date:20040330

What's China's share of all government purchases of U.S. assets?

*   A trade deficit must be financed by net borrowing from the
rest of the world. The United States was effectively spending about
5% more than it was producing last year, but cannot continue to
borrow at such a high rate indefinitely. Worse yet, the trade deficit
is growing each year as a share of GDP. The recent decline in the
value of the dollar -- which has fallen by 11.5% since February 2002,
primarily against the Euro -- indicates that foreign lenders are less
willing to supply new credit.
If the dollar were being supported by demand from investors who find
the U.S. market attractive, then steady growth in capital inflows
from private investors to finance rising deficits would likely occur.
However, private inflows have fallen in the last two years. Instead,
foreign governments have been intervening in foreign exchange markets
by purchasing a rapidly growing volume of U.S. government assets
(shown as foreign government assets in the United States in the
figure below). These inflows reached $208 billion in 2003, or 38.4%
of total capital inflows. Official government inflows were 50% of the
total in the fourth quarter of 2003.
Asian governments made 93% of all government purchases of U.S. assets
in 2003. Other governments were not intervening significantly in
foreign exchange markets because they expected the dollar to fall and
did not want to make money-losing investments. Asian governments,
especially Japan and China, are willing to absorb these risks in
order to support their exports to the United States1.
("Foreign Government Intervention Keeps the Value of the Dollar
Artificially High," March 22, 2004,
)
*
--
Yoshie
* Bring Them Home Now! 
* Calendars of Events in Columbus:
,
, & 
* Student International Forum: 
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: 
* Al-Awda-Ohio: 
* Solidarity:

Re: U.S.-Led Coalition Shuts Down Iraq Paper

Is this the same Arab League whose summit just collapsed or is this
a different Arab League?
*   No lost sleep over the postponed summit
By Danny Rubinstein
The Palestinian leadership was not especially disappointed yesterday
when it learned of the postponement of the Arab summit conference
that was to begin today in Tunis. . . .
Since the 1960s, Arafat has made it his business to participate in
every summit conference, but he has not made it to any of the more
recent conferences due to the siege Israel has imposed on him. The
Arabs used to stridently demand that Israel allow Arafat to attend
the summit sessions. Now they seem to have grown accustomed to his
absence. The announcements about the postponement of the summit made
no mention of the fact that Arafat was not going to attend.
Palestinian demands from the Arab states have not changed in years.
The Palestinians ask that Arab states work harder on behalf of the
Palestinian struggle, and that they enlist all their strength and
diplomatic influence to pressure America and the European countries
to adopt a more sympathetic stand on the Palestinian issue - none of
which has happened. . . .
As always, the Palestinian street has unkind things to say about Arab
leaders, who are portrayed as a collection of corrupt tyrants at the
beck and call of the U.S., ready to betray the Arab nation in
general, and the Palestinians in particular. Not a week passes
without the Palestinian press publishing contemptuous, mocking
caricatures of Arab leaders (usually they are not specifically named;
rather, they are drawn in a standard likeness of a fat, mustachioed
man wearing robes, in the style of the Persian Gulf rulers).
In previous summit meetings, Arab states adopted a financial
assistance plan for the Palestinian Authority, which needs some $50
million a month to pay salaries. Palestinian cabinet ministers say
the Arab states have failed to deliver on their financial commitments.
One factor that has somewhat disrupted preparations for this summit
was the assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. Most Palestinians
derived great pleasure from scenes of the demonstrations against
Israel and the U.S., some of them violent, which took place
throughout the Arab world after Yassin's death. Such demonstrations
always become protests against rulers of the country in which they
take place, who are asked to break off any contact, direct or
indirect, with Israel. . . .
   *
--
Yoshie
* Bring Them Home Now! 
* Calendars of Events in Columbus:
,
, & 
* Student International Forum: 
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: 
* Al-Awda-Ohio: 
* Solidarity:

Re: U.S.-Led Coalition Shuts Down Iraq Paper

Doug Henwood wrote:
a UN force without the U.S. to replace the U.S.
Yoshie asks:
Who do they think will contribute the troops to make up "a UN force
without the US"?
the Arab League has been mentioned...

JD
How many troops does the Arab League have and how many of them can
they afford to send to Iraq?  And who is going to pay for them?
--
Yoshie
* Bring Them Home Now! 
* Calendars of Events in Columbus:
,
, & 
* Student International Forum: 
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: 
* Al-Awda-Ohio: 
* Solidarity:

Re: utopianism

2004-03-30 Thread Mike Ballard

Thatcher's TINA is the opposite side of the utopian
coin.
Commies have to know what they want as well as what
they want to leave behind in history's dustbin.

Regards,
Mike B)

=
1844 Paris Manuscripts,
Marx makes a major point
of the relationship between
the sexes: "The infinite
degradation in which man
exists for himself is expressed
in this relation to the woman,"

http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

Re: utopianism

2004-03-30 Thread Tom Walker

Jim Devine wrote,


> I see nothing wrong with utopian dreaming, as long as it's not seen as a
> matter
> of thinking up blueprints that _must_ be imposed.

Just about everything I lay my hands on these days has the word Utopia in
it. Chapman (1909): "It occurred to me after a cursory examination of some
recent examples of that remarkable modern crop of Utopias and anticipations
which apparently are appealing to an extensive public." Dilke (1821): "Even
in these Utopian speculations the great land-holder should possibly be
excepted; a rent, equal to the expense on importation, being alsways secured
to him." Dahlberg (1927): "Utopia through Capitalism".

