Health Care For All - Oregon (Washington County)
Health Care For All-Oregon (HCFAO), an Oregon initiative, will ensure high quality health care for every Oregon resident -- at a cost less than we spend now. Money currently funneled through many high priced insurance bureaucracies will go instead to a dedicated Oregon fund. Washington county chapter meets Wed., Apr-05-2000 7:00 P.M. Hillsboro Public Library, Tanasbourne branch, 2453 NW 185th Hillsboro, in Tanasbourne Mall - near 185th and Hwy 26. For directions call library at 503-615-6500. HCFAO local #: 252-8248, 439-9923. Email/Web [EMAIL PROTECTED] Http://www.healthcareforalloregon.com/
Re: Spinoza, Freedom, & Necessity (was Re: Baruch and Hobbesy,freedom of speech, etc.)
A side note: Steven Brust (as far as I know the only openly Trotskyite fantasy writer consistently carried in all major chain bookstores) has co-written (with Emma Bull) a Hegelian fantasy called "Freedom and Neccesity" exploring (in a light-hearted way) the dialectics of this particular opposition... Marx remains offstage in this work, but Engels appears as an important minor character. Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: > > Angela sent an excerpt from Spinoza: > > >But I suspect an additional stake here -- other than that of Spinoza's > >rejection of the cogito (epistemological reign) -- that would explain the > >preference for Hobbes in light of recent discussions on freedom of speech. > >So, a citation from Spinoza: > > > >"Whoever seeks to regulate everything by laws irritates men's vices rather > >than correcting them. What cannot be prohibited must necessarily be > >permitted, even if harm often results from it ... But let it be granted > >that freedom may be suppressed and that men may become so subservient that > >they dare not utter a word except on the bidding of the sovereign; > >nevertheless, they will never be made to think as the sovereign wants, and > >so as a necessary consequence meant would everyday think one thing and say > >another; the good faith that is necessary to government will thus be > >corrupted ... Men as they are generally constituted resent more than > >anything else the labelling of the opinions that they believe to be true > >as criminal and the branding of wicked that which inspires them to feel > >piety toward God and man. This leads them to detest the laws and to > >conspire against the authorities and judge it not shameful but the highest > >honour to plot sedition in the name of such a cause, and to attempt any > >act of violence. Given that such is human nature, it is obvious that laws > >concerning opinions do not threaten criminals but independent thinkers > >and cannot thus be maintained without the greatest danger to the state." > > Thanks to Angela for the excerpt above. Spinoza makes a (by now well-known) >dialectical argument here. Were a revolutionary to adopt his argument, however, s/he >might end up thinking, "the worse, the better." Dialectically speaking, Spinoza >argues that repression of free thought Æ sedition & revolution. Given this, an >illusion of freedom maintained by liberalism Æ happy maintenance of the status quo. >Though Spinoza is making a case for liberalism here, one can turn it against itself, >to further an illiberal cause. (BTW, I personally don't believe in "the worse, the >better.") > > Regarding Spinoza's thought on freedom, what is more interesting is his remarks on >freedom & necessity: "I say that a thing is free if it exists and acts from the >necessity of its own nature alone, and compelled if it is determined by something >else to exist and produce effects in a certain and determined wayYou see then >that I place freedom not in a free decree, but in free necessity" (from the >Correspondence between Spinoza and Tschirnahus). This conception of freedom is >amenable to historical materialism (though it may be closer to Hegelian Marxism), >unlike Kant's notion of free will. > > Yoshie
Query: Administrative costs in US health care
The usual figures for Admin costs+insurance profits+hefty CEO salaries in U.S. health care given by single payer groups are 25%. But US department of health and human services gives figures of around 5% (not counting profits and CEO salaries, but still...) Anyone have some insight into how these different figures are calculated -- and some reliable sources to give in debates for the 25% figures...?
Re: Query: Administrative costs in US health care
Wow -- that 18% (better than average!) does not even include any compliance costs by providers. Not to mention profits as a percentage of premiums. So Best's Insurance Reports would be my source for at least some of what I'm looking for. Now if I can just find some sources for the provider end of things... Thanks for the great start... Gar charlie wrote: > > A few years ago I debated the CEO of a health insurer on a public > radio talk show. Before the show I looked up his company in > Best's Insurance Reports, an annual compilation and a business > source. It showed commissions and expenses as a percentage of net > premiums written. In this case, the figure was 18.5%, which I > took as better than average but still nine times the > administrative cost of the Canadian system, for example. I also > enjoyed mentioning the company's 28% return on equity. > > Sincerely, > > Charles Andrews > Web site for my new book is at http://www.LaborRepublic.org
Single Payer Meeting --Wash. County Oregon
Health Care for All Oregon has finally passed through the legal process required to submit an iniative to the voter in Oregon. Within 3 weeks we will be circulating petitions to place on the ballot Measure 27: Measure 27 will kick the insurance bureaucrats out of the health care business and provide high quality coverage for every Oregon resident. The meeting will be held: Thursday, April 26th 6:45 P.M. Hillsboro Public Library, Tanasbourne Branch 2453 NW 185th Hillsboro (Across 185th from Tanasbourne Mall Between Hwy 26 and Cornell Rd In same lot as Chevys, Safeway, RiteAid, Sheris In corner by Verizon, Radio Shack and RoundTable Pizza) for more info on initiative http://www.healthcareforalloregon.org/ Please forward Thanks Gar
Re: Re: Re: Socialism Now
Hard-headed types? Greg there hundreds, perhaps thousands of groupsicals, with heads that are not only hard, but made of pure wood. Greg Schofield wrote: > Bill, the problem is partly found in your answer. > > That is you see proletarian socialism as the objective, as an abstraction which must >be sold to the people. It is, by this thinking, already a >sometime-in-the-future-thing. It is the error of these past decades of the movement >that we have reduced ourselves to the role of educators. > > My point is that historically this is not so, that the level of socialisation >already established by the bourgeoisie, effectively means there is no great day when >leading elements of capital must be socialisied, as this is already achieved. > > What is missing is proletarian power, that is something that can be built, built >around struggles to change, in its interest, what works against it. No one needs to >be convinced of this, they don't have to embrace the socialist cause to struggle for >changes that are in their interests - they do not have to be won over. > > What they do need is some hard-headed types take up a bundle of needed changes and >weld them together into a coherent political platform - why mention socialism, surely >that is an educative question and not a meaningful struggle? > > The utopianism which collectively poisons us, is the idea that essentially we are >about winning everybody to the utopian ideal. In struggle there will be plenty who >want to know more and understand the historical forces involved, but for most folks >this is mere garnish in the more material struggle to get things running right. > > In a sense the way you have put the question places the cart before the horse and >then dispares because it will not move. Try it around the other way, in the struggle >for proletarian change, more people will be won over to the notion and magically >without prejudice, their socialism will become the expression of the struggle they >are already engaged in. > > Greg Schofield > Perth Australia >
Re: What is to be done about Everything?
