >>The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
>   >
>   >
>   > --
>   > Michael Perelman
>   > Economics Department
>   > California State University
>   > Chico, CA 95929
>   >
>   > Tel. 530-898-5321
>   > E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
>   >
>   > .
>   >
>
>
>   --
>
>   The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
>

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

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu

oil crises.

[Devine, James]

FWIW, I have a very simple Marxian-flavored theory of "energy crises" that alas I 
haven't filled out or illustrated with lotza data. (I'm not an energy expert. The 
theory is part of my Marxian-style crisis theory.)  But it helps get us beyond 
"natural scarcity"/"overproduction" dichotomies.

Here, talk about oil rather than energy in general. The idea is that capitalism is a 
system that tends to over-accumulate capital, where "over-accumulation" means going 
beyond the (hypothetical) "optimal" rate of accumulation that allows steady capitalist 
growth at the highest possible profit rate given objective conditions (such as the 
state of class relations). In the context of "energy crises," accumulation goes too 
far to preserve the (hypothetical) oil price that preserves systemic stability. (That 
this price is unknown is part of the problem. Elites in favor of stabilizing the 
system seek to find it. Then they have to figure how to achieve it politically. Maybe 
this contributed to the BushMasters' attempt to take over the Oil World via Iraq.) 

Accumulation pulls up demand for energy and thus oil prices, as in the 1970s. This is 
not due to OPEC, etc., except to the extent that OPEC and the like take advantage of 
high demand conditions to try to grab a bigger chunk of the scarcity rents. This is 
not due to long-term "natural" scarcity of oil as much as due to the short-term 
inability to expand the quantity of oil supplied, given existing wells, pipelines, 
etc. and the short-term inability to conserve on oil use. (In jargon, both supply and 
demand are inelastic.) All else constant, an oil crisis hurts the profits of 
manufacturing and similar industries, which are largely based in the richest 
capitalist countries. The division between oil-producing and oil-using countries 
encourages the main reactions to the crisis.

This crisis doesn't simply encourage longer-term exploration of new oil fields and a 
move toward greater conservation (as in neoclassical stories). It also encourages 
recession and other attacks on the working class in order to restore profitability. 
The problem with the latter is that it prevents full adjustment of the oil market, 
i.e. adjustment of supply and demand. The defense of old wasteful ways of using oil -- 
as personified by the Bush administration -- also prevents demand-side adjustment 
(conservation). 

In the period after an oil crisis, the various reactions combine to create 
over-production of oil, of the sort that encouraged the oil "un-crisis" of 1986 (rapid 
fall in the real price of energy). This is encouraged by the coming on-line of oil 
that was discovered and/or exploited starting during the "crisis" period. (There's a 
bit of a corn/hogs cycle here.)  As noted, low oil prices discourage conservation (as 
with the renaissance of gas-guzzling cars in the US). It also encourages the high-cost 
producers of oil to seek ways of restoring their fortunes (e.g, Iraq's invasion of 
Kuwait). It also encourages the eventual recovery of accumulation, which sends the 
system into another "energy crisis." 

BTW, I don't believe in a long-term "oil crisis" as a result of natural limits. 
Instead, the natural limit comes from the pollution associated with the use of oil and 
other hydrocarbons. Capitalism has a strong tendency to encourage the dumping of costs 
on the environment and the avoidance of conservation. This is encouraged by the 
cyclical crisis theory sketched above. 

Jim Devine

Re: Crisis at the peak

[DMS]

Excuse me, I never get into pissing matches.  It's all about the quality of
the analysis provided.  All other issues are handled offlist.  I do absolutely
think that t humor, criticism, sarcastic remarks are not out of place here,
and that we shouldn't be so ridiculously thin-skinned about those when they
come our way, and start crying "no-fair."  It reminds me of nothing so much
as of a child crying out to his/her mother "Mommy, he hit me."

 But that certainly is not my decision, nor the issue at hand.

I think the oil issue is critically important as it is the central issue used to
displace the decline of living standards, wage rates, etc. onto a "natural
condition," thus making austerity an asocial inevitability instead of an instrument
of class domination.

Am I the only one old enough to remember these same depletion arguments, and
capital shortage arguments regarding oil and the oil industry after OPEC 1 in 1973?

If M. King Hubbert were alive he might remember it since he predicted the "peak" of
international oil production taking place in the mid 1980s.

Anyway that's my 5th post.  I have used up my ration for the day.

A bientot,
dms

Re: Crisis at the peak

[Doug Henwood]

Well, I think the future of oil is a pretty important topic for a
bunch of political economists to discuss, but Michael shut it off
because it gets LNP and DMS into a pissing match. That's too bad,
like some Gresham's law of discourse.
Doug

Re: Crisis at the peak

[joanna bujes]

Why not just let them have it out every once in a while? This is like a
catfight that never actually happens. I mean, maybe if they called each
other every name in the book for a while, it would help.
Just an idea.

Joanna

MICHAEL YATES wrote:

I have been on this mailing list, on and off, for about 15 years, long
before I knew Louis and Doug.  I respect both of them.  They offer us
a lot of good commentary and analysis.  And they point us to
interesting things to read and think about.  I have had drinks with
both of them.  Louis had let me use his apartment on several
occasions,;even before we met, he let me do this. Doug has had me on
his radio show a couple of times, for which I am grateful.
Having said this, I don't know why Doug has to keep making snide
comments aimed at Louis on pen-l, knowing that they will be
provocative.  After all, he has his own list, and he can attack Louis
and anyone else he cares to to his heart's content.  Similarly Louis
can do the same to Doug on his list.
Doug has a kind of passive-aggressive way of attacking Louis (with
plausible deniability). And generally he seems to get away with it.
Louis always seems to get publicly chastised by the moderator while
Doug almost never does, unless it is by way of the moderator
chastising Louis.
BTW, Louis has aimed some sharp barbs my way in the past.