The irony, it seems to me, is that ALL theoretical abstractions about
society and economy are essentially Utopian, no matter how realistic or
materialistic they may aspire to be. Even dystopias are Utopian, although
not "eu"topian. I'm drawn to this reflection first by the frankness of
Dilke's description of his treatise as "Utopian speculations" and its
contrast with Chapman's chaste disclaimer, "If only these 'new worlds'
represented what existed somewhere among human beings with passions and
infirmities like our own, how much more instructive they would be!"

Could it not be, though, that the more 'realistic' a Utopia purports to be,
the more beguiling it is as a dogmatic "blueprint that must be imposed"? The
most beguiling Utopia would be precisely the one that elevates and enshrines
those "passions and infirmities like our own." Like selfishness and greed,
for instance.

Clearly the world in which the innocent, well-meaning, enlightened,
prosperty-bringing USA is threatened by evil enemies is a Utopia even though
it is presented nightly on the newscasts as an actual place. But then so too
is the world in which US imperialism dominates the globe with its military
might -- even if one happens to think it is a descriptively more accurate
one.

What I am having some difficulty formulating a response to is the seemingly
spontaneous, instantaneous 'ability' of people to 'see through' and dismiss
positive visions of change as frivolously utopian and simultaneously to
recite a stale litany of non-factual, not even theoretically plausible
articles of faith about "the way it really is, always has been and always
will be." You know, the way that higher wages destroy jobs, longer hours
mean greater productivity and 'flexibility' or competition lowers prices and
improves quality.

Fwd: A MILLION WORKERS MARCH ON WASHINGTON

2004-03-30 Thread Sabri Oncu

RESOLUTION PROPOSING A MILLION WORKERS MARCH ON
WASHINGTON
ADOPTED BY ILWU LOCAL

Whereas:  our ancestors fought tirelessly in this
country for the right to organize unions and ensure
that our government recognized this right because it
is a cornerstone of democracy, and

Whereas:  that because of unions and solidarity among
working people we have been able to win basic human
rights, including employer paid health care, social
security and retirement benefits, safe working
conditions, decent hours and wages, education for our
children, social services for the disadvantaged, civil
liberties, and most important, the right to political
influence over our nation's foreign and domestic
policies, and

Whereas:  Franklin D. Roosevelt, in his State of the
Union address in 1944 acknowledged our rights, saying,
"We have come to the realization of the fact that true
individual freedom cannot exist without economic
security and independence.  Necessitous men are not
free men. People who are hungry and out of a job are
the stuff of which dictatorships are made." and

Whereas:  the current administration, with the
complicity of congress, has cooperated with big
business in attacking our rights, using legislation
such as the Patriot Acts I and II, denying the right
of hundreds of thousands of Federal employees to
belong to unions and bargain, forcing longshore
workers to work under a Taft-Hartley Act injunction
and threats of Federal intervention, and

Whereas:  the administration, with the complicity of
congress, has negotiated trade agreements costing the
jobs of hundreds of thousands of US workers, calling
this a move towards a healthy economy, while promoting
other economic policies, such as privatization and
deregulation which has resulted in the loss of over 3
million jobs since taking office, and

Whereas:  the administration, with the complicity of
congress has given corporations and the wealthy huge
tax breaks, while cutting billions of dollars in
spending for social services, education, and other
government programs won by working people through
decades of effort, and

Whereas:  the Bush administration, with the complicity
of congress, has excused all these policies by using
the terrible events of September 11 to label any
opposition unpatriotic and a threat to national
security, has taken our country into an unjust war
under the false assertion that Iraq possessed weapons
of mass destruction, costing the lives of hundreds of
US service members and innocent Iraqi civilians, and
is whipping up fear and even further to try to
stampede the public into giving it another term in
office,

Be it therefore resolved:  that Local 10 of the ILWU
calls on unions and working people generally to go to
Washington DC for a Million Worker March, to demand
that politicians and the administration listen to the
people who pay their salaries, rather than the voices
of big business and the rich, and more

Be it further resolved:  that this resolution be
forwarded to unions, labor councils and labor
organizations, as well as other organizations to which
workers belong, whether organized or not, so that they
can take similar action to organize this March as soon
as possible.

Be it finally resolved: that this event coincide with
all labor organized voter registration drives planned
for the next election.


ENDORSED BY__


LOCAL


LABOR COUNCIL__


INDIVIDUAL__



PLEASE FORWARD BY EMAIL TO: TRENT WILLIS, BUSINESS
AGENT, ILWU LOCAL 10 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.millionworkermarch.org
fax: attention: Trent Willis (510) 441 0610

Re: Working like dogs (was Job flight)

It's true I've tended to think of public employment as a last
resort, rather than on an equal footing with counter-cyclical
and work time.  There's no reason to do so.  Politics at one
time or another may favor and disfavor any of them.
I hereby elevate it to my Sacred Threesome.

"Active labor market policy" covers a lot:

http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1049&context=iir

What's your favorite part?

mbs

>
> I agree with you, but how to get there? If deficit spending were the
> key, wouldn't Japan be at full employment? If you have a constant
> deficit (as % of GDP), you're not getting any fresh fiscal kick, so
> wouldn't you need ever-increasing deficits? Why not focus on the good
> things public spending can do (infrastructure, health insurance,
> child care) and the people it can put to work doing them, and for
> those who remain unemployed, an active labor market policy?
>
> Doug
>

Re: U.S.-Led Coalition Shuts Down Iraq Paper

2004-03-30 Thread dmschanoes

Is this the same Arab League whose summit just collapsed or is this a
different Arab League?