Carrol Cox wrote: > ". . . what do you pacifists and fatalists and revolutionary defeatists > suggest be done? Just let them be? Act nice? Invite them over for > coffee?" > > This simply baffles me. All I can do is give a series of anecdotes, > fictional and actual. > > The nice thing about problems/questions in many math texts is that you > find the answer in the back of the book. The condition for that is the > premise that all the problems _have_ answers. This is coddling the > children. The book should have a problem like, "If 5+3 = 7, what is the > average number of cows per infant in Figi?" After all, everyone knows > that if a question can be asked, there must be a good answer. > <...snip...> Carrol - I think you are overlooking the demand here. We are dealing with a government doing the wrong thing against terrorist who have killed a lot of people in the U.S. and successfully terrorized them. We are opposed to the evil things this government is doing in response. We need to be able to answer the question: "what would you do if you were in charge?". People simply will not consider anyone a serious critic who refuses to answer this question. You need not have a total solution - simply something that would be as effective and do less harm -- assuming you rather than they were in charge.
Re: RE: What is to be done about Everything?
In response to a post by Carroll, I said: >We>need to be able to answer the question: "what would you do if you were >in charge?". >> > Devine, James wrote in reply: > I sometimes say "this is what I would do if I were in charge" (such as not > terror-bombing Afghanistan) but I immediately qualify this by stating that > it's impossible that such policies would be implemented given the current > balance of political power. The implication is that we need to change the > balance of power (organize!). This is simplistic, but it's good enough for > bumper-stickers. > Right, you are making explicit something that is implicit in any radical political criticism -- that we should seek change in the political balance of power. When you do this people always wonder if it is going to be a "meet the old boss, same as the new boss" situation. Or even more frightening, will radical change or revolution make things worse rather than better? That is why there is an obligation to not merely to oppose what is wrong, but to suggest how things will change if we win our demands. There are cases , like Vietnam, when a purely negative program is enough. The demand to "get out of Vietnam" was an improvement for both the U.S. and Vietnam. But in a case like 911, I don't think a purely negative program is possible. Thousands of people in the U.S. were killed in the course of a few hours. Carroll has the response that if he were in charge he would be a different person. But he is making demands that also require a drastic power shift. Why can he handle the negative hypothetical, but not the positive one? The ability to win negative demands in a case like this would both imply and require the ability to win positive demands as well. To refuse to imagine some positive alternative is not a revolutionary defeatist, nor a pacifist position. It is not pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will. It is despair, an endless black hole, a failure of the imagination.
Re: Re: What is to be done about Everything?
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: > Gar: > >> Carrol - I think you are overlooking the demand here. We are dealing >> with a government doing the wrong thing against terrorist who have >> killed a lot of people in the U.S. and successfully terrorized them. >> We are opposed to the evil things this government is doing in >> response. We need to be able to answer the question: "what would you >> do if you were in charge?". People simply will not consider anyone a >> serious critic who refuses to answer this question. > > > The subjunctive gives you away. The question is not serious as it is > contrary to facts. This assumes that a hypotheical question can never be serious. But when you are seeking political change, and implicitly political power, then the question: "what happens if you win?" is a serious question. It is only not serious if your political activism is nothing but moral posturing. If there is no chance of your ever winning, then the the question is truly purely hypotheical, and not worthing talking about.
Re: Re: Re: RE: What is to be done about Everything?
