Re: Counting the poor
From: Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:32777] Counting the poor Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 10:30:35 -0500 HOW NOT TO COUNT THE POOR Sanjay G. Reddy and Thomas W. Pogge Abstract: The estimates of the extent, distribution and trend of global income poverty provided in the World Bank's World Development Reports for 1990 and 2000/01 are neither meaningful nor reliable. The Bank uses an arbitrary international poverty line unrelated to any clear conception of what poverty is. It employs a misleading and inaccurate measure of purchasing power "equivalence" that creates serious and irreparable difficulties for international and intertemporal comparisons of income poverty. It extrapolates incorrectly from limited data and thereby creates an appearance of precision that masks the high probable error of its estimates. The systematic distortion introduced by these three flaws likely leads to a large understatement of the extent of global income poverty and to an incorrect inference that it has declined. A new methodology of global poverty assessment is feasible and necessary. Full: http://www.columbia.edu/~sr793/count.pdf -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org Anyone had a look at this: http://www.iie.com/publications/publication.cfm?pub_id=348 ? -Frank G. _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Easterbrook's claims
I followed the link posted by Lou where Easterbrook review's Singer's new book: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0211.easterbrook.html Much of the article is not worth responding to, since it argues that "globalization" is good without bothering to define it. However, I was interested in the following claims: "And he notes that the main effect of NAFTA, denounced by the anti-globalization left as a tool of corporate oligarchs, has been the creation of relatively high-paying jobs in Mexico" I've read in several places that this not true or at least misleading (in particular in a book on NAFTA written by Mexican economist Alberto Arroyo and others), that many new jobs do not provide benefits and are of a precarious nature, and there continues to be high unemployment. Also the real minimum wage is down from 1993. Anyone know more about this? I suppose it depends partly on the meaning of "relatively high-paying", and how many jobs have actually been created. As usual, it also needs to be argued that things could not have been better without NAFTA. Also: "Average incomes there [in the developing world] almost doubled from 1975 to 1999; even if you subtract for oil-enriched developing nations with unusually high GDPs per capita, global average income rose" (Don't know about the data, but if you exclude India and East Asia, I suspect the story is much worse) and: "(And the endless "widening gap between rich and poor" in the United States? This is an artifact of the huge rise in legal immigration in the last two decades. Factor out the low incomes of the newly arrived foreign-born, and the gap between rich and poor Americans is shrinking. But that's a story for another day.)" Any comments on this? Note that the massive rise in immigration is at least in part due to global inequality and third world regression. -Frank G. _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Re: U.S. port closures batter Korea's economy
>From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [PEN-L:30986] Re: U.S. port closures batter Korea's economy >Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 12:50:45 -0400 > >Sabri Oncu wrote: > >>It appears that Korea is not doing well in these days. I remember >>that my first exchange on PEN-L was with Brad DeLong. I just >>casually wrote, without giving any reasons, at the time that >>Korea was at risk and he said, without giving any reasons other >>than quoting the Economist, that the IMF bailout of Korea worked >>fine. I wonder if he can say the same now. > >Joseph Stiglitz says Korea's doing well because it ignored the IMF's >advice. Does anyone really know what's going on there? > >Doug The following papers by left-Keynesian James Crotty et. al. may help: http://www.umass.edu/peri/pdfs/PS5.pdf http://www.umass.edu/peri/pdfs/WP23.pdf http://www.umass.edu/peri/pdfs/PS9.pdf From: http://www.umass.edu/peri/research.html#gm -Frank G. _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
Re: Brazil's Debt Menaces U.S. Markets
>From: Sabri Oncu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: PEN-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ALIST <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [PEN-L:30749] Brazil's Debt Menaces U.S. Markets >Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:01:17 -0700 > >Brazil's Debt Menaces U.S. Markets It's important to keep in mind that although the pubilc debt/GDP ratio is most often mentioned, public debt service/Govt. Income seems to me to be most important. El Salvador's dept. as a portion of GDB is under 50% (and over 40%) _but_ annual debt service is 72% of annual taxes (and over 50% of total income). High debt service leads to low public investment thus less education, health, infrastructure etc.. If these standards drop it can cause significant social unrest as Argentina showed once draconian measures were taken to continue servicing the debt (public employee salary cuts, firings etc.). The same goes for military spending in Latin America. It might be lower as a percentage of GDP than in many other places, but still high as a part of the budget relative to social needs. >(Published in the October issue of Bloomberg Markets.) -Frank G. _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Re: Re: Comments on CAFTA etc.