Is this the same UN that imposed sanctions on Iraq for 12+ years, that
backed down with a whimper when Israel refused to allow its inspection
of Jenin, that has never even debated sanctions against the US for its
invasion, or is this a different UN?

The issue is, and is only, the immediate withdrawal of all the invading
military forces from Iraq.

The crocodile tears about the resulting anarchy from a precipitous
withdrawal, are just that, crocodile tears shed after the reptile has
eaten its fill and lays immobilized by its own gluttony.

Let's recall, the banditry that took place, took place in Baghdad after
its occupation not during sustained combat operations, not before.  The
banditry was accepted with a "boys will be boys" shrug of the shoulders
by this same Secretary of Defense.

dms
___

QA certified-- quality guaranteed by T&A Inc.

- Original Message -
From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] U.S.-Led Coalition Shuts Down Iraq Paper

Doug Henwood wrote:
> >a UN force without the U.S. to replace the U.S.

Yoshie asks:
> Who do they think will contribute the troops to make up "a UN force
> without the US"?

the Arab League has been mentioned...

JD

Re: Working like dogs (was Job flight)

Max B. Sawicky wrote:

As for what Clinton 'did,' as opposed to who he did, the
biggest factors seems to have been the dot com bubble and
household debt stimulating demand.  Obviously there were other ways
AD could have been boosted, but Clinton wasn't interested
in them.  Blinder's book sez the 1993 budget deal was
not huge in effect.  Pollin has this one by the short
hairs, methinks.
Balancing the budget by taxing the top 1-2% isn't a bad long-term
strategy. It reduces the social power of the rich, while running
debts can increase it: "You want me to roll over your debt? Well,
I've got a list of policies I think you should follow" It has
almost no depressive effect on AD either
My bias these days is that a commitment to maximum employment,
through fiscal policy and/or work hour reduction, is the sine qua non
of U.S. social-democracy, progressive politics, or anything more
radical than that.
I agree with you, but how to get there? If deficit spending were the
key, wouldn't Japan be at full employment? If you have a constant
deficit (as % of GDP), you're not getting any fresh fiscal kick, so
wouldn't you need ever-increasing deficits? Why not focus on the good
things public spending can do (infrastructure, health insurance,
child care) and the people it can put to work doing them, and for
those who remain unemployed, an active labor market policy?
Doug

Re: Working like dogs (was Job flight)

Yes, though less hard when there's no employment growth.

As for what Clinton 'did,' as opposed to who he did, the
biggest factors seems to have been the dot com bubble and
household debt stimulating demand.  Obviously there were other ways
AD could have been boosted, but Clinton wasn't interested
in them.  Blinder's book sez the 1993 budget deal was
not huge in effect.  Pollin has this one by the short
hairs, methinks.

My bias these days is that a commitment to maximum employment,
through fiscal policy and/or work hour reduction, is the sine qua non
of U.S. social-democracy, progressive politics, or anything more
radical than that.

mbs



Max, Clinton brought the federal budget into surplus, and unemployment hit a
generation low. Doesn't that make it harder to argue that the two goals are
incompatible?

Doug

breaking news.

[from the ONION]

Bush Addresses 8.2 Million Unemployed: 'Get A Job!'

WASHINGTON, DC-Responding to the nation's worst unemployment rate since
the Hoover Administration, President Bush addressed the nation's 8.2
million unemployed workers in a televised speech Monday.

"The economy has been on the rebound for months, but 5.6 percent of you
are still out of work," Bush said. "Come on, people: Get a job! Don't
just sit there hoping that you'll win the lottery. Turn off that boob
tube, get off that couch, and start pounding the pavement."

When the number of people taking part-time jobs because they can't get
full-time work is factored in, the unemployment figure approaches 15.1
million, a number Bush called "unacceptable."

"My fellow Americans, don't come crying to me," Bush said. "I've got a
job. I go to work every day, whether I feel like it or not. I don't take
handouts, and I don't give them. That's a belief my daddy taught me.
Now, let's get this show on the road!"

The unemployment rate remains high, in spite of the many tax-cut
initiatives the Bush Administration has introduced over the past several
years.

"The government can only do so much," Bush said. "How hard can it
possibly be to find a job? A friend of mine lost his job when his
company went belly-up. Did he bitch and moan about it? Absolutely not.
He picked up the phone and started making cold calls, he landed back on
his feet, and now he's the chief financial officer of a major
petrochemical concern."

According to the president, the nation's unemployed need to make looking
for work a full-time job.

"How many applications have you filled out today?" Bush said. "You
should spend eight hours a day looking through the want ads, mailing
resumes, and pounding the pavement. You won't find a job moping around
the house and feeling sorry for yourself. If you're down-and-out, you
have to pull yourself up by the bootstraps. Life's hard, my friends. Get
used to it."

Bush addressed a complaint often made by unemployed workers: They are
unable to find jobs commensurate to their skill set due to lulls in the
technical and manufacturing sectors and the outsourcing of jobs to other
countries.

"If you wanted work as bad as you say you do, you'd take what you could
find," Bush said. "You gotta work your way up, instead of waiting around
for your dream job to fall into your lap. Walk before you run. Climb
your way up the ladder." 

Continued Bush: "I heard McDonald's is hiring. What's wrong with that?
Does your fancy degree say you can't work at a Mickey D's? You may not
be doing exactly what you want, but at least you'll have the pride of
knowing that you're earning your living."

A reporter asked for comment on a statistic which shows that only 21,000
new jobs were created in February, in spite of the Bush administration's
promise to create 320,000.