Sorry - did no realize this was a closed topic. I have replied to several comments on my comments - but now that I see your post will reply to no more on this list. Michael Perelman wrote: > I thought that we had put this to bed. > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 08:43:51PM -0800, Gar Lipow wrote: > >>In response to a post by Carroll, I said: >> >> >>>We>need to be able to answer the question: "what would you do if you were >>>in charge?". >>> >>Devine, James wrote in reply: >> >> >> >>>I sometimes say "this is what I would do if I were in charge" (such as not >>>terror-bombing Afghanistan) but I immediately qualify this by stating that >>>it's impossible that such policies would be implemented given the current >>>balance of political power. The implication is that we need to change the >>>balance of power (organize!). This is simplistic, but it's good enough for >>>bumper-stickers. >>> >>> >>Right, you are making explicit something that is implicit in any radical >>political criticism -- that we should seek change in the political >>balance of power. >> >> >>When you do this people always wonder if it is going to be a "meet the >>old boss, same as the new boss" situation. Or even more frightening, >>will radical change or revolution make things worse rather than better? >>That is why there is an obligation to not merely to oppose what is >>wrong, but to suggest how things will change if we win our demands. >>There are cases , like Vietnam, when a purely negative program is >>enough. The demand to "get out of Vietnam" was an improvement for both >>the U.S. and Vietnam. But in a case like 911, I don't think a purely >>negative program is possible. Thousands of people in the U.S. were >>killed in the course of a few hours. >> >>Carroll has the response that if he were in charge he would be a >>different person. But he is making demands that also require a drastic >>power shift. Why can he handle the negative hypothetical, but not the >>positive one? The ability to win negative demands in a case like this >>would both imply and require the ability to win positive demands as >>well. To refuse to imagine some positive alternative is not a >>revolutionary defeatist, nor a pacifist position. It is not pessimism of >>the intellect, optimism of the will. It is despair, an endless black >>hole, a failure of the imagination. >> >> >
Re: RE: Re: Project for Pen-l
It strikes me that there is an information theory critique possible of too free a market in capital flows that may be supplementary to the other criticims. (This applies to both international and national capital markets.) If markets are looked at as feedback mechanisms, then you have a problem anytime the capability for feedback exceeds the ability to respond. For example capital can be pulled out of firms, or entire nations or entire regions in a matter of minutes. But the actual means of production -- even in service industries -- cannot shift nearly so fast. So it is like driving a car with an oversensitive steering mechanism, so that you cannot drive inside the lines, because the slightest pressure on the wheel takes you across four lane. Is this at a all a useful supplementary critique? Is this one of arguments used for the Tobin tax? Is there some standard economic term for excessive feedback? Devine, James wrote: > Peter Dorman writes: > > >>... Forget about Ricardo. This stuff is interesting from a history of >> > thought point of view, but modern trade theory differs from Ricardian theory > in important ways. Some of the criticisms lefties have hurled at Ricardo > bounce off the modern folks...< > > however, Ricardo may be relevant to pedagogy. For example, it is really easy > to explain the standard 2x2 Ricardian matrix and then say: what happens if > Portugal decides to _change_ its comparative advantage? (Why should the > secretary put up with specializing in filing, typing, etc.? why not learn > how to be a boss?) in addition to this issue of dynamic comparative > advantage, how about: suppose that some of the workers from Portugal _move > to_ England, so that the labor productivity numbers apply to them. Then it's > easy to show that the rise in the production in England exceeds the loss of > production in Portugal (unless there extreme diminishing returns to labor, > so that England's labor productivity falls and Portugal's rise, > significantly). > > >>In the end, economic persuasion comes down to simple stories-fables, >> > metaphors, or even bumper stickers-that encapsulate more complicated visions > of how the world does or ought to work. The doctrine of free, unregulated > trade has succeeded magnificently on this terrain. Why, we are asked, > should anyone want to interfere with trade? No trade would ever take place > unless it were in the interest of both parties, so how can the sum of all > such trades be any less than the sum of all those advantages? If someone in > a foreign country can make a good cheaper than you can make it at home, why > would you be so foolish as to not buy it? After all, among local stores you > would shop at the one that charges a lower price. And the theory of > comparative advantage appears as nothing more than the obvious truth that > two people, combining their efforts and specializing in what they do best, > can produce more than they could singly.< > > one comment -- which is quite in line with Joan Robinson's ideas as Peter > explained them -- is that the discussion above refers not to gains from > trade _per se_ but to gains from specialization and cooperation. A simple > analysis of solutions to the "economic problem" suggests that trade need not > be the only solution: we could also rely on "command" (state control) or > "tradition." Further, I add "decentralized command" (mafias, corporations, > etc.) and "decentralized or grass-roots democracy" to the list, while > combinations are possible, such as grass-roots democratic control of the > state. > > Jim Devine > > >
Re: I. The Theory of Land Value Taxation
Points about Henry George: 1) There are modern Georgists out there; most of them suggestion taxing not just land but natural resources in general -- in effect Green taxes. 2) Georgists wanted to tax not only land, but "monopoly" -- meaning profit and interest. 3) I have not been able to track this down, so perhaps my memory is playing tricks on me. I seem to remember Marx critizing Georgism , but in a quite sympathetic way. Charles Brown wrote: > I. The Theory of Land Value Taxation > > The Single Tax is the governmental collection of the full annual income of land >(hereinafter referred to as rent) in place of taxes on things produced by labor. Some >Single Taxers would gradually increase the tax on rent until nearly all the annual >land rent were collected in taxation and settle for replacing as many other taxes as >possible on things produced by labor. In brief, either way the proposal is to tax >locations, not production. > > These are the advantages claimed for the Single Tax: > > 1. Land is not a product of human labor—it was produced by God equally for us >all—and hence it is not justifiably private property. It is an economic opportunity >that should be equally accessible to all. But practically speaking, land must be >privately owned as now, so let land continue to be privately owned so long as its >rent is collected for the use of all residents by the government in place of taxes on >production. Then both justice and practicality can be satisfied (the owner will have >a special privilege (i.e., more than equal access) but he'll be paying others for it >and then the government needn't violate the private property rights of labor and >business via taxation. > > 2. Rent is created