>From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [PEN-L:30492] Re: Comments on CAFTA etc. >Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 18:54:41 -0700 > >What could possibly make the leadership of a country move in this >direction? Are they merely going for personal gain or fear of retribution >from the US? Are they stupid? >-- >Michael Perelman >Economics Department >California State University >Chico, CA 95929 > >Tel. 530-898-5321 >E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael, the situation is complex and confusing. I am not completely sure what the ruling class and its servants in the right wing parties have been thinking. It appears a combination of stupidity and self-service/corruption. I don't think U.S. retribution is feared, since it seems that service to the U.S. is pretty much reflexive and not based on fear. To be honest I've not had the chance to investigate in depth what the ruling sectors plan. I do know that the financial elite, which includes the most powerful families (the notorious "7 families" that replaced the mythical "14 families" of the past), wants to convert the country into a financial platform for Central America. Up until now collapse has been avoided by 2 pillars: the maquilas and informal sector for mass employment and U.S. emigration+remittances from emigrants. AFAIK remittances stand at around $2 billion annually and keep many people afloat. Moreover the large banks offer delivery of remittances with commission from the U.S. and this has become a fountain of accumulation. So I guess that the plan is to keep expelling people as much as possible and have them send remittances to bail out the people who stay. Also since neoliberalism has failed, there might just be a lack of an alternative plan that brings enough benefits to the rest of the population to avoid social explosion while further enriching the oligarchs. The FTA with the U.S. might be a last ditch effort. The country is basically ruled by decree over a depoliticized population. In the last presidential elections, around 40% of eligible voters came out and opinion polls show that most people are disillusioned with all politics and place their hopes on either "the north" (emigration to the U.S.) or "God". Also polls show that most people feel that nothing significant has been done to relieve poverty or better the economic situation. Yet the bizarre fact is that despite the suffering, the president continues to receive high approval ratings! Part of the explanation appears to lie in that many in the population don't believe that the president and his ARENA party are responsible. The rule by decree is done through kickbacks on the one hand and the subordination of the 3 right wing parties at the congressional level on the other. Together, ARENA, the PDC (Christian Democrats, a hollow shell of their former selves) and the notoriously corrupt PCN (National Concilliation Party, which used to be the electoral face of the military dictatorship) constitute a majority in the National Assembly and pretty much pass whatever the executive sends them. Part of this is a cultural inheritance of the dicatorial past and the way politics has always been done here. Many people are politically unsophisticated and vote for parties without serious consideration for platforms and principles (i.e. because their friends vote for X, or they hold nationalist or anticommunist values, misunderstand the way the parties behave in the real world etc.) thus sustaining the PDC-ARENA-PCN dictatorship. As for the left and its failures and successes, that may be a topic of a future post. I'll just say that there has not been leadership, at least I've seen little, to construct organized mass opposition. -Frank G. _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Comments on CAFTA etc.
>From what I've read in the U.S. press, there seems to be silence with respect to the forthcoming CAFTA. Here in El Salvador, it has demogogically been sold as a panacea (ditto with dollarization) to a population that hardly understands what is involved. The central government has generated quite alot of confusion as well, having managed to convince sectors of the business community that the agreement would be in their interests when it probably is not. Unfortunately I missed an opportunity to attend a talk given by an economist/negotiator at a university so that I could hear the theoretical rationalizations. I think it would be good to monitor the progress of the CAFTA on pen-l. The absurd and infantile enthusiasm displayed by the government when the possibility of a "free trade" (read:investment and intellectual property rights protection agreement) agreement was announced (Not to mention the passing of TPA. The press and national gov. "forgot" to mention that negotiation is possible _without_ TPA. Anyway this government hardly cares to negotiate as much as it would like to sign whatever is sent their way by the U.S. Trade Reps) is part of a larger grotesquely pro-imperial position. As the Central American University's publication "Processo" notes, the policy of submission to the United States by President Flores is almost explicit. This is the same "nationalist" ruling party that dollarized the economy and allowed a "counterdrug" base to be set up by the U.S. and we have a vice president who seems to spend more time promoting an false image of E.S. in the United States than he does here. The president was also chosen to appear before the G-8 and is considered by the White House to be a "key" partner in promoting a Central American Trade Agreement (IOW, the country is to be utilized as a regional proxy for U.S. policy goals). Though mentioned several times in speeches by U.S. spokespeople as a "free market success story", the country has had anemic growth for the last 5 years and desperation amongst the middle class and many rural workers is clear. Violent crime is extremely high, inflation has chewed away and estimated 14% of purchasing power over the last 4 years when the min. wage has been frozen, the semi privatized electrical sector and privatized telephone companies continue hiking rates and formal sector employment is probably around 50%. Even the narrow goals of the export-oriented neoliberal model are a grand failure. Non-traditional exports outside of Central America as a percentage of GDP has _dropped_ over the last 13 years of neoliberal policy (but tax breaks and subsidies to oligarquic companies exporting non-traditional goods outside of C.A. _continue to this day_). Foreign investment is very low, possibly (but don't quote me on this) the lowest proportional level in Central America. Social investment is amongst the lowest in Latin America as a percentage of the budget and the tax/GDP ratio is AFAIK the second lowest just behind Guatemala. The rest of Central Am. is hardly in a "peachy" state either and this fact is cynically manipulated by the national gov.. We are fine, apparently because everyone else is so screwed... More later, since I must be leaving -Frank G. _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Rodrik
Since we´ve been discussing dissident "mainstream" economists on the list recently (Stiglitz, Krguman v. neoliberalism in Lat Am), I thought it was worth mentioning Dani Rodrik, who surprisingly has yet to be brought up. He has certainly critiziced global neoliberalism. His book, "The New Global Economy and Developing Countries: Making Openness Work" (which I´ve read in Spanish) roundly attacks the idea of liberalization-as-an-end as well as "export fetishism" and argues that complementary domestic institutions are needed for succesful international integration. He´s also co-written a paper critizing the open-trade=growth connection http://papers.nber.org/papers/w7081. Some other working papers are up at http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/pubwzAuthor?OpenForm&Start=1&Count=1000&Expand=35&Seq=1 Comments? -Frank G. _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Friendly Fascism, Counterterrorism and the embrace of Trotsky