"I've got a statistic for you," Bush said. "You've got to look out for
No. 1. Take charge. I've got a job plan for the nation. It's called 'Get
off your duff.'"

Bush said the country is experiencing its longest average-unemployment
duration in 20 years, and he wants to see it end immediately.

"If you get an interview, walk in there like you're the only person for
the job," Bush said. "Show them you're willing to work. Show up early
and bring a broom. Sweep up the place while you're waiting for the
interview to start. That'll let them know you're a go-getter."

The president concluded his speech by encouraging the jobless to start
their search immediately.

"What are you doing listening to this speech when you should be out
there looking for work?" Bush asked. "Get a move on! Even my brother has
a job. He's no one special, and he's the governor of Florida! If he can
do that, you should be able to line up something at your local
Wal-Mart." 

With that statement, Bush left Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao to present
some of the finer points of his administration's new position.

"Get a haircut," Chao said. "Clean yourself up a little and put on a
nice shirt, or even a suit. Maybe employers would take you more
seriously if you didn't look like you just rolled out of bed. The way
you look now, I wouldn't hire you to throw me a rope if I was falling
off a cliff." 


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

Yahoo! News - Iraq War Was about Israel, Bush Insider Suggests

2004-03-30 Thread ravi

<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=655&e=1&u=/oneworld/20040330/wl_oneworld/4536827661080666584>

Iraq War Was about Israel, Bush Insider Suggests
Tue Mar 30, 1:05 PM ET
Emad Mekay, Inter Press Service

WASHINGTON, Mar 29 (IPS) - Iraq (news - web sites) under Saddam Hussein
(news - web sites) did not pose a threat to the United States but it did
to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country,
according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House
intelligence group.

IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive
director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the
United States in September 2001--the 9/11 commission--in which he
suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to
eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.

Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect
Israel appears at odds with the public position of President Bush (news
- web sites) and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the
link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its
concern for Israel's security.

The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate
the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and
to protect the United States.

Zelikow made his statements about "the unstated threat" during his
tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the
President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports
directly to the president.

He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.

"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll
tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since
1990--it's the threat against Israel," Zelikow told a crowd at the
University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign
policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on
the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation.

"And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the
Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly.
And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it
rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell," said Zelikow.

The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to
the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far
cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was
motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state.

The administration, which is surrounded by staunch pro-Israel,
neo-conservative hawks, is currently fighting an extensive campaign to
ward off accusations that it derailed the "war on terrorism" it launched
after 9/11 by taking a detour to Iraq, which appears to have posed no
direct threat to the United States.

Israel is Washington's biggest ally in the Middle East, receiving annual
direct aid of $3-to-4 billion.

Even though members of the 16-person PFIAB come from outside government,
they enjoy the confidence of the president and have access to all
information related to foreign intelligence that they need to play their
vital advisory role.

Known in intelligence circles as "Piffy-ab," the board is supposed to
evaluate the nation's intelligence agencies and probe any mistakes they
make.

The unpaid appointees on the board require a security clearance known as
"code word" that is higher than top secret.

The national security adviser to former President George H.W. Bush
(1989-93) Brent Scowcroft, currently chairs the board in its work
overseeing a number of intelligence bodies, including the Central
Intelligence Agency (news - web sites) (CIA (news - web sites)), the
various military intelligence groups and the Pentagon (news - web
sites)'s National Reconnaissance Office.

Neither Scowcroft nor Zelikow returned phone calls or email messages
from IPS for this story.

Zelikow has long-established ties to the Bush administration.

Before his appointment to PFIAB in October 2001, he was part of the
current president's transition team in January 2001.

In that capacity, Zelikow drafted a memo for National Security Adviser
Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) on reorganising and restructuring
the National Security Council (NSC) and prioritising its work.

Richard A. Clarke, who was counter-terrorism coordinator for Bush's
predecessor President Bill Clinton (news - web sites) (1993-2001) also
worked for Bush senior, and has recently accused the current
administration of not heeding his terrorism warnings, said Zelikow was
among those he briefed about the urgent threat from al-Qaeda in December
2000.

Rice herself had served in the NSC during the first Bush administration,
and subsequently teamed up with Zelikow on a 1995 book about the
unificat

Re: Working like dogs (was Job flight)

Max B. Sawicky wrote:

My gripe about this teensy memo is that 4.1 is couched in
terms of being a structural goal requiring supply-side
improvements in the tax code, rather than something accessible
with fiscal policy.  Not coincidentally, Kerry has no fiscal
policy and is mouthing anti-deficit rhetoric.
I really don't look forward to spending the rest of what
passes for my professional life doing shovel-duty behind
the Clinton/Rubin circus elephants in the DP parade.
Max, Clinton brought the federal budget into surplus, and
unemployment hit a generation low. Doesn't that make it harder to
argue that the two goals are incompatible?
Doug

Re: U.S.-Led Coalition Shuts Down Iraq Paper

Doug Henwood wrote:
> >a UN force without the U.S. to replace the U.S.

Yoshie asks: 
> Who do they think will contribute the troops to make up "a UN force
> without the US"?

the Arab League has been mentioned...

JD

Re: Working like dogs (was Job flight)

I agree on the big points, but all the LK memo seeks to do
is show that getting to 10 million and 4.1 in four years is
plausible in historical context.  His memo does not attempt
to demonstrate that Kerry's plan gets us there.  If he showed
40 million jobs and one percent unemployment, it would be
equally tautological but less plausible.  (Though I'm reminded
that Bill Vickrey used to talk about "chock-full employment."
Old Bill thought we could have two percent and was moved to
fury when alluding to four percent or more.)