when society creates jobs, shopping and other amenities and the >government creates roads, schools, protection, social services, etc. near a >land-site. It would seem logical and moral for society and government to collect >through taxation what they themselves create rather than what individuals create. > > These two advantages are moral in nature. Let us now turn to the four main economic >advantages of taxing rent (within rational zoning limits). > > > 1. All land sites would have to be efficiently used, for it would be too expensive >to keep land out of full use, which is the highest-and-best or the most appropriate >use. For instance, if the site were fully taxed, it would be uneconomic for a rundown >inadequate building to be located on a valuable downtown site because the land value >tax on the site would be greater than the income from the building; landowners would >therefore construct a more desirable building or sell to someone who would. The >result would be new construction and new jobs. Here, then, is a governmental revenue >source that actually would create economic growth. The more rent that is taxed, the >more economic growth would result. > > In the early 21st century, this can become of pressing importance because it can be >the only way for the U.S. federal government to avoid bankruptcy; soon it will have >to meet the quickly mounting obligations of Social Security, Medicare-Medicaid, >various entitlements, other new governmental programs, and interest on the federal >debt. This re-payment would be greatly exacerbated if a recession or costly foreign >entanglement occurred (nothing but sheer desperation is likely to drive the voters >and politicians to adopt the Single Tax). > > 2. Unwanted urban sprawl into farming areas and open-space land would be contained. >If urban land is developed more intensively, as it likely would be with the Single >Tax, homeowners and businesses wouldn't sprawl needlessly into farming or open-space >areas. For example, a home would be built on a quarter acre in a city instead of on >five-or-so acres in a farming or open-space area (putting a large office building on >land best suited to growing corn would not be appropriate and would be a sure >money-loser under any tax system). > > 3. Developers needn't invest any money in prospective land-sites because the selling >price of land would be zero—whatever rent the landowner might collect from the land >would be turned over to the government in taxation at the end of the year; no net >annual rental income means a zero selling price (the selling price being equal to the >net annual rental income multiplied by the current mortgage rate). Current landowners >would be compensated by the down-taxing of the improvements they own. > > 4. Taxes on production—on buildings, incomes, sales, payroll, imports, etc.—would be >much reduced or abolished altogether. This by itself could lead to unprecedented >economic growth. > As of this writing, fully 18 jurisdictions in the United States have already shifted >some of their local property tax on buildings to land. Numerous studies by competent >authorities (available upon request) show that all the above advantag
Re: RE: Re: Income Inequality and Health
I can suggest some stories. One is aggressiveness of treatment. With very serious illness, there are often broad choices within acceptable medical practice. A lot of the judgments involved are explicitly social ones. For example, take two people needing a transplant, same age, same basic health, same income, same insurance -- one a member of the socially constructed group "black", the other a member of the socially constructed group "white". One factor in deciding who gets the priority is the medical judgment as to who will follow post-operation instructions better. Who will take their medicine as scheduled? Who will stick to the diet/rest/excercise regimen prescribed? I don't have them in front of me; but I have seen statistics that the doctors will overwhelmingly make the subjective judgment that the "white" is more likely to comply. Similarly, when allocating scarce memdical care (like transplants) an important judgement is "who is most likely to die anyway". Given equal income, equal objective measures of health, but different "races" - guess who is judged the more hopeless case. Note that this is in ADDITION to the pre-existing health, and income dimensions. For example in transplants, normal insurance (if it covers transplants at all) will get you on a single waiting list covering some fraction the avaiable organs. If you are rich you can buy your way onto all the lists (at a cost of about 10,000 per list) and thus have a much better shot at receiving the transplant. But the above examples are for people on the SAME list. Umm - this is of course U.S. specific. Most industrialized systems don't have quite as crazy a health care system. "Brown, Martin - ARP (NCI)" wrote: > > I'll try to make the issues clear as mud... > > I was asking for opinions about the worth in this particular case, not > asserting that they are not worth the effort. The most commonly noted > weakness of ecological regressions has to do with measurement error. More > example, say we are trying to establish a relationship between health > status and income and we have individual data on stage-at-diagnosis for > cancer (how early or late the cancer is diagnosed) and census tract level > data on average income. There is measurement error in the latter as a proxy > for individual income. The most common criticism is that this result in > lower power to detect a relationship when one actually exists, but some > statistical purists say the bias can actually go in either direction. The > discussion starts to get murky in the case of the Wilkinson hypothesis > because this is a hypothesis that is inherently ecological, i.e., the > relationship between some measure of average health status and some measure > on social structure. The problem is that this hypothesized ecological > relationship is confounded by the fairly well established relationship > between individual health status and individual income (or other measures of > individual social status). To deal with this problem Michael Wolfson > simulates the expected effect of the individual level relationship on the > ecological level and shows that there is still a residual effect at the > ecological level that cannot be explained by the individual level > relationship (this is for income/health, income distribution/average health > for U.S. SMSAs). Deaton, who have been very critical of the Wilkinson > hypothesis accepts the Wolfson analysis but then says that percent black > performs better in the ecological relationship than measures of income > distribution. But I find percent black not to be nearly as conceptually > compelling as income distribution as an ecological variable. E.g. what kind > of causal mechanism stories go with these measures??? > > -Original Message- > From: Bill Burgess [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 3:07 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:16413] Re: Income Inequality and Health > > Martin Brown wrote that ecological regressions (like average health against > average income plus income inequality) are not worth the effort. Could you > expand a bit on why? I think regession assumptions like linearity, > independendence of variables and unidirection of causality are big problems > (on top of many issues regarding measuring health), but is this what you > have in mind? If so, can you cite a non-econometric-technical summary of > these problems, especially as they apply to health? > > Bill Burgess > > At 03:12 PM 24/08/01 -0400, you wrote: > >I'll try to respond to this when I have more time to do it right. But > there > >is something else I wanted to bring up from the International Health > >Economics Association meeting. > > > >There were several plenary and regular sessions focusing on the "Wilkinson > >Hypothesis". That is to say the theory that there is a relationship > between > >macroeconomic measures of income inequality and average health status. > This > >relationship is above an