Michael Yates

- Original Message -
From: Louis Proyect 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Crisis at the peak
I have been on this mailing list now for 3 years at least. In that
entire time, I have not once directed a comment at Henwood. I am even
careful to refrain from attacking those that he identifies with like
Michael Hardt. If I criticize the Nation Magazine, I don't do so with
the attention of hurting Henwood's tender feelings. Since this is the
number one voice of the left in the USA, I would be remiss not to
answer
its attacks on the section of the left I identify with. Over the past
couple of weeks, Henwood has now directed 3 snide comments in my
direction. I shouldn't have to put up with this crap. Why don't
you ask
him to unsub himself for a couple of weeks like you asked me to?
Michael Perelman wrote:
> Come on.  Doug should not have started this and you should just
let it
> pass.
>
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:19:00PM -0500, Louis Proyect wrote:
>
>>Another bullshit provocation from the Living Marxist.
>>
>>Doug Henwood wrote:
>>
>>>Michael Perelman wrote:
>>>
>>>
I think that we have heard enough about whether or not we face the
prospect of scarcity of petrochemicals.
>>>
>>>
>>>Translation: this is a topic that annoys certain volatile
>>>participants, so best steer clear of it.
>>>
>>>.
>>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org 
>
>
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
>
> .
>
--

The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org 

Re: Crisis at the peak

[DMS]

Just exactly how old are you guys?  Quit whining.  You'll wake the baby.

dms

Re: Crisis at the peak

[DMS]

Re Michael's comment:  How can you reach your conclusion about what is
important if you terminate the actual analysis of the issue.   It is exactly not
about perception or what people feel, it is about the basis for this
scarcity theorizing and its real political impact-- like get ready for declining
living standards which we will blame on the evil Sultans, Chavezistas, the
ungrateful Mexicans, and those pesky Ecuadoreans who have dropped their
38% national partnership demand for their fields too late for us to
be interested in the bidding?

Re the other comments:  Can't we all just get along?



dms

Re: Crisis at the peak

[MICHAEL YATES]

I have been on this mailing list, on and off, for about 15 years, long 
before I knew Louis and Doug.  I respect both of them.  They offer us 
a lot of good commentary and analysis.  And they point us to interesting 
things to read and think about.  I have had drinks with both of them.  
Louis had let me use his apartment on several occasions,;even before we met, he 
let me do this. Doug has had me on his radio show a couple of times, for which I 
am grateful.
 
Having said this, I don't know why Doug has to keep making snide comments 
aimed at Louis on pen-l, knowing that they will be provocative.  After all, 
he has his own list, and he can attack Louis and anyone else he cares to to his 
heart's content.  Similarly Louis can do the same to Doug on his 
list.  
 
Doug has a kind of passive-aggressive way of attacking Louis (with 
plausible deniability). And generally he seems to get away with 
it.  Louis always seems to get publicly chastised by the moderator while 
Doug almost never does, unless it is by way of the moderator chastising 
Louis.
 
BTW, Louis has aimed some sharp barbs my way in the past.  
 
Michael Yates

  - Original Message - 
  From: Louis Proyect 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 10:31 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Crisis at the 
  peak
  I have been on this mailing list now for 3 years at least. In 
  thatentire time, I have not once directed a comment at Henwood. I am 
  evencareful to refrain from attacking those that he identifies with 
  likeMichael Hardt. If I criticize the Nation Magazine, I don't do so 
  withthe attention of hurting Henwood's tender feelings. Since this is 
  thenumber one voice of the left in the USA, I would be remiss not to 
  answerits attacks on the section of the left I identify with. Over the 
  pastcouple of weeks, Henwood has now directed 3 snide comments in 
  mydirection. I shouldn't have to put up with this crap. Why don't you 
  askhim to unsub himself for a couple of weeks like you asked me 
  to?Michael Perelman wrote:> Come on.  Doug should not have 
  started this and you should just let it> pass.>> On Mon, 
  Mar 08, 2004 at 01:19:00PM -0500, Louis Proyect 
  wrote:>>>Another bullshit provocation from the Living 
  Marxist.Doug Henwood 
  wrote:>Michael Perelman 
  wrote:>>I think that we have 
  heard enough about whether or not we face theprospect of 
  scarcity of 
  petrochemicals.>Translation: 
  this is a topic that annoys certain volatile>>>participants, so 
  best steer clear of 
  it.>>.>--The 
  Marxism list: www.marxmail.org>>> 
  --> Michael Perelman> Economics Department> California 
  State University> Chico, CA 95929>> Tel. 
  530-898-5321> E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu>> 
  .>--The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

Re: Crisis at the peak

[Louis Proyect]

I have been on this mailing list now for 3 years at least. In that
entire time, I have not once directed a comment at Henwood. I am even
careful to refrain from attacking those that he identifies with like
Michael Hardt. If I criticize the Nation Magazine, I don't do so with
the attention of hurting Henwood's tender feelings. Since this is the
number one voice of the left in the USA, I would be remiss not to answer
its attacks on the section of the left I identify with. Over the past
couple of weeks, Henwood has now directed 3 snide comments in my
direction. I shouldn't have to put up with this crap. Why don't you ask
him to unsub himself for a couple of weeks like you asked me to?
Michael Perelman wrote:
Come on.  Doug should not have started this and you should just let it
pass.
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:19:00PM -0500, Louis Proyect wrote:

Another bullshit provocation from the Living Marxist.

Doug Henwood wrote:

Michael Perelman wrote:


I think that we have heard enough about whether or not we face the
prospect of scarcity of petrochemicals.


Translation: this is a topic that annoys certain volatile
participants, so best steer clear of it.
.



--

The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org


--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
.



--

The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

Sean Wilentz, Nader and the early 1960s

[Louis Proyect]

After reading Princeton professor's Sean Wilentz ideological fatwa
(http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/07/magazine/07ESSAY.html) against Ralph
Nader in yesterday's NY Times Magazine section (appropriately enough,
facing a full-page ad for Grand Marnier), it dawned on me that Dissent
Magazine has filled a vacuum once occupied by SDUSA.
SDUSA was basically a repackaging of Max Shachtman's SP whose members
served as ministers without portfolio for the Democratic Party
rightwing. Many were gathered around the 1972 presidential campaign of
Washington State Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, who was dubbed the
Senator from Boeing for obvious reasons.
In the 1980s many SDUSA figures lurched even further to the right and
became Reaganites. Joshua Muravchik is typical. He started political
life as a leader of YPSL, the SDUSA's "youth" group, but now writes for
the National Review. In between he was associated with the "Coalition
for a Democratic Majority" that was chaired by Jackson and whose
politics anticipated the DLC.
Now that the Democratic Party has become recast in the "Scoop" Jackson
mold, it provides an opportunity for intellectuals like Wilentz to play
the same role once played by people like Muravchik. Mostly this consists
of lashing out at any initiatives to the left of the Democratic Party,
including the Nader campaign and the antiwar movement. Although this is
the first time that the NY Times Magazine has drawn on Wilentz's dubious
talents, it has published fellow Dissent editor George Packer on several
occasions, including a piece promoting the warmongering views of fellow
Dissenters Paul Berman and Kanan Makiya.
As a guest panelist on David Horowitz's FrontPage website, Wilentz had
this exchange with the creepy redbaiter:
Horowitz: What exactly does it mean that a North Korean-adoring
Communist sect is running the "peace" movement? Does this matter?
Wilentz: It means that, as ever, Communist sects are extremely diligent
and clever at mobilizing large numbers people to march in demonstrations
by exploiting those peoples' concerns and hiding their own politics.
Clever? Diligent? One wonders why Wilentz did not describe the
Communists as "masters of deceit" since that word would have captured
his true intentions. When you read this sort of thing, it makes you want
to take a long, hot shower with disinfectant soap.
As tedious as Wilentz's attack on Nader is, it does raise some
interesting questions about American history and electoral politics that
are worth addressing. The purpose of his article is to review how new
parties emerge. Except for the Republican Party, efforts such as the
Bull Moose or Progressive Parties tend to disappear after their purpose
is exhausted.
Wilentz writes:

>>But Nader will never be a Lincoln -- for we are not living in a
latter-day equivalent of the 1850's. Although specific abuses cause
considerable agitation among liberals and Democrats, the nation is not
as riven over "corporate power," Nader's diffusely projected target, as
it once was over slavery.<<
Actually, the nation was not exactly "riven" over slavery. It was
instead riven over whether it should be allowed in the western
territories. Lincoln was only prompted to abolish slavery when the
exigencies of the Civil War required it. In fact, it was direct action
by the slaves that took the form of a mass exodus to the North and
service to the Union Army either as soldiers or laborers that led to
their emancipation. It is not surprising that a committed Democratic
Party ideologist would exaggerate the commitment of the Republicans to
the abolitionist cause. Moreover, within a dozen years following the
war, the Republicans were content to sell out the black population of
the South as worries about general labor unrest mounted.
Furthermore, even though there is as not mass consciousness about
"corporate power" as one would like, it is obvious that the American
people are its victims just as much as black people were victims of the
plantation system in the 1800s. Although abolitionists got even less of
a hearing in the 1830s than the Greens get today, there is little doubt
that the issues they raised were genuine. Wilentz seems to subscribe to
a popularity contest understanding of politics. If less than 5 percent
of the population thinks that corporations are exploiting workers
mercilessly, polluting the planet and producing unsafe products, then
why bother to run independent election campaigns against the two parties
that are virtually defined by the word corporation?
Wilentz thinks that "liberal Democrats" are saying the same things about
corporate greed and domination as Nader. One wonders which candidates he
would be speaking about. I doubt that given his subservience to the
centrist wing of the party, he could be talking about somebody like
Dennis Kuchinich.
Since Wilentz has stated publicly that President Clinton "led the way in
salvaging American liberalism, particularly the Democratic liberal
spirit of the early 1960s", it

Re: Crisis at the peak

[Michael Perelman]

Come on.  Doug should not have started this and you should just let it
pass.

On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:19:00PM -0500, Louis Proyect wrote:
> Another bullshit provocation from the Living Marxist.
>
> Doug Henwood wrote:
> > Michael Perelman wrote:
> >
> >> I think that we have heard enough about whether or not we face the
> >> prospect of scarcity of petrochemicals.
> >
> >
> > Translation: this is a topic that annoys certain volatile
> > participants, so best steer clear of it.
> >
> > .
> >
>
>
> --
>
> The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

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

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu

Re: Crisis at the peak

[Louis Proyect]

Another bullshit provocation from the Living Marxist.

Doug Henwood wrote:
Michael Perelman wrote:

I think that we have heard enough about whether or not we face the
prospect of scarcity of petrochemicals.


Translation: this is a topic that annoys certain volatile
participants, so best steer clear of it.
.



--

The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

Re: Question for you econ types out there

[dsquared]

sorry forgot the links!

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_economy/ESA95_Exhaustiveness.pdf

more statistical fun:

"Prostitution itself is not illegal within the UK.
However, most of the activities associated with
prostitution (e.g. soliciting) are illegal. Value added
from prostitution would generally be income from
self-employment (mixed income) in the household sector.
However, this is also difficult to measure since
prostitutes are not usually registered as businesses
and it seems unlikely that good quality data could be
collected from household surveys.

[...]

Imports and exports of prostitution services should in
principle be picked up by the International
Passenger Survey (although not as expenditure on
prostitution) with the expenditure already recorded in
the national accounts."

Note that Doug would need to modify his position that
you can carry out all the radical analysis you need by
making use of modified bourgeois statistics in this
case as the UK does not actually collect information on
the size of the drugs, prostitution or illegal gambling
markets; the only crime we incorporate in the figures
is smuggling.  Some South American countries do attempt
to estimate the size of the cocaine trade on the basis
that their capital a/c would make just no f'kng sense
at all if they didn't.

cheers

dd


also this one

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/34/2665863.pdf

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 06:10:25 -0800,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 16:00:23 +0300, "Chris Doss" wrote:
>
> >
> > Does anybody know how per capita income figures are
> > usually calculated for countries like Russia, which
> > have a large shadow economy in which workers are
paid
> > under the table and off the books? Thanks.
>
> Not actually as uncommon as you'd think; Spain and
> Italy have big off-the-books sectors.  Basically, you
> estimate, estimate, estimate.  Double-check with
> criminal authorities, carry out surveys, etc.  Also
> cross-check with observable facts; ie, you know how
> many buildings are going up, you know how many
brickies
> it takes, so you can guesstimate how many are employed
> in the building trade.  Then you use an econometric
> model going forward, to scale up the ongoing inome
> numbers based on the last time you did a proper check.
> It's a bit of a black art but by no means the most
> difficult thing a national statistics agency does.
>
> Here's a bit & piece by the UK Office of National
> Statistics.  To be honest the final chapter is the
> funniest (sample text "Under ESA95 the sale of illegal
> drugs should be treated in the same way as the sale of
> legal goods. They are imported or produced within the
> UK, sold through a chain of dealers (each adding their
> own margin), and eventually sold to a final
> consumer.").  But there's some stuff on the issues
> you're looking for too.
>
> cheers
>
> dd
>
> >
> > Official income figures for Russia have always
baffled
> > me. How do you calculate them when underreporting of
> > incomes is rampant in the private sector?

Re: Fear of polarization

[dsquared]

"The editor's task is to publish as many of the
proprietor's prejudices as the advertisers will
tolerate".