My gripe about this teensy memo is that 4.1 is couched in
terms of being a structural goal requiring supply-side
improvements in the tax code, rather than something accessible
with fiscal policy.  Not coincidentally, Kerry has no fiscal
policy and is mouthing anti-deficit rhetoric.

I really don't look forward to spending the rest of what
passes for my professional life doing shovel-duty behind
the Clinton/Rubin circus elephants in the DP parade.

Mbs



Kerry's 10 million estimate comes from a memo from Lawrence Katz who
projects that number from the lowering of the unemployment rate to 4.1%.
Sounds to me like a tautology: if the unemployment rate drops while the
labour force grows, jobs will be created. That's right up there with Calvin
Coolidge's "When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment
results."

That same Katz commented some years ago on a Brookings Institute paper about
hours reduction as work sharing. He made a number of sensible background
points but his main point and emphasis was utterly unsubstantiated. He even
produced a pseudo-algebraic 'model' ("the best case scenario for advocates
of work-sharing") that only pertains if one assumes that the given hours of
work are optimal for maximizing output, a condition that has been clearly
demonstrated to be contrary to theory. And, of course, he just had to frame
his discussion with a recital of the "lump-of-output fallacy," Richard
Layard's lame attempt to lend greater terminological precision to the
utterly fraudulent claim of a "lump-of-labour fallacy".

The bottom line for Katz was the conclusion that "there are a number of good
reasons to believe that mandated work-sharing is unlikely to produce much of
a reduction in unemployment." One of those "good reasons" being his
theoretically bankrupt model and the other being the allegedly fallacious
assumption "implicit" in arguments for work-sharing. That, I'm afraid is
what passes for the conventional wisdom in economics on the hours of labour.


Tom Walker

Re: U.S.-Led Coalition Shuts Down Iraq Paper

At 12:08 PM -0500 3/30/04, Doug Henwood wrote:
a UN force without the U.S. to replace the U.S.
Who do they think will contribute the troops to make up "a UN force
without the US"?
--
Yoshie
* Bring Them Home Now! 
* Calendars of Events in Columbus:
,
, & 
* Student International Forum: 
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: 
* Al-Awda-Ohio: 
* Solidarity:

Re: Working like dogs (was Job flight)

2004-03-30 Thread Tom Walker

d-squared wrote:

> but one argument that I
> always think ought to get more traction is that
> capitalism has singularly failed to shorten the working
> day.  A lot of people intuitively realise that there is
> something wrong here; we were promised robot slaves and
> unlimited leisure time in the comic books, and now the
> space age is here and we're still working like dogs.

Broken record, here. Yes, it's uncanny how the argument doesn't  get more
traction. I mentioned yesterday in a post on this thread that a reduction of
U.S. annual hours to approximately European standards could be expected to
generate (or preserve) around 10 million jobs, the same number John Kerry
claims (with less supporting argument) his economic policies would produce
in four years. Kerry's 10 million estimate comes from a memo from Lawrence
Katz who projects that number from the lowering of the unemployment rate to
4.1%. Sounds to me like a tautology: if the unemployment rate drops while
the labour force grows, jobs will be created. That's right up there with
Calvin Coolidge's "When a great many people are unable to find work,
unemployment results."

That same Katz commented some years ago on a Brookings Institute paper about
hours reduction as work sharing. He made a number of sensible background
points but his main point and emphasis was utterly unsubstantiated. He even
produced a pseudo-algebraic 'model' ("the best case scenario for advocates
of work-sharing") that only pertains if one assumes that the given hours of
work are optimal for maximizing output, a condition that has been clearly
demonstrated to be contrary to theory. And, of course, he just had to frame
his discussion with a recital of the "lump-of-output fallacy," Richard
Layard's lame attempt to lend greater terminological precision to the
utterly fraudulent claim of a "lump-of-labour fallacy".

The bottom line for Katz was the conclusion that "there are a number of good
reasons to believe that mandated work-sharing is unlikely to produce much of
a reduction in unemployment." One of those "good reasons" being his
theoretically bankrupt model and the other being the allegedly fallacious
assumption "implicit" in arguments for work-sharing. That, I'm afraid is
what passes for the conventional wisdom in economics on the hours of labour.

Tom Walker

URPE at Brecht Forum, Spring 2004

2004-03-30 Thread Ruth Indeck


















































   URPE AT BRECHT FORUM,
SPRING 2004

presented by New York Union for Radical Political
Economics  and   the   Brecht   Forum

at the Brecht Forum,  122 West 27th St., 10th floor
 (between 6th   and   7th)
212-242-4201
 
 NOTE: The Brecht Forum will probably be moving at the end of May; we will
send reminders of any changes in location.
 
 Sliding Scale: $6/$8/$10

7:30 pm


*
 
 LIGHTS OUT! PRIVATIZATION AND DEREGULATION OF ELECTRICITY
  
 Wednesday April 14
  
 When your lights went out on August 14, did you wonder whether there   was
  more to it than a bad judgment call in a Midwestern utility and too  many
 air conditioners on a hot day? When Bush's Energy Bill appeared, did  you
 understand how corporate handouts were going to solve our energy problems?
 Our speakers will critique the Energy Bill and explain how  deregulation
and privatization of electric utilities have played a major  role in creating
 a chaotic and expensive system of delivering electricity.  Long Island energy
 activist Gordian Raacke will give us insights into how  these national trends
 have affected New York State and how New Yorkers are  fighting for better
 delivery, cheaper rates, and environmentally friendly  forms of energy production.
 Nomi Prins will talk about corruption in the energy industry, the ongoing
 role of Wall Street, and the lack of meaningful reform from the Hill. Renee
 Toback will take us beyond electricity, with comments on the widespread
popularity  of privatization and deregulation among capitalists today.
 