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Atlas shrugged
Also there is one other point. In the U.S, anyway the increase in the ratio of seniors to others is projected to occur alongside a drop in the ratio of children to population -- so that the total "dependency" ratio is projected to be a only a tiny bit higher than at present... Michael Perelman wrote: > > You are correct. > > On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 08:15:05PM -0700, Jim Devine wrote: > > I wrote: > > > > and what's wrong with an aging population? I don't think biology is > > > destiny. > > > > Michael Perelman: > > >The problem is that it means a high dependency ratio; just as is found in > > >a very > > >young population. > > > > the dependency ratio doesn't automatically rise with the age of the > > population. It's partly a socially-determined variable. > > > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine > > > > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Atlas shrugged
Hi Rob. Our current "peak" does not begin to match that of the sixties (at least here in the U.S -- which incidentally is still miles ahead of you Aussies in the scum sweepstakes). Among the reasons -- people have to work a hell of a lot harder for survival than was required in sixties. This includes colleges which tend to be centers for activism in the U.S. Not only, as Michael P. pointed out, do most students have to work damn hard outside of college to earn money for their education. But, thanks to the "anti-grade inflation" movmement of the seventies and eighties, students have to take more and harder classes to graduate. Rob Schaap wrote: > > G'day Gar, > > > Also there is one other point. In the U.S, anyway the increase in the > > ratio of seniors to others is projected to occur alongside a drop in > > the ratio of children to population -- so that the total "dependency" > > ratio is projected to be a only a tiny bit higher than at present... > > I agree with all this - 65 ain't what it used to be, tendentious ageism is > implicit in mosr public communication on this stuff, and there are a lot less > kids per capita than there used to be anyway. > > On which last point, I heard myself speculating the other day (I often don't > know what I'm thinking until I either write it down or take cups unto > loquacity) that a big determinant in bouts of widespread 'western' > resistance/activism to the establishment might coincide with troughs in > parenthood. In the sixties, the boomers had got to twenty, but the diffusion > of the pill, a degree of female emancipation and something of a break with > religion (at least amongst the formally educated classes) had combined to push > back the average age of the first-time parent by a fair way (or so I imagine - > is there a handy stat on this?). Now, of course, we have a lot of that, but > also loud anti-child movements; a culture of fanatical consumerism (chronic, > acute and terminal); and - in an age of job insecurity, sustained real estate > inflation, and lapsing health/education infrastructure/ public play venues - > lots of economic disincentives to spawn. So we're freer to be the irascible > and uppity bunch we are, in fact, becoming. > > I find I have certainly become a far quieter, more pliable and less dignified > lackey since first the loinfruit bounced into consideration, anyway. > > Which is probably why I've been waxing abstractly rebellious on lists like > this ... > > Waddyareckon? > > Cheers, > Rob.
Re: Re: Atlas shrugged
And the misallocation here is not too much being spent on health care, but health care being paid for in an inefficient way (via private insurers). Total adminstration costs both in hospitals and the net insurance premium are at least 30% vs. between 5% and 15% in nations that have single payer care. Supporting statistics: In 1994 (the latest year we have info for) administration ran around 26% of hospitalization costs. New England Journal of Medicine - March 13 97 - vol 336, 11 online: http://www.nejm.org/content/1997/0336/0011/0769.asp In 1999 net insurance premium (premiums collected by insurance companies plus government vs. that paid out was just under 6% (Health care finance administration): http://www.hcfa.gov/stats/nhe-oact/tables/t3.htm Max Sawicky wrote: > > When analysts speak of a fiscal catastrophe some > 50 years hence, what they are actually referring > to, strictly in terms of scale, is a public sector > analagous to the Euro social-democracies -- spending > in the neighborhood of 40 percent. > > The bulk of this, again in terms of debatable > scenarios, is not from Social Security but Medicare. > The bulk of the Medicare run-up is not from more old > people, but from trends in the use of resources in > the health care sector. > > Health care spending came in way lower than projected > between about 1995-2000, which is a factor in the improved > projections. Consequently, the method for projecting > such spending was revised to show faster increases. > Science marches on. > > If the projections prove right, the shortcoming in > the public sector from a social point of view would not > be in its size, but in the share of resources devoted to > health care, as opposed to an allocation more balanced > towards a variety of purposes. In other words, it would > be a failure to construct a rational and fair system of > rationing. > > mbs > > Gar Lipow wrote: > > >Also there is one other point. In the U.S, anyway the increase in the > >ratio of seniors to others is projected to occur alongside a drop in the > >ratio of children to population -- so that the total "dependency" ratio > >is projected to be a only a tiny bit higher than at present... > > If you calculate the number of nonworkers per worker, even the rather > dire official Social Security calculations show only a minor rise, to > levels well below those of the 1950s and 1960s. > > Doug
Re: business ethics
Just to make a point though -- in fact business majors were not toughened a great deal. In fact a marketing major is considered one of the easiest majors you can take. The majors which have been made the most difficult (compared to 30 years ago) are English and literature majors. To a lesser extent technical majors have been made more difficult as well, because of greater general education requirements on top of technical classes (I have to admit probably a good thing). In terms of ethics for business majors; most students with business majors will admit they have already made a decision to go for the money and to hell with ethics. In my experience there is generally already an awareness that to make a lot of money, they will have to break some ethical rules. Even if you could get your typical business student into an ethics class talk jointly by Noam Chomsky and Michael Parenti, I doubt it would her much good... Jim Devine wrote: > > [was: Re: [PEN-L:16633] Re: Re: Re: Re: Atlas shrugged] > > At 04:09 PM 09/03/2001 -0700, you wrote: > >Shouldn't the curriculum for business majors be substantially changed > >so that issue of, say, corporate governance, is viewed through notions > >of what counts as democratic accountability and representation-and not > >just for the board and it's relation to shareholders; or that any > >understanding of factor inputs into a production process needs to look > >at environmental impacts as against merely price information. That's > >just for starters. > > Maybe, but the nature of our business program is under the control of the > management types, who would never change it. (The economics department then > "services" the business school, by teaching economics to its frosh.) We do > have courses on oxymoronic "business ethics," but the bizad students don't > care about that stuff. > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Michael's Question