This is just bizarre. >From Military Review: Cashiering Freedom for Security: Lessons in Modern Terrorism J. Michael Brower "Reflecting on the indispensability of the terrorist technique in 1920, Leon Trotsky, the first Soviet Commissar for War, wrote about the issue while on a military train during Russia's bloody civil war (1918-1922)." "Trotsky knew how to deal with terrorismtake terror to the terrorists. As the price of security, albeit with trepidation and reluctance, U.S. citizens must cashier some freedoms, much treasure, and many lives. Since terrorists have declared a perpetual war on America, America must place itself on a permanent war footing against them. " Full (It gets better): http://www-cgsc.army.mil/milrev/english/MayJun02/insights%20brower.asp _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Re: Jim Blaut on world systems analysis
>From: Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [PEN-L:29024] Jim Blaut on world systems analysis >Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 18:56:12 -0400 > >(From the late Jim Blaut's regrettably out-of-print "The National >Question". Sharp readers will notice a strong affinity between >Wallerstein's world systems perspective and the one put forward by >Hardt-Negri in "Empire") > >A second national-states-are-out-of-date position is associated with >metaphysical neo-Marxists like Giovanni Arrighi, Immanuel Wallerstein, and >their associates at the Fernand Braudel Center for the Study of Economies, >Historical Systems, and Civilizations, of the State University of New York. >This position or family of related positions, mystifies, or re-mystifies, >capitalism, so that it be something different from and greater in scale >than all the merely em processes taking place on the earth's surface. > >Wallerstein's group employs what it calls 'world system analysis'. This is >a form of neo-Marxism distinguished --I employ caricature here, but not >unfairly so-- by its insistence that the capitalist world system, at the >global scale, determines all processes, such as politics, and all >part-regions, such as states. This is very close to pure Hegelian holism. >The capitalist world-system is not defined by its parts and their >interrelations. Rather, this system is something greater than parts and >relations, and it determines their nature, behaviour, and historical >evolution. 'It' is not empirically identified, and thus closely resembles >Hegel's undefinable 'world spirit' (and other undiscoverable entities of >romantic philosophy, like the 'life force'). Marx's critique of Hegel's >mystical and holistic theory of the state as might serve also as a critique >of the metaphysics of 'world-system analysis' > >In any event, the 'world-system' school puts forward some empirical >propositions which supposedly derive from the higher 'world-system' >processes and which have concrete and troublesome meaning in the real >world, not least for national liberation struggles. First, since the >capitalist world system maintains in some mysterious way a hegemonic >control of political processes throughout the world, no state exists >outside its sphere of control, and no state in the entire therefore, is >really socialist. Second, sovereignty is an illusion, since the overarching >world system controls all states. Third, decolonization did no result from >liberation movements, nor these from the peculiarities of colonial >oppression and superexploitation; rather, decolonization occurred simply >when the capitalist world-system had entered a cyclic phase -- Wallerstein >believes firmly in repetitive historical cycles - in which 'informal >empire' seemed more desirable than colonies. Fourth, and by the same token, >all anticolonial revolutions, without exception, have failed to achieve >fundamental social change. And finally, as of summing-up of all of the >foregoing, the state is not of fundamental importance and struggles for >state-sovereignty are somewhat frivolous. > >A related position is Giovanni Arrighi's peculiar 'geometry' of world >processes under capitalism. Arrighi is an admitted Kantian, and he believes >that the basic forces determining the historical trajectory of the modern >world are ultimately spatial, in an absolutist, Newtonian or Kantian sense. >Thus he deduces what he calls the 'crisis of the nation-state', the latter >seen as a mere spatial cell in the geometry of the world. In this geometry, >scalar forces like imperialism -- Hobson's concept, not Lenin's, which >Arrighi dismisses - are seen as acting independently of other scalar forces >like capitalism. The 'crisis of the nation-state' derives from these >worldscale absolute-spatial forces, which seem likely soon to erase states >from the geometrician's blackboard. In sum, these are two forms of >neo-Marxism which postulate not empirically observable processes, but >world-embracing metaphysical forces, as the explanation for what one >theorist (Arrighi) believes to be the decline of the national state and the >other (Wallerstein) the insignificance of the state and of struggles to >control it. > >-- > >Louis Proyect >www.marxmail.org I´m no expert (there´s that word again) in WS analysis, my knowledge of it stemming entirely from reading some of the papers on the FBC site and numerous articles in the Journal of World Systems Research. From what I have read though, some of the above misrepresents the claims being made by WS theorists, but it is difficult to properly respond to the interpretations without having any citations or extracts from Wallerstein´s and Arrighi´s works to back them up. Basically, I thought that WS scholars do claim that the global economy should be understood as an interdependent system, and that nation-state level
Re: RE: convergence?
>From: "Davies, Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [PEN-L:28988] RE: convergence? >Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 08:40:41 +0100 > >[comments?} > >Sala-i-Martin is a good lad; he's a Catalonian Nationalist and thus >familiar >to me from my short Welsh Nash period as a writer of tracts on the economic >viability of small European nations. But the obvious point is that this is >a piece of doublespeak from the Economist; the trick is to refer to South >Korea and Indonesia as "Globalisers", and then not to say a word about the >progress of the neoliberal agenda in China and India. In actual fact, >Sala-i-Martin's piece could be read as saying that, after a couple of >decades, the only reason that the neoliberal policy mix hasn't had >absolutely horrendous effects is that the two largest developing countries >had the good sense to reject it. > >as the world spins ... > >dd I was thinking the same re:neoliberalism and China and India. Also Korea and Indonesia are indeed worse off (not more unequal) after Korea "globalised" its capital flows helping set off a crisis that Indonesia, AFAIK has yet to recover from. Just a "minor" omission, I suppose. Also, El Salvador is a rapid "globaliser" by any measure (tariffs were rapidly slashed over 6 years, several free trade agreements signed, rapid internal liberalization, etc.) and the results include more inequality, 500-600 people leaving a day for the U.S, stagnant economy, egregiously low tax collection (and worsening due to the FTAs), colossal trade defecit, strangulation of the political system by compradors, and more. Nevertheless, U.S. govt spokesmen continues to refer to it as a model of economic reform in various public statements. Go figure. > >___ >Email Disclaimer > >This communication may contain confidential or privileged information and >is for the attention of the named recipient only. >It should not be passed on to any other person. >Information relating to any company or security, is for information >purposes >only and should not be interpreted as a solicitation or offer to buy or >sell >any security. The information on which this communication is based has >been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable, but we do not >guarantee its accuracy or completeness. All expressions of opinion are >subject to change without notice. All e-mail messages, and associated >attachments, are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business >purposes. (c) 2002 Cazenove Service Company or affiliates. > > >Cazenove & Co. Ltd and Cazenove Fund Management Limited provide independent >advice and are regulated by the Financial Services Authority and members of >the >London Stock Exchange. > >Cazenove Fund Management Jersey is a branch of Cazenove Fund Management >Limited >and is regulated by the Jersey Financial Services Commission. > >Cazenove Investment Fund Management Limited, regulated by the Financial >Services >Authority and a member of IMA, promotes only its own products and services. > > >___ _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Re: convergence?