 SPEAKERS:
 
 Nomi Prins' book: "Other People’s Money: The Corporate Mugging of  America,"
  will  be out fall 2004.  During her banking career, Nomi was managing director
   at Goldman Sachs and held posts at Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and the
  Chase Manhattan Bank. Her articles have appeared in Newsday, Fortune Magazine,
  The Guardian, LaVanguardia, The Left Business Observer and others places.
  She is a senior fellow at public policy group, Demos.
  
  Gordian Raacke is Executive Director of the Citizens  Advisory
  Panel,"Long  Island's Energy Watchdog." CAP promotes sustainable energy
  policies   for Long Island and advises Long
Island's  publicabout  ways to improve electrical service, mitigate rate
increases,  controlenergy  costs and conserve energy.
  
 Renee Toback is an economist and a federal employee activein  the
NationalTreasury Employees’ Union. She teaches at Empire State   College
  and works   with Economy Connection (URPE) and the NLC, an anti-sweatshop
 research and   action group.
  

 *
  
 
 THE CHANGING STRUCTURE OF CAPITALISM:
 JOB LOSSES AND CLASS STRUGGLES
 
 Wednesday April 21
 
  Since the end of the Postwar period of prosperity in the early
1970s,capitalists  have intensified their efforts to increase profits.
A major   focus has involved  restructuring jobs: destroying unions and lowering
wages,   moving industrial  jobs to low-wage regions of the US and the world,
promoting   prison and workfare  labor, and exploiting immigrants. And IBM's
recent announcement   of plans to send thousands of high-paying programming
jobs abroad has drawn   attention  to the vulnerability of professionals and
other highly-paid workers,   who are now seeing themselves as part of the
"race to the bottom." Our panelists   will provide information on some areas
of the changing job scene: outsourcing,job migration, immigrant labor,
prison labor and workfare. They will explorewhy these changes are happening
now, whether they are permanent, how theyare affecting people in other
countries, what future trends might be, andwhat they mean to capitalism
and to those organizing against its devastatingeffects. They will talk
about whether these concrete changes in jobs implychanges in class position,
class perception, and strategies for resistance.
  
 SPEAKERS:
  
   Bhairavi Desai is a founding member, organizer, and executive
  director of the NY Taxi Workers Alliance.
   
   Joan Hoffman is a professor of economics at John Jay College
 of  Criminal Justice, and author of articles on women and crime.
   
 Ali Mir teaches information systems at William Paterson university.
  His   recent work has focused on immigration issues, international division

Spreading the wealth around

2004-03-30 Thread Louis Proyect

Name/Occupation/Employer: Donald J. Trump/President/The Trump Organization
Address: 725 5th Ave
New York, NY 10022
Contribution: John Kerry, $2,000
Name/Occupation/Employer: Donald J. Trump/President/The Trump Organization
Address: 725 5th Ave
New York, NY 10022
Contribution: George W. Bush, $2,000
from:

--

The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

Style over substance

2004-03-30 Thread Louis Proyect

NY Times, March 30, 2004
Give Me a Rebel, but Hold the Politics
By GINIA BELLAFANTE
Sam & Seb is a children's clothing store in the Williamsburg section of 
Brooklyn that specializes in the sort of garments, tiny Levi's, baby 
Dries van Noten tops — that have been created with the assumption that 
3-year-olds don't want to look 3. But a while back the store's owner, 
Simone Manwarring, began getting requests for an item that was unusual 
even by those standards.

"Lots of parents were coming in and saying, `Hey, wouldn't it be great 
to have a Che T-shirt?' " Ms. Manwarring said. By Che, the parents 
meant, of course, the Argentine-born Cuban revolutionary executed by 
Bolivians in 1967, whose beret-wearing image once adorned college 
dormitories from Berkeley to the Sorbonne. Ms. Manwarring started making 
the shirts, with sizes even for a 3-month-old. She now sells about 10 a 
week.

The Che industry has been fairly robust over the years, with keepsakes 
including posters, cigarette lighters, watches and nail clippers sold in 
many parts of the world. But lately it is clothing with the image of the 
rebel, from the iconic photo taken in 1960 by Alberto Korda, that seems 
ever more coveted as street wear. It has turned up on Moscow artists and 
on 11-year-old boys in the New York suburbs. In the last six months, 
sales of fitted T-shirts, loose T-shirts, tank tops, hooded sweatshirts, 
caps and camp shirts have increased by about 40 percent at 
Thechestore.com, said John Trigiani, the company's owner. Mr. Trigiani 
began selling Che paraphernalia about five years ago after he returned 
home to Toronto from Cuba with a statuette he had bought for $2, and 
resold on eBay for $128.

Why the renewed interest in Che, when so many communist governments have 
failed? Mr. Trigiani said, "I think there are many reasons for this and 
one of them is Mike Tyson."

A few years ago, the prizefighter got a picture of Che etched onto his 
rib cage. Other catalysts include two coming movies, one "The Motorcycle 
Diaries," based on the journals Che kept during his travels through 
South America as a medical student in 1952. That film appeared at the 
Sundance Film Festival in January and is due in theaters later this 
year. The second film, an epic called "Che" to be directed by Terrence 
Malick, is beginning production next year.