I tend to think that government (socialist or otherwise) will be at least as repressive as it's population will tolerate, and that when under attack from outside, a population will tend to tolerate a great deal. In short revolutions under attack from a strong outside force will tend to be a great deal more repressive than needed for survival. I think this is one area where the anarchists have a great deal to offer. Revolution that is truly from below, truly under control of the majority from the beginning, might be able to both avoid the trap of needing to be repressive, and avoid the weakness of being easily overthrown a la Allende. This has never happened in the history of the world, but neither have any strong permanent socialist states been created. If China is not already capitalist it soon will be, as will Vietnam. Ditto N. Korea. I suspect Cuba will turn to capitalism after Castro passes away... michael perelman wrote: > > Nicely put. > > Jim Devine wrote: > A party's dictatorship is justified in the > > end only if it uses it to build popular power. Unfortunately, the US and > > other imperialist powers consistently push these parties to make the > > decisions that make the most sense militarily rather than democratically. > > -- > > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Michael's Question
Last point on this: I wonder if Chile et. al. really fell because they were not repressive enough? Could it have something to do with the fact that in all the cases mentioned, the military were reactionary, and thus ready to overthrow the democratically chosen govenrments? (The only exception to this - Nicaragua, was faced with the previous military more or less intact as a Rebel force.] > > michael perelman wrote: > > > > Nicely put. > > > > Jim Devine wrote: > > A party's dictatorship is justified in the > > > end only if it uses it to build popular power. Unfortunately, the US and > > > other imperialist powers consistently push these parties to make the > > > decisions that make the most sense militarily rather than democratically. > > > > -- > > > > Michael Perelman > > Economics Department > > California State University > > Chico, CA 95929 > > > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Michael's Question
Doug Henwood wrote: > > Carrol Cox wrote: > > >These states did not fall _because_ they were democratic; they fell > >because the U.S. undermined or attacked them. But those who are all hot > >for third-world anti-imperialist democracy need to explain how these > >states might have survived. It's easy to say, they should arouse the > >populace. Gee whiz. They all _did_ arouse the populace. They were all > >popular governments. It takes time to turn a populace into an army that > >can defend itself -- more time than the US ever has or ever will allow. > > Ok, so the alternatives are: 1) be open and democratic, and the US > will overthrow you, or 2) be autarkic and repressive and your > revolution will have failed itself, and your regime will eventually > fall because of its own internal contradictions. Is there a third > option, as long as the U.S. remains unchallenged? > > Doug I know that even thinking about this is often dismissed as utopian. I would say that as long as the U.S. exists that any revolution in a poor country must be an armed revolution, because an unarmed one will fall via U.S. violence or U.S. sponsered violence. Carroll makes one valid point; you cannot wait until after the revolution to arm the workers, because the U.S. won't give you that much time. Again I suggest that you don't have to be an anarchist to learn from the anarchists. Mind you there are other unexpected places we can learn from; for example if an armed movement comes to power and genuinely wishes to have the people rather than a small elite hold power, they might follow one part of the Swiss model, and truly arm the whole populace (excluding those with moral objections). This would both protect against extreme internal repression , and give any would be invaders one hell of an obstacle. Incidentally, any revolution via the ballot box in the U.S. would face a similar challenge to Allendes Chile. Suppose there was an unprecedented public opinion shift in the U.S., and we could elect a genuinely socialist government. (Unrealistic I know, but as a thought expermiment...) Our own military is extremely reactionary; how would we prevent a coup? There have been two cases I can think of offhand (Russia, and Portugal) in which enough army factions supported revolutions to prevent facist coups. In Portugals case, it was actually a counter-coup by socialist minded officers who toppled the military dictatorship and instituted liberal democracy. (They actually wanted Portugal to be socialist, but were too democratic minded to institute socialism against the will of the majority of the Portugese people.)
Re: Re: Michael's Question
Actual there are some answers to this that do not require utopian assumptions about human nature. Basically, there are anarchists who distinguish between "state" and 'polity'. So the commune up the stream can't put up a nuclear power plant because it is part of a larger polity that votes against allowing it to do so -- and enforces that decision. You think this is semantic difference, and this kind of system is no longer anarchist? Well I'd agree with you, but they think they are anarchists. I think what they are actually advocating is a kind of hyperdemocratic state -- with lots of guarantees that it remain controlled from below. Not a bad thing in my opinion, whatever it is called. Jim Devine wrote: > > Macdonald writes: > > > The problem with anarchism, as I understand it, is that its opposition to > > > the state (centralized authority & power) _per se_ implies an opposition to > > > democracy, since without a state to enforce the rules, you can't have > > > democracy except under utopian conditions. > > > >It's amazing how little people actually know about anarchism (either the > >theoretical or the currents in practice today) these days. Sorry, Jim- this > >isn't a salvo at you, but in general I'm constantly stunned. I can only hope > >these are genuine errors and not attempts to create straw men. > > > >Anarchist theory involves a set of rules, ones that are to be enforced > >strictly- > >but not a set of rulers. It will be no more legal- say the anarchists- under > >anarchist planning to walk into a crowded room and yell "fire", for > >example. The > >anarchist will tell you that people properly emancipated would enforce such a > >rule and not wait around for a security guard to do it. > > One reason why I'm not an expert on anarchism is that I always run into > this kind of answer. I ask the question: "what happens if the > anarcho-syndicalist commune across the river democratically decides to > build a nuclear power plant (or to pollute the river)?" or if someone > really does yell "fire" in a movie theater. The answer, of course, is that > they wouldn't do it, since they're "properly emancipated." But I see that > as assuming "utopian conditions." There's got to be a better answer to the > free-rider problem than that people "wouldn't do it, since they're > 'properly emancipated.'" Given the inadequacy of the answer -- to what > seems like a basic question -- I give up studying the anarchist's writings. > (I also wonder: "properly emancipated" by whom?) > > Now, I must say that I like William Morris' anarcho-communist utopia (NEWS > FROM NOWHERE), but he's pretty clear that the utopia didn't arise without a > long period of non-anarchist socialism beforehand. > > > >That's why I favor socialism from below, which stresses the need for > > mass self-organization, self-education, and self-democracy of the masses > > of working people (and other oppressed group). While having a state > > preserves this kind of grass-roots democracy, the existence of organized > > mass movement keeps the state in line (which is why social democrats and > > Stalinists don't like mass movements they can't control).