I think that this quote comes from Evelyn Waugh,
although the only online references I can find are to
me saying the same thing, occasionally attributing it
to his son Auberon Waugh for variety.

dd



n Mon, 8 Mar 2004 12:52:48 -0500, Doug Henwood wrote:

> > A friend of mine who worked at USNWR during the '92
> election said
> that owner Mort Zuckerman oversaw the political line
of
> the mag. He
> wanted Bush to lose,

Re: Fear of polarization

[Doug Henwood]

Devine, James wrote:

 >The conservative US News and World Report is worried by data showing the
worsening condition of US workers, and the growing prospect of class
polarization threatening corporate America and the Republican party.<
did USN&WR mention that much of that polarization took place during
the Clinton era?
A friend of mine who worked at USNWR during the '92 election said
that owner Mort Zuckerman oversaw the political line of the mag. He
wanted Bush to lose, and insisted that all the economic coverage had
to be gloomy - reporters were given lists of sources to call who
would provide the proper quotes. That must be happening again.
Doug

Re: Crisis at the peak

[Doug Henwood]

Michael Perelman wrote:

I think that we have heard enough about whether or not we face the
prospect of scarcity of petrochemicals.
Translation: this is a topic that annoys certain volatile
participants, so best steer clear of it.

Re: Crisis at the peak

[Michael Perelman]

I think that we have heard enough about whether or not we face the
prospect of scarcity of petrochemicals.  The important part of the
article is a popular recognition of the threat.
 --
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu

Re: Conference on the Special Relationship (UK)

[Devine, James]

maybe the US elite didn't want him to? or they never thought of it? 

in any event, I was simply making a hyperbolic & cynical remark spawned by a 
Monday-morning caffeine shortage.


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




> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Baer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 9:25 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Conference on the Special Relationship (UK)
> 
> 
> If this were true Blair would have torpedoed Kyoto.
> 
> --pb
> 
> >I don't see why this conference is needed. The 
> >US tells the UK what to do. They do it. Period.
> >
> >
> >Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>  -Original Message-
> >>  From: k hanly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>  Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 7:20 AM
> >>  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>  Subject: [PEN-L] Conference on the Special Relationship (UK)
> >>
> >>
> >>  [ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ]
> >>
> >>  Call for a Conference on the "Special Relationship"
> >>  
> >>
> >>  Website: www.specialrelationship.net   Subscribe to the
> >>  discussion list by
> >>  sending a blank message to
> >>  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >>  You are invited to participate in a project to organise a
> >>  two-day Conference
> >>  on the "Special Relationship". It will be a national 
> conference with
> >>  international dimension, with speakers from the US, the
> >>  Middle East and
> >>  elsewhere. It will take place in Sheffield in early 2005, and
> >>  maybe also in
> >>  Manchester and London. A book will be produced of the
> >>  Conference papers.
> >>
> >>  The main themes of the Conference will include:
> >>  -the origins of the "special relationship" in post-WW2
> >>  Middle East, in
> >>  particular the 1953 military coup in Iran and the 1956 
> Suez Crisis;
> >>  -the economic relations between the US and the UK;
> >>  -the $ vs.?, US vs. Europe
> >>  -the "special relationship goes to war" - the invasion
> >>  and military
> >>  occupation of Iraq;
> >>  -the Israel-US-UK triangle
> >>  -what is imperialism? (This has been included as a theme since
> >>  examination of the specific alliance between imperialist USA
> >>  and UK needs to
> >>  be informed by a working concept of imperialism in general)
> >>  Please contact us via our website or discussion list for a
> >>  full Conference
> >>  Prospectus, in which these themes are broken down into
> >>  individual elements.
> >>  All who read this are invited to consider submitting a paper
> >>  on any of these
> >>  topics - and we welcome suggestions for new topics.
> >>
> >>  The Conference Working Group invites and urges you to offer
> >>  some of your
> >>  time over the next twelve months to realising this project.
> >>  We need YOUR
> >>  help with many and varied tasks - from selecting articles for
> >>  the website
> >>  and considering proposed papers, to designing publicity,
> >>  raising funds,
> >>  translating important articles into English, organising 
> the Conference
> >>  itself. Please volunteer to help share these tasks, and you
> >>  will also share
> >>  in the overall design and direction of the event.
> >>
> >>
> >>  ***
> >>
> >>  What is the "special relationship"?
> >>
> >>  The 1956 Suez crisis ended Britain's pretensions of being a
> >>  stand-alone
> >>  imperial power. Ever since, Britain has protected its vast
> >>  "interests" in
> >>  the Middle East and elsewhere by maintaining the closest of
> >>  alliances with
> >>  the USA.
> >>  This "special relationship" is responsible for doz-ens of
> >>  military coups and
> >>  invasions, the deaths of millions of people, and the theft of
> >>  trillions of
> >>  dollars.
> >>  Few phenomena are as important, yet suffer such
> >>  incomprehension, as the
> >>  "special relation-ship". At the Labour Party Conference,
> >>  Jeremy Corbyn asked
> >>  with amazement "why are we, a British Labour Government with
> >>  a very large
> >>  Parliamentary majority, so signed up to the ul-tra-right wing
> >>  George Bush?"
> >>  A review of the 50-year"special relationship" and of the
> >>  Labour Party's rôle
> >>  within it would show that nothing could be more natural.
> >>
> >>  Did you know.
> >>
> >>  Question: what is the name of biggest oil com-pany within the US?
> >>  Answer: BP (British Petroleum), which has 40% of its
> >>  employees in the USA.
> >>
> >>  Question: the ruling families of which country own two of the
> >>  three biggest
> >>  oil companies in the world?
> >>  Answer: Britain (BP and Shell; Exxon is the big-gest). BP 
> has major
> >>  interests from Colombia to Africa to central Asia. Along with
> >  > other British
> >>  banks and multinationals, it relies on US mili-tary power to
> >>  protect its
> >>  property and super-profits.
> >>
> >

Re: Crisis at the peak

[DMS]

Here we are again, with a script out of Hollywood, for the end of the world
as we know it--  actually being short of of original material (as if original
material and Hollywood aren't an oxymoron), the script is a redo of our
Australian friend's  Road Warrior series where the precious juice has
run out and all that are left are stripper wells defended by those hardy
pioneer types.  Things get worse of course, and next week I'm sure the
LA Times will have us shovelling pig shit in Bartertown.

The Hubbert Peak, like the Kondratieff long wave, has particular appeal
to and for those who think something is going wrong but would rather not
have Marx, or Marxists, explain it.