Revolutionary ideology seems to have almost nothing to do with the 
emerging Che style, which is manifest also in men's sweaters, high-end 
bikinis and underwear. "I met a college student who wanted the T-shirts, 
and she had absolutely no idea who Che was," Mr. Trigiani said.

The image seems mostly a visually compelling logo to those who are 
buying Che-wear today. "Mao Zedong's is another head we're thinking of," 
Ms. Manwarring said. "Both of these have become strong pop cultural 
images; I don't think people want these things on their clothes as a 
political statement but I think they are drawn to the graphic intensity."

Patrick Symmes, the author of "Chasing Che: A Motorcycle Journey in 
Search of the Guevara Legend," said, "I think the more that time goes 
by, the chicer and chicer Che gets because the less he stands for 
anything."

About two years ago, Mr. Symmes said, he discovered a bar in London 
called Che. "It's ultradeluxe and a young guy was the owner," Mr. Symmes 
said, referring to Hani Farsi, a wealthy Saudi Arabian. "I asked him, 
`Why Che?' and he answered, `Oh you know, rebellion and all that.' "

--

The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

utopianism

[was: RE: [PEN-L] Job flight]

Carroll wrote:>That's one reason socialists should for the most part emphasize the
negative in their agitation and propaganda. Guesses about what will be
"good" in the future are mostly sort of silly. But we can know with intensity what is 
not to be tolerated in the present.<

alas, utopianism -- the creation of ideal alternatives to the system -- has never been 
absent from socialist movements. In the US, E.V. Debs's Socialist Party included lots 
of utopian ideas, including ideas from the Bellamyists. The Communist Party had the 
USSR, which it often portrayed in utopian terms. The Maoists did the same with China. 
(One time, a Maoist told me that since the revolution, there was no more mental 
illness in China!) The New Leftists had their utopian visions, sometimes attached to 
Cuba.[*] 

I see nothing wrong with utopian dreaming, as long as it's not seen as a matter of 
thinking up blueprints that _must_ be imposed. Rather, utopianism helps clarify what 
people are in favor of (not just getting rid of capitalism) and suggests ways that 
socialism might work in practice. Utopias should be matters for debate and discussion, 
not to be simply dismissed.

[*] BTW, even though it's a mistake to idealize such socialist experiments, it's good 
to defend them against imperialism.  

jim d.

Re: Job flight

2004-03-30 Thread Carrol Cox

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Inputs and outputs, though.  I certainly wouldn't want
> to live in a precapitalist economy or in most forms of
> Actually Existing Socialism,

After Marx returned from a vacation in Germany in which he had been well
entertained by some friends in the aristocracy there, someone asked him
how, given many of his enjoyments, he would be able to live in a
socialist society. His reply: I'll be dead by then.

The same same principle applies to thought about living in a
pre-capitalist society. There is no way we can judge how people born
into another mode of life would evaluate that mode of life.

That's one reason socialists should for the most part emphasize the
negative in their agitation and propaganda. Guesses about what will be
"good" in the future are mostly sort of silly. But we can know with
intensity what is not to be tolerated in the present.

Carrol

Re: Diversion of resources, Part II

but isn't the free market simply the embodiment of the military? or is it vice-versa?
;-)

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


First the military diverted specialized forces from Afghanistan to Iraq:

URL: http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20040329/6056156s.htm

And now the same process is being carried out by the free market:

URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/30/politics/30MILI.html

Michael

Re: U.S.-Led Coalition Shuts Down Iraq Paper

Charles Brown wrote:

It probably would have taken a civil war (i.e. "chaos") for Iraqis to
overthrow Saddam. Would those who now oppose U.S. withdrawal from Iraq
because it will lead to civil war have opposed a revolt against the
Baathists ?
Who opposes U.S. withdrawal from Iraq? The position of the Communist
Workers Party - and apparently that of many Iraqis - is for a UN
force without the U.S. to replace the U.S.
And if Iraqis had overthrown Saddam, that would have their
undertaking, not that of a foreign power, which destroyed the state
and most other institutions of Iraqi society.
Doug

Re: Good thing they're not splitting hairs

Michael Perelman writes: >A judge ruled today that some
lawyer doesn't have the right to the photographs of Vincent Foster's
dead body, which we certainly prove [?] that Hillary murdered him in cold
blood. <

strange bedfellows: the Bush admin. sided with the defender of Foster's privacy in 
order to protect similar "sensitive materials." 

BTW, I don't know why any proof is needed that Senator Clinton killed Foster with that 
ice-pick.


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

Re: Good thing they're not splitting hairs

2004-03-30 Thread Michael Perelman

Why then does this qualify as news.  A judge ruled today that some
lawyer doesn't have the right to the photographs of Vincent Foster's
dead body, which we certainly prove that Hillary murdered him in cold
blood.  I'm surprised that the press has left the Travelgate scandal
fall by the wayside.

All the while, Bush and his gang get a free ride.