< > > >There is something to what you are saying here- but all of my "Stalinist" > >leanings are not of a lack of trust in the people but rather a total > >distrust of the enemy and a knowledge that through many "below" routes > >will the counter-revolution be organised. > > we should also distrust those who stand "above" society and decide which > movements from below are revolutionary (and thus okay) and which are > counterrevolutionary (and thus not good). That decision can only be made > democratically. And those "above" -- i.e., in positions of power -- are > just as much part of society as those "below." They are subject to the same > kinds of societal pressures, while they have power that can easily corrupt. > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: RE: neomercantilism, trade
I think we are getting two definitions of "material want" confused here. Can material want in the sense of people wanting material things they can't have be eliminated? I would say that Marx is agnostic on this question. But we can eliminate material want in two other senses. One is that everyone can have the neccesiticies of life. The other is that we can reduce inequality at least to the point where no one is living in a mansion while others are living in shacks. In short we don't have material want in the sense that we want something because someone else has it and we can't... David Shemano wrote: > > Charles wrote: > > << hunting and gathering and gardening based societies there is not the > distinction between rich and poor we know, for example in indigenous > American societies. These societies did not have private property in the > sense I mean here. Unlimited acquisativeness is not "human nature" as > perhaps implied in one of your questions. > > On the other hand, capitalism especially has increased technological > development enormously, such that there is , well, a lot of stuff produced > shall we say. > > Marx and Engels' idea was that a kind of combination of the old communalism > with the new level of technology would mean the "lots of stuff" distributed > without classes, without rich and poor, would mean no poverty or material > want in the sense that we mean poverty today. Everyone would be guranteed > all the material basics of living. > > This does not mean that new problems would not emerge, such as global > warming or exhaustion of fossil fuels or issues we cannot anticipate now. > These problems would require new efforts, discoveries and solutions, but the > old problems of class societies would not be among the new ones.>>> > > --- > > I am trying to think this through. Let me summarize my understanding of the > discussion. Your original argument was that the elimination of "private > property" would eliminate "material want." There are several assumptions > here. First, eliminating "private property" would result that all were > "guaranteed the material basics of living." The next assumption is that if > we "guarantee the material basics of living," we will eliminate "material > want." I assert, to the contrary, that "material want" is relative, and > that guaranteeing the material basics provides no assurance that > acquisitiveness will be eliminated. You argue that we have evidence of > hunter-gatherer societies in which acquisitiveness is not a feature. You > further argue that we can wed the consciousness of a hunter-gatherer society > to our modernized society. > > Do I have this right? > > David Shemano
Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: financial news
The term is much older than that. Tom Haydens run for the Senate, used the term "Corporate Welfare" . (also "Crime in the Suites".) Max Sawicky wrote: > > No. Bob Reich started it in 1993. Unfortunately. > > mbs > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ian Murray > Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 8:38 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:16823] Re: Re: Re: Re: financial news > > > In his book on the S&L disaster, Martin Mayer reproduces the letter > > Alan Greenspan wrote on Keating's behalf, praising him as a fine > > upstanding character. He was reportedly paid $20,000 for the task. > > > > Doug > > > = > Isn't the S&L crisis the origins of the term 'corporate welfare'? > > Ian
Re: the new economy?
Not impossible, but I would wait for some info on methodology and sample size before accepting this as fact... Jim Devine wrote: > > from SLATE, 9/10/01: > >USA [TODAY] ... leads ... with a story nobody else fronts: A University of > >Pennsylvania study out today estimating that about 325,000 U.S. children > >17 or under are being sexually exploited--mostly as prostitutes or > >pornographic subjects--far many more than the experts anticipated. > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: the new economy?
I tend to very suspicious of this sort thing, after the McMartin fiasco and so on. Not that there is not a great deal of child abuse, and not that it is not horrible and worthy of being fought. But exaggerating the extent of it seems to be a basis for a lot of destruction of Civil liberties. Todays NY Times gives a description of the methodology: >The study, to be released on Monday by researchers at the University of >Pennsylvania, relied on interviews with victims, child welfare workers and law >enforcement officials in 28 cities in United States, Mexico and Canada from January >1999 through last March. So we are not talking statistical sampling here. And law enforcement agencies have a strong incentive to overstate incidence of any type of crime. On this particular issue my trust in child welfare workers would not be unlimited either -- since they played a big part in the whole "if you are charged you must be guilty" thing that put a lot of innocent people in jail. Mass interviews are a good way to detect a problem that was previously not believed to exist. They are sometimes useful in getting a better understanding of the nature of a problem. They are a lousy way to determine frequency or quantity of a problem. Jim Devine wrote: > > from SLATE, 9/10/01: > >USA [TODAY] ... leads ... with a story nobody else fronts: A University of > >Pennsylvania study out today estimating that about 325,000 U.S. children > >17 or under are being sexually exploited--mostly as prostitutes or > >pornographic subjects--far many more than the experts anticipated. > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: "an act of war" & insurance payments