>From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: "Pen-l (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [PEN-L:28969] convergence? >Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 14:34:29 -0700 > >[comments?] > >THE ECONOMIST / July 20, 2002 > >Convergence, period > >MOST people who have a view on the matter--regardless of whether they are >critics of globalisation or advocates--accept that global inequality is >getting worse. Most official agencies either say or seem to suppose that >global inequality is rising. In a new paper* on the subject, Xavier >Sala-i-Martin of Columbia University [who sometimes works with right-wing >economist Robert Barro] quotes the typical and widely cited United Nations >Human Development Report. In 1999 this said: > >"In 1960, the 20% of the world's people in the richest countries had 30 >times the income of the poorest 20%. In 1997, 74 times as much. This >continues the trend of nearly two centuries. Some have predicted >convergence, but the past decade has shown increasing concentration of >income among people, corporations and countries". > >How does the UN know that global inequality has grown much worse? First, >its >economists say, inequality has worsened within countries. Second, >inequality >has worsened across countries. From these two things, the UN reckons, it >follows, third, that inequality among the people of the world is rising as >well. > >Mr Sala-i-Martin agrees that inequality has probably increased, on average, >within countries. The picture is not clear-cut, however. Inequality has >gone >up in some countries and down in others. (Rapid globalisation does not push >all one way: emerging-market globalisers such as South Korea and Indonesia >have seen inequality fall.) The vagueness of "globalisation" makes for unclear arguments. >On the whole, though, the author reckons that >within-country inequality has most likely gone up during recent decades. > >What about inequality across countries? On this, the UN neglects an >important point. If you measure incomes in terms of purchasing power rather >than at market exchange rates, incomes are a lot more equal. (The reason is >that the cost of living is lower in poor countries.) When the UN says that >the incomes of the richest 20% were 30 times bigger than the incomes of the >poorest 20% in 1960, and 74 times bigger in 1997, it is using market >exchange rates. In purchasing-power terms, the corresponding ratios were 11 >and 15. Despite the fall after 1980 (when the ratio was 16) the trend for >the period as a whole is nonetheless up. This is an important point, but using PP certainly seems to have problems. There is no way to measure PP definitively just as there is no way to measure inflation definitively, is there? Anyway, if I have $100 in the bank and you have $100, then I am still richer if we´re both in the same country. AFAIK imported products do not cost less in poor countries (leaving out transportation costs and tarriffs). A Japanese VCR should cost the same in Pakistan as it does in the U.S. This does not impact "costs of living" but it does matter when we´re talking about inequality. Of course inequality in access to goods and services (not inequality in hypothetical capacity to buy) and unequal levels of unemployment, infrastructure quality etc. are not measured. >Yet another measure (the cross-country variance of income per head) >confirms >this. Over the past 30 years, rich countries have grown richer and most of >the very poorest have stayed very poor. This is the pattern that Harvard's >Lant Pritchett referred to in the title of his well-known paper, >"Divergence, Big Time". > >But hang on. Given propositions one and two--rising within-country >inequality, and rising across-country inequality--it does not follow, as >you >might suppose, that global inequality itself is rising. Why not? > >Mr Sala-i-Martin explains. Imagine that five-sixths of the world's >population live in poor and stagnant economies, and one-sixth in rich >fast-growing ones. In across-country terms, this gives you "divergence, big >time". Now imagine that one poor but very populous economy starts to grow >very quickly. At the same time, inequality within this country worsens >somewhat. > >Despite its size, this country is only one data-point in the across-country >comparisons: its rapid growth is not enough to make any difference to >divergence. So you have rising within-country inequality and rising >across-country inequality. Yet one-sixth of the world's population, by >assumption, is seeing its incomes rise rapidly towards those of the rich. >Inequality measured across all the people of the world, therefore, may very >well be falling. > >A far-fetched case? No, Mr Sala-i-Martin points out, this is exactly what >has been happening. The big poor country growing very fast is China. (India >has also been doing pretty well.) If you simply weight the across-country >measures of divergence by population,
Re: Re: Reading List
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [PEN-L:27113] Re: Reading List >Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 14:47:26 EDT > >In a message dated 6/22/02 9:10:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time, >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > A reader of my web site asks for a list of suggested > > books on economics for the lay person. I'd like to > > post such a list and hereby ask for nominees. I already > > post organizations that publish material. I also posted > > all the home pages I could find of URPE and other folks > > left of center (like PK!). If you have a home page with > > papers or articles that can be downloaded, let me know. > > > > The only totally totally obvious nominee to me is > > The Worldly Philosophers, so don't bother with that one. > > > > thanks, > > max > > >What?! No Marx?? I suppose "Capital" and other major works are too >intimidating for the average lay person these days, but how about at least >these two items which are a good introduction to the concept of surplus >value: > >1. "Value, Price and Profit" (1865) >2. "Wage-Labor and Capital" (as updated by Engels in 1891) > >And I can't imagine a reasonable introductory list of readings on political >economy that does not include: > >3. Lenin: "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism" > >--Scott Harrison Paul Ormerod: _The Death of Economics_ _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
Re: Re: Leave the dollar alone