On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 11:00:21AM -0500, Michael Pollak wrote:
> In today's Times one of Rice's minions, Franklin Miller, disputes Clarke's
> account of 9/11:
>
> 
>
> In Mr. Clarke's account, in a chapter called "Evacuate the White House,"
> he heads into the Situation Room at the first word of attack and begins
> issuing orders to close embassies and put military bases on a higher level
> of alert -- not the kind of operational details usually handled by the
> National Security Council staff. He describes how Mr. Miller came into the
> room, squeezed Mr. Clarke's bicep, and said, "Guess I'm working for you
> today. What can I do?"
>
> "I wouldn't say that," Mr. Miller said Monday. "I might say, 'How can I
> help.'"
>
> 
>
> Ah, well -- that changes everything.
>
> The whole article is like that:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/30/politics/30CLAR.html
>
> They really got nothin'.
>
> Michael

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

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

U.S.-Led Coalition Shuts Down Iraq Paper

2004-03-30 Thread Charles Brown

It probably would have taken a civil war (i.e. "chaos") for Iraqis to
overthrow Saddam. Would those who now oppose U.S. withdrawal from Iraq
because it will lead to civil war have opposed a revolt against the
Baathists ?

Charles

U.S.-Led Coalition Shuts Down Iraq Paper

2004-03-30 Thread Charles Brown

From: Bill Lear

Let me get this right: since only 1,000 out of 24 million came out for a
very vocal demonstration, that shows how cowed they are; therefore,10,000 in
the U.S., keeping proportions constant, shows the same thing?

^^

CB: Aren't a lot of Americans cowed ? ( As in standing around   chewing on a
cud. See recent reports on obesity in the U.S.)

Diversion of resources, Part II

First the military diverted specialized forces from Afghanistan to Iraq:

URL: http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20040329/6056156s.htm

And now the same process is being carried out by the free market:

URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/30/politics/30MILI.html

Michael

The power of the purse?

[From the Slate newsletter, "Today's Papers"]



USA Today leads with a poll that has President Bush ahead of Senator Kerry
49 percent to 45 percent with Ralph Nader at 4 percent. The poll claims
that in 17 battleground states where Bush has launched an ad barrage,
Kerry went from a 28 point lead to 6 points behind.

Good thing they're not splitting hairs

In today's Times one of Rice's minions, Franklin Miller, disputes Clarke's
account of 9/11:



In Mr. Clarke's account, in a chapter called "Evacuate the White House,"
he heads into the Situation Room at the first word of attack and begins
issuing orders to close embassies and put military bases on a higher level
of alert -- not the kind of operational details usually handled by the
National Security Council staff. He describes how Mr. Miller came into the
room, squeezed Mr. Clarke's bicep, and said, "Guess I'm working for you
today. What can I do?"

"I wouldn't say that," Mr. Miller said Monday. "I might say, 'How can I
help.'"



Ah, well -- that changes everything.

The whole article is like that:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/30/politics/30CLAR.html

They really got nothin'.

Michael

Re: Job flight

The trick is not getting in until 10:30 a.m.

-Original Message-
From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Henwood
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 10:22 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Job flight

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>Inputs and outputs, though.  I certainly wouldn't want to live in a
>precapitalist economy or in most forms of Actually Existing Socialism,
>but one argument that I always think ought to get more traction is that
>capitalism has singularly failed to shorten the working day.

I'm with you on that. But if there's more money to be made out of a longer
workday, the stinking capitalists will lengthen the workday.
And bend many of our minds around to thinking of it as normal. Even a petit
bourgeois radical such as myself didn't leave the office until 9:30 last
night.

Doug

Re: Job flight

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Inputs and outputs, though.  I certainly wouldn't want
to live in a precapitalist economy or in most forms of
Actually Existing Socialism, but one argument that I
always think ought to get more traction is that
capitalism has singularly failed to shorten the working
day.
I'm with you on that. But if there's more money to be made out of a
longer workday, the stinking capitalists will lengthen the workday.
And bend many of our minds around to thinking of it as normal. Even a
petit bourgeois radical such as myself didn't leave the office until
9:30 last night.
Doug

Re: Job flight

2004-03-30 Thread dsquared

Inputs and outputs, though.  I certainly wouldn't want
to live in a precapitalist economy or in most forms of
Actually Existing Socialism, but one argument that I
always think ought to get more traction is that
capitalism has singularly failed to shorten the working
day.  A lot of people intuitively realise that there is
something wrong here; we were promised robot slaves and
unlimited leisure time in the comic books, and now the
space age is here and we're still working like dogs.

I occasionally find it a sobering thought that my
grandfather lived in a two-up-two-down he could barely
afford and rose at 0530 every morning to get down to
the market, and now, after the social mobility afforded
to the third generation thanks to a very expensive
university and business school education, I find myself
living in a two-up-two-down I can barely afford,
getting up at 0530 in order to be ready for the market.

dd

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 14:01:49 -0500, Doug Henwood wrote:

>
> Compared to what? It's hard to argue with its capacity
> to grow,
> innovate, and produce cheaper commodities over the
> centuries - at a
> high social and ecological cost, for sure, but I don't
> think you can
> win the "efficiency" argument from the left. It has to
> be on other
> grounds.
>
> Doug

Milan Rai on UN occupation of Iraq

2004-03-30 Thread Charles Brown

From: Louis Proyect

-clip-

Marx and Engels supported the cause of Irish independence long before
Marxists like Connolly were involved. They did not extract promises from
bourgeois nationalists that they would expropriate the expropriators.


CB: We are in the U.S., the imperialist power that is waging war on Iraq. We
best not make strict demands on the Iraqi resistance movement, whereas an
Iraqi socialist might. Connolly as an Irish Marxist would have higher
demands than especially British Marxists , in analogy. Or Lenin was Great
White Russian and Rosa Luxemburg was Polish. Comrade Rosa L.  had stricter
demands on Polish national liberationists than Comrade V.I. The relation
between colonializer and colonialized impacts the analysis and the analyzer.

NYT: On the Hunt for Hearts and Minds