Since we have been over this material before let me go right to the heart of
the matter.  Q:  Proven reserves, geological limit or economic category?
A: Economic Category.  An proven reserve is a defined quantity of petroleum
that can be extracted in a given time frame (usually no more than 20 years)
with the current technology, at...drum roll, please... a sufficient level of PROFIT.
You can look it up.

When the bourgeoisie start biting their nails and whining about scarcity you can
be absolutely certain that the real problem is oveproduction.  Iraqi oil production
has recently return to pre-war highs of app. 2.6 mill b/day with about 1.5 mill
destined for export.  In the countersense world of capital, the result has been
to push spot prices past $37/barrel.  This is NO DIFFERENT than the over-
valuation of telecom stocks when and because the tremendous overproduction
of fiber optic networks, switches, routers, etc. was leading to dramatic and
drastic devalutaion.

Another example of scarcity countersense is the whining about US utilities
power generating capacity.  Power companies are in the process of handing
back assets to the banks at 50cents on the dollar to cover defaulted loans.
This, after and because, of the overinvestment in power generating equipment,
with app. 200,000 MW of gas fired generating equipment all dressed up with
no place to go.

Peaks?  You want to see peaks?  Look at the economy, this is it right as we
head down into the second dip on the double dip.

dms

Re: Conference on the Special Relationship (UK)

[Paul Baer]

If this were true Blair would have torpedoed Kyoto.

--pb

I don't see why this conference is needed. The 
US tells the UK what to do. They do it. Period.


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



 -Original Message-
 From: k hanly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 7:20 AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: [PEN-L] Conference on the Special Relationship (UK)
 [ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ]

 Call for a Conference on the "Special Relationship"
 
 Website: www.specialrelationship.net   Subscribe to the
 discussion list by
 sending a blank message to
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 You are invited to participate in a project to organise a
 two-day Conference
 on the "Special Relationship". It will be a national conference with
 international dimension, with speakers from the US, the
 Middle East and
 elsewhere. It will take place in Sheffield in early 2005, and
 maybe also in
 Manchester and London. A book will be produced of the
 Conference papers.
 The main themes of the Conference will include:
 -the origins of the "special relationship" in post-WW2
 Middle East, in
 particular the 1953 military coup in Iran and the 1956 Suez Crisis;
 -the economic relations between the US and the UK;
 -the $ vs.?, US vs. Europe
 -the "special relationship goes to war" - the invasion
 and military
 occupation of Iraq;
 -the Israel-US-UK triangle
 -what is imperialism? (This has been included as a theme since
 examination of the specific alliance between imperialist USA
 and UK needs to
 be informed by a working concept of imperialism in general)
 Please contact us via our website or discussion list for a
 full Conference
 Prospectus, in which these themes are broken down into
 individual elements.
 All who read this are invited to consider submitting a paper
 on any of these
 topics - and we welcome suggestions for new topics.
 The Conference Working Group invites and urges you to offer
 some of your
 time over the next twelve months to realising this project.
 We need YOUR
 help with many and varied tasks - from selecting articles for
 the website
 and considering proposed papers, to designing publicity,
 raising funds,
 translating important articles into English, organising the Conference
 itself. Please volunteer to help share these tasks, and you
 will also share
 in the overall design and direction of the event.
 ***

 What is the "special relationship"?

 The 1956 Suez crisis ended Britain's pretensions of being a
 stand-alone
 imperial power. Ever since, Britain has protected its vast
 "interests" in
 the Middle East and elsewhere by maintaining the closest of
 alliances with
 the USA.
 This "special relationship" is responsible for doz-ens of
 military coups and
 invasions, the deaths of millions of people, and the theft of
 trillions of
 dollars.
 Few phenomena are as important, yet suffer such
 incomprehension, as the
 "special relation-ship". At the Labour Party Conference,
 Jeremy Corbyn asked
 with amazement "why are we, a British Labour Government with
 a very large
 Parliamentary majority, so signed up to the ul-tra-right wing
 George Bush?"
 A review of the 50-year"special relationship" and of the
 Labour Party's rôle
 within it would show that nothing could be more natural.
 Did you know.

 Question: what is the name of biggest oil com-pany within the US?
 Answer: BP (British Petroleum), which has 40% of its
 employees in the USA.
 Question: the ruling families of which country own two of the
 three biggest
 oil companies in the world?
 Answer: Britain (BP and Shell; Exxon is the big-gest). BP has major
 interests from Colombia to Africa to central Asia. Along with
 > other British
 banks and multinationals, it relies on US mili-tary power to
 protect its
 property and super-profits.
 Question: which country is 2nd only to the USA in the size of
 its empire of
 overseas wealth?
 Answer: .you've guessed it; Britain. In 2001, Britain's
 overseas direct
 investments totalled $902bn, 14.4% of the world total
 (compared to 21.1%
 owned by US imperialists, 7.9% owned by the French, 7.8%
 owned by Germans,
 and 4.6% owned by Japanese).
 *

 The motive for the Conference is to respond to the almost
 universal failure
 of the anti-war movement to comprehend why Britain has joined
 in the US-led
 war and occupation of Iraq. "Blair is Bush's poodle" sums up
 a widespread
 view, propounded by Steve Bell cartoons, Tony Benn, the SWP
 and many other
 influential voices critical of the Blair government's actions. It is a
 notion which only makes sense if we ignore the fact that
 Britain is itself
 an imperialist power, the home for two of the three largest
 oil companies in
 the world, and the owner of the second-largest stock of FDI
 after the USA
 (second to none in relation to its size).
 The Conference organiser

How can i unsubscribe

[Michael James Pryce-Jones]

-Original Message-
From: Marvin Gandall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 10:32:31 -0500
Subject: [PEN-L] Crisis at the peak

The world will be plunged into crisis long before it runs out of oil â
in as little as 10-15 years when production will likely peak, according
to energy analyst Paul Roberts in the Los Angeles Times.

Oil optimists think the world wonât run out of reserves until at least
mid-century, by which time alternative energy technologies will have
been developed to replace it. But Roberts says âat some point, however,
production simply won't be able to match demandâwe won't be âout of oilâ
; a vast amount will still be flowing â just not quickly enough to
satisfy demand.â

When that happens, âprices wonât simply increase; they will flyâ, as a
âmanicâ scramble for the remaining supply accelerates its depletion, and
provokes energy wars and a ârecession so severe the Great Depression
will look like a dress rehearsalâ, he writes.

The worried oil companies know supply and demand are widening faster
than forecast, and their âmantraâ has been to âget us back into the
Middle Eastâ which nationalized them when OPEC was formed â a message
âthe Bush administration has taken to heartâ, without much success,
notes Roberts.