>From: Sabri Oncu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: PEN-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [PEN-L:26929] Re: Leave the dollar alone >Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 23:38:26 -0700 > > > There may be a legitimate role for government > > in limiting excessive volatility, but if underlying > > economic fundamentals do not drive the exchange > > rate, what is the basis of our confidence in the > > market system? > >Can some economist friends make an attempt to answer the above >question of Stiglitz? >From Samir Amin´s "Economic Globalism and Political Universalism: Conflicting Issues?" (excellent paper IMO) http://csf.colorado.edu/jwsr/archive/vol6/number3/pdf/jwsr-v6n3-amin.pdf " The market is invoked in mainstream discourse just as supernatural forces are invoked elsewhere, forces to which individual human beings and society as a whole are supposedly subjected. They summon one to believe in the market, because the market, and only the market, reveals the true values of the hamburger and the automobile, of the square meter of living space in the metropolis, the hectare of rice fi eld, the barrel of petrol, the exchange rate of the dollar, the work hour of the factory laborer in Asia or that of the Wall Street broker, the true price that must be paid to gain access to medical care, university education, to the web, etc. " (pg. 583) " In the reality of the world, we also have countries, states, nations (call them what you want), a reality we will probably live with for quite some time. A diversity of national or pluri-national currencies necessarily comes with this plurality of political power. However, mainstream economists assure us that since money is a commodity like any other, it carries a price the equilibrium exchange ratewhich assures external balance; and that the market, if deregulated, makes it possible to ascertain the true price the currency. Yet none of the numerous Nobel prize laureates expert on this subject is capable of fi nding an answer to this simple question: what the true price of the dollar expressed in yen that the market would have revealed to us? 80 or 380 yen? " (pg.588) > > Perhaps we can now begin to think more seriously > > about creating an international economic system > > that acknowledges the devastating effects that > > market volatility among major currencies has on > > less developed countries, and that ensures greater > > stability. > >Also, if you begin to think about an international economic >system that ensures stability, taking the current conditions as >its intial conditions, what kind of a system would your suggested >system be? Might be good to check out Keynes´s original but rejected international monetary system proposed after WWII. I´m sure Paul Davidson has loads on this. >Best, >Sabri _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Re: RE: RE: Re: PK on race to the bottom (a different one)
>From: "Max Sawicky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [PEN-L:26711] RE: RE: Re: PK on race to the bottom (a different >one) >Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:17:43 -0400 > >Tariffs were an important source of Federal revenue >in the olden days. > >mbs > >\ They still are an important source of govt income in some LDCs. I wonder if this fact escapes most proponents of "free trade" for the periphery. -Frank G _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Re: Re: Invitation to NAFTA for Poland (July'92) - request forhelp
>From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [PEN-L:26696] Re: Invitation to NAFTA for Poland (July'92) - >request for help >Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 16:02:27 -0700 > >I am sorry that nobody has responded to your reqest. Probably, the reason >is >that we know little about Poland. Maybe you can educate us over time. >Apologies. > >Zbigniew Baniewski wrote: > > > Hallo, > > > > I would to ask someone of you for help in obtaining of closer >informations > > about invitation for Poland to join NAFTA, made by pres. Bush(father) > > during his visit in Poland at 5th of July in 1992? Didn't found anything > > at bushlibrary. Could be possible for someone of you to get the whole > > text of the invitation (or of the speech, which supposingly contained >it) > > - or of the other materials describing the accident (some press comments > > from that time)? > > > > pozdrawiam / regards > > > > Zbigniew Baniewski > >-- > >Michael Perelman >Economics Department >California State University >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Chico, CA 95929 >530-898-5321 >fax 530-898-5901 A brief search at www.firstgov.gov with "NAFTA Poland" seemed to turn up nothing. Probably if the speech is old enough it wouldn't be archived anyway (I'm not pretending to be thorough here). You might want to check www.doc.gov (U.S dept. of commerce) and http://www.doc.gov/International_Trade/ or the library of congress at www.loc.gov but otherwise I have no ideas. BTW I'd be interested in hearing more about Poland's political economy. I heard that the left parties wish to return to industrial policy and hence abandon neoliberalism. -Frank G. _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Office of the USTR on NAFTA
From: http://www.ustr.gov/releases/2002/05/2002-05-28-Statement.htm NAFTA FREE TRADE COMMISSION: JOINT STATEMENT "A Foundation for Future Growth" A gem: "As we look back over the eight years since NAFTA entered into force, we are pleased with its unconditional success. The Agreement has brought economic growth and rising standards of living for people in all three countries" Later I will be posting some extracts from Congressional Committee hearings and other statements from U.S. govt officials that more honestly explain the motivation for the FTAA. -Frank G _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
El Salvador's monopoly capitalism
Michael expressed some desire to hear from other people on the list who are familiar with the economic situation in other countries. That said, I'll throw two cents in about the situation in El Salvador. The concentration of wealth and investment flows has reached extraordinary levels- I don't have any reliable stats handy but the wealth concentration may in fact be higher than pre-insurgency period save for agriculture whose share in national production has sharply dropped anyway. The new power base is the banking system in which 4 banks owned by the ruling class control 83% of the market. Moreover they compete for the delivery of the massive remittances that flow in from abroad, these actually being the main income source of the country. All other significant sectors, to my knowledge, are fully oligopolized or monopolized (cement and beer being notable- both are regularly protected in our "Free Trade Agreements"). In fact, the directive organ of the ruling neoliberalism-at-all-costs ARENA party has been DIRECTLY TAKEN OVER BY THE RULING CLASS. Even founding members and certain political ideologues have been expelled. Actually the party president is also the president of the largest private bank in central america and replaced another prominent businessman who recently resigned. These developments are most interesting. Aside from this, the country is approaching unsustainable Argentine-style debt. I attended a recent meeting of some leading economists which brought to my attention the gravity of the situation. Throw in the fact that the economy has been unconstitutionally dollarized (without a shred of consultation with the rest of the population) and you've got a recipe for default within a few years. Actually the banks have apparantly bought a good deal of govt bonds since their returns are tax free (corporate taxes here are flat 25% annually- banks pay 11% average). Also the pension system is in deep s*** though I know less about this. Seems the oligarchy is aiming for a last-ditch-attempt at salvation (dunno how though) through the signing of a NAFTA-clone with the United States. Given the colossal trade defecit we already have it hardly seems that this would do any good. But what the hell, they can always move their money to banks in Miami. I'll throw in more later. As a whole, the future hardly looks bright for Central America, I'm afraid to say. -Frank G., San Salvador. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
Sustainable development