Article reproduced on www.supportingfacts.com.

Sorry for any cross posting.

Re: Conference on the Special Relationship (UK)

[Devine, James]

I don't see why this conference is needed. The US tells the UK what to do. They do it. 
Period. 


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




> -Original Message-
> From: k hanly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 7:20 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L] Conference on the Special Relationship (UK)
> 
> 
> [ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ]
> 
> Call for a Conference on the "Special Relationship"
> 
> 
> Website: www.specialrelationship.net   Subscribe to the 
> discussion list by
> sending a blank message to 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> You are invited to participate in a project to organise a 
> two-day Conference
> on the "Special Relationship". It will be a national conference with
> international dimension, with speakers from the US, the 
> Middle East and
> elsewhere. It will take place in Sheffield in early 2005, and 
> maybe also in
> Manchester and London. A book will be produced of the 
> Conference papers.
> 
> The main themes of the Conference will include:
> -the origins of the "special relationship" in post-WW2 
> Middle East, in
> particular the 1953 military coup in Iran and the 1956 Suez Crisis;
> -the economic relations between the US and the UK;
> -the $ vs.?, US vs. Europe
> -the "special relationship goes to war" - the invasion 
> and military
> occupation of Iraq;
> -the Israel-US-UK triangle
> -what is imperialism? (This has been included as a theme since
> examination of the specific alliance between imperialist USA 
> and UK needs to
> be informed by a working concept of imperialism in general)
> Please contact us via our website or discussion list for a 
> full Conference
> Prospectus, in which these themes are broken down into 
> individual elements.
> All who read this are invited to consider submitting a paper 
> on any of these
> topics - and we welcome suggestions for new topics.
> 
> The Conference Working Group invites and urges you to offer 
> some of your
> time over the next twelve months to realising this project. 
> We need YOUR
> help with many and varied tasks - from selecting articles for 
> the website
> and considering proposed papers, to designing publicity, 
> raising funds,
> translating important articles into English, organising the Conference
> itself. Please volunteer to help share these tasks, and you 
> will also share
> in the overall design and direction of the event.
> 
> 
> ***
> 
> What is the "special relationship"?
> 
> The 1956 Suez crisis ended Britain's pretensions of being a 
> stand-alone
> imperial power. Ever since, Britain has protected its vast 
> "interests" in
> the Middle East and elsewhere by maintaining the closest of 
> alliances with
> the USA.
> This "special relationship" is responsible for doz-ens of 
> military coups and
> invasions, the deaths of millions of people, and the theft of 
> trillions of
> dollars.
> Few phenomena are as important, yet suffer such 
> incomprehension, as the
> "special relation-ship". At the Labour Party Conference, 
> Jeremy Corbyn asked
> with amazement "why are we, a British Labour Government with 
> a very large
> Parliamentary majority, so signed up to the ul-tra-right wing 
> George Bush?"
> A review of the 50-year"special relationship" and of the 
> Labour Party's rôle
> within it would show that nothing could be more natural.
> 
> Did you know.
> 
> Question: what is the name of biggest oil com-pany within the US?
> Answer: BP (British Petroleum), which has 40% of its 
> employees in the USA.
> 
> Question: the ruling families of which country own two of the 
> three biggest
> oil companies in the world?
> Answer: Britain (BP and Shell; Exxon is the big-gest). BP has major
> interests from Colombia to Africa to central Asia. Along with 
> other British
> banks and multinationals, it relies on US mili-tary power to 
> protect its
> property and super-profits.
> 
> Question: which country is 2nd only to the USA in the size of 
> its empire of
> overseas wealth?
> Answer: .you've guessed it; Britain. In 2001, Britain's 
> overseas direct
> investments totalled $902bn, 14.4% of the world total 
> (compared to 21.1%
> owned by US imperialists, 7.9% owned by the French, 7.8% 
> owned by Germans,
> and 4.6% owned by Japanese).
> 
> *
> 
> The motive for the Conference is to respond to the almost 
> universal failure
> of the anti-war movement to comprehend why Britain has joined 
> in the US-led
> war and occupation of Iraq. "Blair is Bush's poodle" sums up 
> a widespread
> view, propounded by Steve Bell cartoons, Tony Benn, the SWP 
> and many other
> influential voices critical of the Blair government's actions. It is a
> notion which only makes sense if we ignore the fact that 
> Britain is itself
> an imperialist power, the home for two of the three largest 
> oil companies in

Crisis at the peak

[Marvin Gandall]

The world will be plunged into crisis long before it runs out of oil –
in as little as 10-15 years when production will likely peak, according
to energy analyst Paul Roberts in the Los Angeles Times.

Oil optimists think the world won’t run out of reserves until at least
mid-century, by which time alternative energy technologies will have
been developed to replace it. But Roberts says “at some point, however,
production simply won't be able to match demand…we won't be ‘out of oil’
; a vast amount will still be flowing – just not quickly enough to
satisfy demand.”

When that happens, “prices won’t simply increase; they will fly”, as a
“manic” scramble for the remaining supply accelerates its depletion, and
provokes energy wars and a “recession so severe the Great Depression
will look like a dress rehearsal”, he writes.

The worried oil companies know supply and demand are widening faster
than forecast, and their “mantra” has been to “get us back into the
Middle East” which nationalized them when OPEC was formed – a message
“the Bush administration has taken to heart”, without much success,
notes Roberts.

Article reproduced on www.supportingfacts.com.

Sorry for any cross posting.

Call for papers

[Craven, Jim]

Title: Message



CFP: Exterminating Narratives: Identifying and Resisting Genocidal 
Cultural  
 Logics  (Deadline: 
9/15/2004)   Seeking proposals for papers for an edited 
volume exploring and  foregrounding genocide as a cultural and 
literary category for approaching   narrative with the objective of 
identifying cultural logics of genocide  that might not typically be understood 
as such and also of highlighting  narratives of resistance of resistance 
to genocide that provide an  imagination of an alternative way of 
living and organizing social  relationships.  In the current 
critical discourses of literary and culturalstudies, we hear much about 
postcolonialism, colonialism, nationalism,  globalization, citizenship, and, of 
course, paradigms of race, class,  gender, and sexuality.   
 