"Brazil´s Elites Fly Above Their Fears" [...] Despite a lackluster economy, a $2 billion-a-year security industry is thriving across Brazil. Brazilians are armoring and bulletproofing an estimated 4,000 cars a year, twice as many as in Colombia, which is in the midst of a 38-year-old civil war. A wealthy Sao Paulo businessman, who spoke on the condition his name be withheld, said he allows his daughter to boogie at nightclubs only under the eyes of a commando turned bodyguard. In a city where the wealthy are known for ostentation, many are now buying low-profile economy cars to fool kidnappers and thieves. [...] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42332-2002May31.html -Frank G. _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
Fortune on Pakistan
"Pakistan: Kidnapped Nation" http://www.fortune.com/indexw.jhtml?channel=artcol.jhtml&doc_id=207350 _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
>From: Sabri Oncu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: PEN-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [PEN-L:24781] Re: BLS Daily Report >Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 16:19:02 -0700 > > >From today's BLS daily report: > > > Education increases income, says USA Today, > > in its page 3B box showing median household > > income, based on education. According to it, > > households in which there is a professional > > degree have an income of $100,000; those with > > a doctorate degree, $97,325; households in > > which there is a Masters degree have an income > > of $74,476; those with a bachelor's degree > > $64,406; households with an associate degree, > > $49,279; those with some college, no > > degree, $44,149; households that include a > > high school graduate, $35,744; households with > > an education consisting of ninth to 12th grade, > > $21,737, and households that include someone > > with below a ninth grade education, $17,261. > > Income is based on 1999 data from the U.S. > > Census and the College Board. > >Here is an anecdote from a former "hiring authority": > >Not that long ago, I was asked to hire a few recent graduates for >some data entry jobs. Without exception, the ones I hired were >very smart young fellows with bachelor' s degrees from >respectable universities like UC Berkeley, Brown, Tulane and the >like. What these young fellows with degrees in economics, >physics, mathematics, engineering and the like were making were >about $25,000 or so. Most of these young men and women accepted >the jobs because they were interested in some experience that >would help them go to an MBA program. > >Now, how does this compare to the above mentioned $64,406 for the >median household with a bachelor's degree? What kind of a >household is this median household and how relevant it is to look >at the median in this context? > >By the way, you don't need degrees in those areas for data entry, >nor you have any hope to save enough to apply for an MBA degree >at a "decent" school here in Berkeley, unless your family has the >means to support you. So most of these young men and women were >stuck with boring jobs with nowhere to go. > >Hey, I also hired a few science Ph.Ds from very respectable >schools for boring programing jobs (Ravi would know what I mean >if I say they were required to write FORTRAN programs) for about >$50K. > >Something is wrong with this USA Today picture or was I working >at a firm/firms from Mars? > >Sabri The income is by household, not individual. I´d be interested in seeing disaggregations of this data by college major, college attended, GPA, etc. What explains the large difference between "some college attended", "bachelor´s degree" and "associate degree"? Sabri mentions that he hired econ, math, and physics majors for data entry for $25,000 a year, which raises the question:what is the median income for "useless" (I know that they are not actually useless and many intelligent people choose to study these fields, but they are not immediately "marketable" or apparently much in demand by business) undergrad majors such as these? _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Re: Wade vs Wolf
>From: "Ian Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [PEN-L:23494] Wade vs Wolf >Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:21:17 -0800 > >< http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk > >Are global poverty and inequality getting worse? [snip] > > > > >You are convinced that the World Bank has cooked the data on >poverty and inequality. You need to produce chapter and verse to >substantiate such a serious charge, but have failed to do so. >That is not good enough. All you assert is that we do not know >what has happened to poverty and inequality, not that they have >become worse. I note also that you have not taken up my offer to >explain how we are to reduce absolute gaps in living standards >in the near future. We should remember that it´s crucial to take into account _how good progress has been_ (rates of poverty reduction) rather than absolute poverty reduction only. All of these data ignore other data that is virtually unmeasurable, such as how happy people feel in general, how secure, at peace, crime rates and individual atomisation, etc.. >I accept that infant-industry promotion, buttressed by trade >restrictions, may occasionally accelerate economic growth. >However, the record on the use of such policies in developing >countries is, with few exceptions, dreadful. This seems flat-out wrong to me. Isn´t "infant-industry promotion, buttressed by trade restrictions" the only way any country has ever industrialised ,including all of Southeast Asia and India, or am I way off here? Also it seems to me that in many ways the import substitution regime in Latin America, however flawed, seemed to progress at a faster pace than the current neoliberal model. Yet even though >liberalisation of protectionist trade policy regimes is good for >developing countries, I don't claim it is a panacea. > >I also fail to see why WTO constraints on policy discretion >should be good for rich countries, as we know they are, but not >for poor ones. Governments of developing countries are, if >anything, more vulnerable to capture by protectionist lobbies >than those of advanced countries. > >I do accept, however, that developing countries have sometimes >been forced to accept inappropriate policies: the trade-related >intellectual property agreement is an example. I also agree that >the north should liberalise in favour of the south and that more >aid, targeted on countries with governments that know how to use >it, is a moral and practical necessity. > [snip] > >Yours Martin > > > _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Re: Re: Who will be the next Marx
>From: Chris Burford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [PEN-L:21675] Re: Who will be the next Marx >Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 07:34:49 + > >We will be. > >Collectively. > >(and not just those on this list) > >Interesting that they seem to be looking for a spectre. > There are alternatives already. Their creators are not as well known as Marx of course, but they're there. It's amazing how the mainstream acts as though they don't exist. Anyway, it is not clear that the other systems implemented since 1917 were really based on Marx's claims anyway. -Frank G. _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Re: RE: RE: Re: RE: Re: crisis causes the end of capitalism?