 Related to 
such discourses but much less mentioned  are the discourse, concept, and above 
all practice of genocide which such  critical discourses rarely confront 
directly or in depth.  These  discourses, however, could be mobilized 
to help us address, comprehend, and   resist the practices and cultural 
logics of genocide that, far from being   facts of history we seek to understand 
retrospectively, are ongoing  practices that often elude naming, 
identification, and redressas we see by  recent events in Rwanda, Bosnia, 
Chiapas, and persistently in Native  America.  Proposals for papers are 
sought exploring such issues as how  genocide is represented, how it is 
narratively recognized, misnamed, or  misidentified, how it is defined; what 
is the continuum of genocidal logic  into practices of everyday life not 
usually or  
necessarily understood as  part of such a logic, such as the logic 
of the commodity? What do comparing acts of genocide reveal about its logic?  
Papers should deal with specific  texts which might include literary works 
as well as political texts such as  UN policies and resolutions and also 
critical studies of genocide such as   Samantha PowersThe Problem from Hell, 
Philip Gourevitchs work, and  others. Inquiries and abstracts 
should be sent to Tim Libretti at  [EMAIL PROTECTED].  
        
===        
  From the Literary Calls for Papers Mailing List      
                 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                
        Full Information at        
         http://www.english.upenn.edu/CFP/  
         or write Erika Lin: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]          
===Tiokasin 
GhosthorseFirst Voices Indigenous 
RadioWBAI NY  99.5 
FM   10 AM Thursdays 
EST[EMAIL PROTECTED]212.209.2979 voicemail &Wake Up Call6-9am 
Fridays ESTwww.wbai.orgWBAI Pacifica Radio covers an 
audience area of 21 millionWho is really listening?Mother 
Earth will have her day and night.forever!www.earthpeoples.orgwww.wole.org/index.htmLong ago the peoples of the 
Americas were divided into two groups--the people of the Eagle (North America) 
and people of the Condor (South America). When the two begin to come together 
again, mixing the tears of the Eagle and the Condor, there will begin an era of 
renewed life and spirit for Indigenous peoples.
<>

Conference on the Special Relationship (UK)

[k hanly]

[ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ]

Call for a Conference on the "Special Relationship"


Website: www.specialrelationship.net   Subscribe to the discussion list by
sending a blank message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

You are invited to participate in a project to organise a two-day Conference
on the "Special Relationship". It will be a national conference with
international dimension, with speakers from the US, the Middle East and
elsewhere. It will take place in Sheffield in early 2005, and maybe also in
Manchester and London. A book will be produced of the Conference papers.

The main themes of the Conference will include:
-the origins of the "special relationship" in post-WW2 Middle East, in
particular the 1953 military coup in Iran and the 1956 Suez Crisis;
-the economic relations between the US and the UK;
-the $ vs.?, US vs. Europe
-the "special relationship goes to war" - the invasion and military
occupation of Iraq;
-the Israel-US-UK triangle
-what is imperialism? (This has been included as a theme since
examination of the specific alliance between imperialist USA and UK needs to
be informed by a working concept of imperialism in general)
Please contact us via our website or discussion list for a full Conference
Prospectus, in which these themes are broken down into individual elements.
All who read this are invited to consider submitting a paper on any of these
topics - and we welcome suggestions for new topics.

The Conference Working Group invites and urges you to offer some of your
time over the next twelve months to realising this project. We need YOUR
help with many and varied tasks - from selecting articles for the website
and considering proposed papers, to designing publicity, raising funds,
translating important articles into English, organising the Conference
itself. Please volunteer to help share these tasks, and you will also share
in the overall design and direction of the event.


***

What is the "special relationship"?

The 1956 Suez crisis ended Britain's pretensions of being a stand-alone
imperial power. Ever since, Britain has protected its vast "interests" in
the Middle East and elsewhere by maintaining the closest of alliances with
the USA.
This "special relationship" is responsible for doz-ens of military coups and
invasions, the deaths of millions of people, and the theft of trillions of
dollars.
Few phenomena are as important, yet suffer such incomprehension, as the
"special relation-ship". At the Labour Party Conference, Jeremy Corbyn asked
with amazement "why are we, a British Labour Government with a very large
Parliamentary majority, so signed up to the ul-tra-right wing George Bush?"
A review of the 50-year"special relationship" and of the Labour Party's rôle
within it would show that nothing could be more natural.

Did you know.

Question: what is the name of biggest oil com-pany within the US?
Answer: BP (British Petroleum), which has 40% of its employees in the USA.

Question: the ruling families of which country own two of the three biggest
oil companies in the world?
Answer: Britain (BP and Shell; Exxon is the big-gest). BP has major
interests from Colombia to Africa to central Asia. Along with other British
banks and multinationals, it relies on US mili-tary power to protect its
property and super-profits.

Question: which country is 2nd only to the USA in the size of its empire of
overseas wealth?
Answer: .you've guessed it; Britain. In 2001, Britain's overseas direct
investments totalled $902bn, 14.4% of the world total (compared to 21.1%
owned by US imperialists, 7.9% owned by the French, 7.8% owned by Germans,
and 4.6% owned by Japanese).

*

The motive for the Conference is to respond to the almost universal failure
of the anti-war movement to comprehend why Britain has joined in the US-led
war and occupation of Iraq. "Blair is Bush's poodle" sums up a widespread
view, propounded by Steve Bell cartoons, Tony Benn, the SWP and many other
influential voices critical of the Blair government's actions. It is a
notion which only makes sense if we ignore the fact that Britain is itself
an imperialist power, the home for two of the three largest oil companies in
the world, and the owner of the second-largest stock of FDI after the USA
(second to none in relation to its size).

The Conference organisers (at the moment, myself and a number of other
non-aligned activists in the anti-sanctions and anti-war movements) have a
working concept of the 'special relationship' which the Conference will test
and enrich. Central to it is the perception that the 'special relationship'
was forged in the Middle East following WW2, as the US and UK were forced
into an alliance in order to confront and roll back democratic and
nationalist movements in oil-rich and strategically important Iran and
Arabia. There is no "special relationship" (or only a weak ref

Competent ? No, Creeps ! ( was Ceaucescu and Romanian transition)

[Charles Brown]

From: Sabri Oncu


Hi Charles!

Good to hear from you. I have not seen you around for

quite a while. How have you been?

I don't think there is much point in furthering this

"debate", as it appears to me to be more about what

certain words mean and they don't but let me object

one last time and I will leave this at that.

Getting underlings to the tough work does not take any

competence. The underlings are already prepared to do

the tough work when they join these firms.

The incompetents are us:

I have tried many times to convince my coworkers that

the real power resided with us and if we got organized

and stopped production until we get what we want, the

upper management had nothing to sell and hence no way

to make profits.

But of course I had always failed.

Whenever I made such arguments my coworkers told me

things like this: "It is dangerous to have such ideas

such as organizing against the upper management in the

US. If you do that, they throw you out."

So it is us who are incompetents and competence does

not reside with the upper management either.

It has to be looked for elsewhere.

Best,

Sabri



Greetings , Sabri !

I feel you. Professionals, professionals everywhere, but not a competent one
in the lot .

Although, we might have to give the Devil a bit of due credit. The Man is
making superprofits still.

But one day ! We'll get Competent.

Charles

Re: Question for you econ types out there

[dsquared]

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 16:00:23 +0300, "Chris Doss" wrote:

>
> Does anybody know how per capita income figures are
> usually calculated for countries like Russia, which
> have a large shadow economy in which workers are paid
> under the table and off the books? Thanks.

Not actually as uncommon as you'd think; Spain and
Italy have big off-the-books sectors.  Basically, you
estimate, estimate, estimate.  Double-check with
criminal authorities, carry out surveys, etc.  Also
cross-check with observable facts; ie, you know how
many buildings are going up, you know how many brickies
it takes, so you can guesstimate how many are employed
in the building trade.  Then you use an econometric
model going forward, to scale up the ongoing inome
numbers based on the last time you did a proper check.
It's a bit of a black art but by no means the most
difficult thing a national statistics agency does.

Here's a bit & piece by the UK Office of National
Statistics.  To be honest the final chapter is the
funniest (sample text "Under ESA95 the sale of illegal
drugs should be treated in the same way as the sale of
legal goods. They are imported or produced within the
UK, sold through a chain of dealers (each adding their
own margin), and eventually sold to a final
consumer.").  But there's some stuff on the issues
you're looking for too.

cheers

dd

>
> Official income figures for Russia have always baffled
> me. How do you calculate them when underreporting of
> incomes is rampant in the private sector?

Question for you econ types out there

["Chris Doss"]

Does anybody know how per capita income figures are usually calculated for countries 
like Russia, which have a large shadow economy in which workers are paid under the 
table and off the books? Thanks.

Official income figures for Russia have always baffled me. How do you calculate them 
when underreporting of incomes is rampant in the private sector?

Re: Ceaucescu and Romanian transition

["Chris Doss"]

Quite a time before, unless I am mistaken. He is still an associate member. (I am 
assume you mean Berezovsky? Gusinsky quit directing I think in the 80s to go into 
various forms of sordid business, if my fuzzy memory serves). Khodorskocky was head of 
the Moscow Komsomol.

-Original Message-
From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 13:41:47 -0800
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Ceaucescu and Romanian transition

>
> Was that before or after he became rich?
>
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 02:09:07PM +0300, "Chris Doss"  wrote:
> > He's an associate member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Gusinsky was a 
> > theater director.
> >
>
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
>

Re: Jagdish Bhagwati

[Paul Baer]

Not a dime's worth of difference between him and Mankiw as far as I can tell.

--pb

Americans manage to convince themselves they are underdogs
Jagdish Bhagwati
Monday March 8, 2004
The Guardian
A free trader's work is never done, especially in the United States. The
historians of free trade in Great Britain since the repeal of the corn
laws in mid-19th century have argued that politicians in strong economies
embrace free trade because they expect their countries to win in the
Darwinian struggle in the marketplace. But the US, despite having emerged
at the end of the second world war as the top dog on the block, has
repeatedly descended into paranoia on trade.
The recent furore over outsourcing fits into a pattern of fear of trade
with the developing countries that goes back to the fierce fights against
Nafta with Mexico, and the furore over the imports of labour-intensive
goods from the Far East and then China (the "yellow peril"). Now we have
the outcry over the imports of (mostly) labour-intensive services online -
what economists sometimes call "long distance" services where the provider
and the user do not have to get together physically - from India (the
"brown peril"). As always, the fear is baseless and based on bad
economics.
The earlier fear was that manufacturing jobs for the working class would
disappear with imports; vice-president Fritz Mondale conjured up a nation
of "hamburger flippers". Now the fear is that the new imports will take
good jobs from the middle class, and the modern-day doomsayers imagine a
nation of "grocery baggers" at the supermarkets as discharged computer
programmers et al struggle for survival at low wages in lower occupations.
The fear is not just exaggerated, it is also false; though, as the Russian
proverb goes, it has big eyes, and a recent poll suggests that more than a
third of the American labour force is in a state of anxiety over jobs.
The difficult job situation in skilled information technology-related
occupations has been heavily overlaid by the dotcom bust and by the
overvaluation of the dollar, both pheonomena which are being reversed. In
fact, according to the bureau of labour statistics, jobs in the very
recent years for IT-related occupations have risen, admittedly slowly, but
they have not fallen.
Moreover IT, like so much other technology but even more so, displaces
unskilled workers and hence low-paying jobs; but it creates demands to
maintain and support the technology, which implies new, higher-paying
jobs. Vast numbers of jobs to support and service hardware (say, PCs), to
maintain the software and to manage the ever-growing new variants and
applications, have emerged and will grow rapidly through the next 10
years, as the BLS projections also underline quantitatively.
Furthermore, many services cannot simply be provided on the wire. In
particular, as the US population ages and the IT revolution gathers speed
and enters senior citizens' lives, many will need not a voice from
Bangalore telling them in incomprehensible technical language what to do
but a technician who will come and do it for them.
These optimistic assessments are clouded in the public domain by a
delusion fostered by mindless commentary in the media. That is illustrated
by the astonishing Lou Dobbs show on CNN which daily lists the firms that
have outsourced jobs. Mr Dobbs forgets that he should also list the jobs
that come in, not just those that go out.
The clinching argument against interfering with outsourcing through
protectionism or its variants such as tax deterrents or opprobrium is
provided by the fact that the US is closely integrated in the world
economy.
In a world that is characterised by intense competition today, small cost
disadvantages can spell the demise of a firm: hence all the clamour about
"unfair trade" by your rivals on the flimsiest grounds.
If US firms lose out to UK firms because the British government is not
joining the protectionist chorus, then they could fold, making the job
loss, and hence the worker adjustment required, manifoldly greater. An
analogy, not recommended for use by politicians, is that of triage: a
lifeboat with a hundred people on board will sink and drown the hundred;
but if 10 are thrown overboard 90 will survive.
So the fears over the job adjustment required thanks to online imports of
services are unwarranted. And if they are succumbed to they will
themselves create serious adjustment problems in their wake.
Will the US ever learn?

· Jagdish Bhagwati, professor at Columbia University and senior fellow at
the Council on Foreign Relations, has just published In Defense of
Globalization (Oxford)