>From: "Forstater, Mathew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [PEN-L:21408] RE: RE: Re: RE: Re: crisis causes the end of >capitalism? >Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 13:56:55 -0600 > >I don't know if anyone is familiar with Darity's thesis about managerial >society or the managerial mode of production, which he believes has >developed out of capitalism. I am not sure if I agree that managerial >society is a distinct mode of production that had superceded capitalism, >but I think the thesis that managerial capitalism is another stage of >capitalism has something to it. In the managerial society, "experts" run >things and the system is based on credentialism. I can find the cites if >anyone';s interested. mat Mathew, I am not familiar with this thesis (though I recall you bringing it up on this list earlier) but I am very interested in it. The thesis appears to have some surface cogency, especially with regards to credentialism, the explosion in jail population in the U.S., populist authoritarianism in politics on the rise since 1980, etc. I would appreciate those citations. -Frank G. _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Re: Brazil
>From: ALI KADRI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [PEN-L:21378] Re: Argentina--how the asset stripping took off >Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 23:20:46 -0800 (PST) > >Isn't Brazil in a much worse position, macro >accounting and socially. Th exposure is such that none >the measures taken now in argentina can be implemented >in Brazil. it is also possible that much more would >have to stripped to bring half the population to live >at below one dollar a day as is the case in Brazil. A good question. My impression is that Brazil has had serious problems for some time- nasty environmental destruction, violent crime, awful distribution of wealth, corruption, extremely high interest rates, appalling poverty and of course a massive debt. In addition, governability should be much lower than Argentina since the population's average educational attainment (AFAIK) is lower and the population is much larger. Nevertheless, we hear little about it in the American press despite its regional importance. The following site is an english news analysis for the interested: http://www.infobrazil.com/ I'd certainly be interested in knowing more from anyone familiar with the Brazilian situation. _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
SCEPTICISM ON IMF LENDING TO ARGENTINA GAINS CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The reluctance of the Bush Administration and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to provide more subsidized IMF loans to Argentina won support today from two leading Congressional advocates of IMF reform. Majority Leader Dick Armey and Joint Economic Committee (JEC) Chairman Jim Saxton said the new approach should mark the end of automatic IMF bailouts and loan subsidies. "The Treasury Department's resistance to new IMF loans to Argentina sends a strong signal around the world that things have changed and we are entering a new era," Majority Leader Armey said. "No longer will taxpayer funds automatically be used to subsidize bad economic policies in many countries. (more) http://www.house.gov/jec/press/2001/12-14-01.htm FG: All rather ironic considering Argentina´s former status as the neoliberal poster boy. Indeed, it seemed to have adopted textbook "sound macroeconomic policy". -Frank G. _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Re: Re: growing inequality
>From: "William S. Lear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [PEN-L:20686] Re: growing inequality >Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 10:46:14 -0600 > > >As a representative of an administration that supported the illegal >destruction of unions, among other nefarious doings, it is hardly >surprising that Feldstein doesn't much care about the issue. Correct. Of course, any money pocketed by huge corps. via Raygunite extreme military keynesianism is merely the product of "market rationality" and rewards for talent, enterprising spirit, innovation, etc.. Not to mention Raygunite protectionism. All part of the miracle of objective market forces. >Stille >could have asked James Galbraith his opinion, or could have read his >book, *Created Unequal: The Crisis in American Pay*, published in >1998. Inequality, writes Galbraith, is transforming the United States >"into something that more closely resembles an authoritarian quasi >democracy, with an overclass, an underclass, and a hidden politics >driven by money" (4). Though this has essentially been true from the >beginning of this country, the distillation of vengeance on behalf of >the wealthy has quickened over the past 30 years, particularly as the >darker shades of the "underclass" have been targeted for social >"removal" through a phony drug "war", and particularly as politics --- >and crucially political discourse --- has increasingly become an arena >in which only the ultra-elite of the country can participate. Aside from the drug war, there are draconian sentences, "three strikes & you're out", and more. Anyone have statistics over how much harsher white collar crime penalties have become since 1981? Do they compare to the increasing harshness of blue-collar crime? > >With inequality growing through- out the industrialized world, Mr. > >Feldstein, like many economists, has come to see inequality as a basic > >feature of the new high-tech economic scene, the natural consequence of >an > >economy that has begun to reward talent, skills, education and > >entrepreneurial risk with increasing efficiency. > >What a load: inequality has been a basic feature of state-administered >and protected "free" markets for centuries. The "new" economy is >nothing new at all, and rewards typically go to those with the social >power that they inherit. Agreed. How many of the new jobs created during the boom even required the kind of skill that would explain this inequality? Moreover many of the gains of the tech sector were based on investor hysteria and business over-investment not "economic rationality" that rewarded "skills" as the Nasdaq bubble deflation proved. The article also fails to mention credentialist inflation as a possible factor in rewarding education. > >"There is no doubt that market forces have spoken in favor of more > >inequality," said Richard Freeman, a professor of economics at > > >Harvard. That's rich (no pun intended). The idea that only market forces affect distribution of wealth in the American economy is laughable. Perhaps I'm misreading Freeman. >It might be too much to add that the wealthy "have spoken in favor of >more inequality", whereas the American public for the most part >recognizes the unfairness of government policies which reward the rich >and punish the poor, and generally favors policies which lessen >inequality. Something must really be wrong with those other advanced capitalist countries that are more equal. The American public must be made to recognize this wrongness, else they might start asking more questions. >One might also point out tax law changes, lax enforcement >of SEC rules, huge government giveaways and bailouts to the wealthy, >etc. One glaring omission here: income for the wealthy is typically >reward for gambling/investing, called "capital gains", not wage labor. >Wage labor --- "labor gains" --- is taxed far more heavily at both the >state and federal level than are capital gains. > > >In the 90's only the people at the very top and very bottom made any real > >improvement. Wages for full- time male workers, for example, have grown >only > >1.3 percent since 1989. The richest 10 percent of American households, > >economists point out, have 34.5 percent more financial wealth than the > >average family. These changes have persisted through Democratic and > >Republican administrations and began at the same time in Britain, even > >before Margaret Thatcher's market-oriented policies, Mr. Wolff said, > >indicating that they are not simply the product of economic policy but > >reflect deep structural changes in the economy. The leading hypotheses >are > >technological advances, increases in trade and imports, growing >immigration > >and declining union membership. > >Galbraith points out: > > The idea that rising inequality serves a deeper purpose emerges > from the economics profession, which has produced a kind of instant
Re: Dignity for everyone
>From: "Ken Hanly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: "pen-l" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [PEN-L:20685] Dignity for everyone >Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 09:50:54 -0600 > >Refugees meeting hears proposal to register every human in >GENEVA, Dec 13 AAP|Published: Friday December 14, 7:18 AM > > > >Every person in the world would be fingerprinted and registered under a >universal identification scheme to fight illegal immigration and people >smuggling outlined at a United Nations meeting today. Perhaps Orwell only missed by a few years. The increasingly reactionary nature of immigration policy worldwide is ironic but totally unsurprising in light of "globalisation" rhetoric. Of course people smuggling only exists because of the absence of free movement in the first place. One might think that reducing illegal immigration via redistribution of resources and increased legal immigration (without the condition that immigrants to the first world be "the best and brightest") might be a better approach, but such silly nonesense must be disregarded. >The plan was put forward by Pascal Smet, the head of Belgium's independent >asylum review board, at a roundtable meeting with ministers including >Australian Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock this afternoon. > >Mr Smet said the European Union was already considering a Europe-wide >system, using either fingerprints or eye scanning technology, to identify >citizens. Uncle Joe would be proud. >But he said the plan could be extended worldwide. > >"There are no technical problems. It is only a question of will and >investment," he said. > >"If you look to our societies, we are already registered from birth until >death. Our governments know who we are and what we are. But one of the >basic >problems is the numbers of people in the world who are not registered, who >do not have a set identity, and when these people move with real or fake >passports, you cannot identify them. > >"It's a basic rule of management that if you want to manage something, you >measure it. It's the same with human beings and migration. At least they´re honest about the purpose: effective social management. >"But instead of measuring it, you have to register them." > >Mr Smet said the scheme would give people dignity by giving them an >identity >if their papers had been lost or destroyed. > >And he said it would allow countries to open their borders to genuine >travellers or asylum seekers, because they would be able to prove the >identity of any over-stayers and deport them without argument from their >home country. So what is an ungenuine traveller? Scary Iraqi refugees? >Mr Ruddock appeared unconvinced by the merits of the plan. > >"In principle we would be supportive of a system which would crack down on >multiple asylum claims, but a universal identification system would be >taking it too far," he said through a spokeswoman. > >By Maria Hawthorne > > > > _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
Re: Taliban screwed it up?
>From: Steve Diamond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [PEN-L:20580] Taliban screwed it up? >Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 16:56:32 -0800 > >Or they were just called off by Pakistan - how else to explain the >relatively orderly retreat from Kabul and the way they were able to escape >US and "southern alliance" troops in Kandahar.the U.S. might try to >conclude that it was the Daisy Cutters but the close links between the >Taliban, the Pakistani ISI and the Saudis (as evidenced by the >extraordinary >television interview by the head of Saudi intelligence attempting to >distance the Saudi regime from OBL - even at this late date they somehow >feel compelled to do that) - those close links indicate that the US is >facing off against a widespread disaffection - to say the least - with US >power in the world - a disaffection that may have been distorted and >misused >horribly by OBL and the fundamentalist movement, but that nonetheless >exists, both abroad and at home. > > >Stephen F. Diamond >School of Law >Santa Clara University >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > I´ve been wondering about stability in the middle east. When the war on Afghanistan began, there were reports of widespread resentment in Muslim countries over the attack, massacres in Nigeria, Musharraf was trying to prop up a house of cards, powerful ISI staff were pro-Taliban and posed a threat to the regime, etc.. All of a sudden, silence... What happened here? Was there an internal crackdown in Pakistan and other countries, or were protests just a fringe movement? Did the U.S. media eventually downplay negative reactions by muslim countries due to U.S. government pressure? -Frank G. _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Re: Patents and drugs
Greetings penners! I´m dropping out of lurk mode after some months of lurking... >From: "Ian Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [PEN-L:20431] Patents and drugs >Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 08:46:41 -0800 > >Duke Law & Technology Review >December 7, 2001 >FACILITATING ACCESS OF AIDS DRUGS WHILE MAINTAINING STRONG PATENT >PROTECTION > > > >The general formula for patent protection--no incentive, no >innovation--does possess some inherent logic. Why would a >pharmaceutical company invest large amounts of resources in a product >if a free rider could come along and reap the gains of innovation >without incurring the R&D costs? ... Haven´t read the whole work yet, but it´s good to get an alternative look at this issue. This paper brings up the important point that, while we are entering an era marked by greater ease and volume of information flow, the U.S. government and elite in general insist on choking this flow with ever greater controls over intellectual property at an international level. Although one could argue that such protections are needed more during the information age _precisely_ because the commodification of information is needed to create the right incentives for the production of ideas, it nevertheless seems that there is a big contradiction in ever increasing IP protection. There are also complex problems of jurisdiction over information flow the Orwellian implication of a small number of corporations hoarding IP, etc.. Moreover, even if patents etc.. provide an "incentive to innovate", it is certainly quite another thing to suggest that one has a right to accumulate endlessly off an original idea for a few years even after earning more than enough money for more R&D investment plus a nice salary... >full piece at: > >< http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/Articles/2001DLTR0042.html > > > _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