Without being an authority: acts of war are ALWAYS excluded. (There are probably exceptions through custom policies, such as that offered by Lloyds.) Acts of terrorism are SOMETIMES excluded - depending upon whether the exclusion is written into the specific policy. BTW - what is hydro=nuclear? Nuclear power plans use fission to boil water to run steam engines. Hydro power uses falling water to drive turbines. In terms of limitations -- sounds like you have something similar to the Price-Anderson act in the U.S. which drastically limits the liabilty for nuclear power plants. Ken Hanly wrote: > > Would it make any difference. Would insurance ever cover acts of terrorism? > I thought that damage due to terrorism or insurrection would be > automatically excluded. But no doubt someone with more expertise can set us > straight. In Ontario the province has conveniently passed a law that limits > its liability for damages that might be caused by nucelar hydro power > reactors as I understand! > > Cheers, Ken Hanly > > - Original Message - > From: Tim Bousquet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: PEN-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 11:43 AM > Subject: [PEN-L:16987] "an act of war" & insurance payments > > > If this talk of an "act of war" leads to the War > > Powers Act being invoked, does that let the insurance > > companies escape from making payments on the damage? > > > > My reading of the Chron this morning suggests that the > > total hit for insurance companies is on the order of > > $20 billion-- by far the largest insurance bill in > > history. Are the companies capitalized enough to meet > > the payments? > > > > tim > > > > = > > Check out the Chico Examiner listserves at: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DisorderlyConduct > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChicoLeft > > > > Subscribe to the Chico Examiner for only $40 annually or $25 for six > months. Mail cash or check payabe to "Tim Bousquet" to POBox 4627, Chico CA > 95927 > > > > __ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! > Messenger > > http://im.yahoo.com > >
FWd: Time Wise - To my baby girl
http://www.zmag.org/wiscalam.htm To My Baby Girl, On the Day After By Tim Wise I was not where I needed to be last night. Not physically, and not emotionally. My daughter is ten weeks old. And last night, and tonight as well, only her mother will be able to hold her, and kiss her goodnight, and hug her, and wipe up her spit. I am somewhere else. Tonight I will call home, and speak to my wife, who gave birth to that precious baby girl amidst such hope and pain. And in the background, I will hear that baby's cry: as if she knows something is terribly wrong. Because babies can feel things that the rest of us have learned to repress. And yet when I finally call I find her laughing, consumed with a desire to do nothing more than reach out, reach out, reach out, and bat at the soft hanging stars and moons that hang from her mobile. I sigh a deep sigh of relief. The air escaping my lungs, and signifying recognition that 10-week-old babies do not, in fact, understand mass death. They have only begun, indeed, to understand their own life. It is their parents, it is we, who must impose upon their innocent, naïve, and far preferable world, with the truth that one day mommy or daddy may leave for work and not come back. It is the parents; it is we, who must impose upon their world, altering forever their smiling, drooling faces that you can only see through the bitter tears of your own disillusionment. You cannot protect them. Cannot keep them young forever. Oh what I would give to be so young and naïve, as to require my mommy or daddy to wipe my nose and speak to me about anything but mass death. It is their parents; it is we, who have to tell them of their nation's talk of massive retaliation, and hunting down those responsible for mass death. And inflicting upon them some more mass death, to convince still others--once and for all--that mass death really doesn't pay. And that our collective national dick is bigger than theirs. And while I never expected to speak to you of such things at such a tender age, you might as well know that it is always and forever about the length and circumference of one's national phallus. Size, it seems, does matter, whether for missiles, or tall buildings, or the airplanes that bring them down. Their shapes (and make a note of it now for future reference), are no coincidence. So if Osama Bin Laden is the man of the hour, then Al Haig and Hank Kissinger and their students--who, as it turns out know a little somethin' 'bout mass death--are apt to make sure he knows how killing is really done. Because they are hung like horses. Killers have tutors, see, and the classes are full. How many people can they kill? Can we kill? (Kill, Kill). "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out." That's what the bumper sticker prophets say. But God has better things to do, I figure, than to sort through the tangled mess that is both the New York financial district and also the human condition at this late date. I have been in those buildings, have you? I have dropped my quarter in the silver, shiny viewfinders that you could look through, and get a close up view of Greenwich Village, or the Empire State Building, or the Hudson River, or Fort Lee, New Jersey. If for some strange and largely inexplicable reason you felt the need to see Fort Lee, with the assistance of a 1000x magnification lens. I have dropped my quarters in slots my daughter will never see, in buildings she will never enter, on observation decks that do not exist any longer, except in my mind. And I have listened as the timer counted down the time left before the viewfinder would fade to black. And I can imagine looking thru the viewfinder, and wondering why that plane looks so damned close. I can imagine looking uptown as the plane came closer, and closer, and seeing Harlem, and thinking, damn: I shoulda gone to Sylvia's Soul Food. 'Cause Harlem, far from being the bad part of town, was one of the safest places in New York yesterday. Even terrorists know which victims count the most in America. America, if you want safety, you'd best get your ass to the 'hood. Get your boogie shoes to 123rd street. Move immediately into the Robert Taylor Homes, or Cabrini Green, or the lower 9th Ward in New Orleans. Do not pass go, let alone Wall Street. For there you are like sitting ducks. And now what baby girl? Will we shed the blood of innocent babies so much like you, to demonstrate to the world how precious your life is? You had best hope not baby girl. Because if so you will never be safe. Not now, and not when you are old enough to understand, and fear, and tremble, like I am right now. We will be signing a death warrant. If not yours, perhaps that of some other baby girl or boy. Maybe one that was being born at 8:42 this morning, while others were dying in mass death. 'Cause what goes around, most definitely goes around, and around, and around, and around. And all the tough talk and swagger and muscle flexing and chest thumpi
Re: Re: Soothing platitudes from Chairman Has-been decoded
Not on NBC, ABC, CNN or Foxnews websites. doesn't mean it is not true but... Rob Schaap wrote: > > I hear they're evacuating Chicago's Sears Tower now ... that true? > Rob.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Soothing platitudes from Chairman Has-been decoded
Still no confirmation; at this point I'd say it is probably not so. Rob Schaap wrote: > > Gar Lipow wrote: > > > > Not on NBC, ABC, CNN or Foxnews websites. doesn't mean it is not true > > but... > > There's an 'unconfirmed report' mentioned at <http://finance.yahoo.com/mo>, > that's all.
Re: Fw: global site coverage of the crisis
Michael, Are you sure everyone in To: header on this e-mail wanted their e-mail addresses forwarded to umpteen other recipients, including mail lists...? http://www.theglobalsite.ac.uk/justpeace/
Re: : Not good
I lost my job recently; by me it's a recession.
Re: viruses
That is probably becasue the viruses are doing the mailing... Jim Devine wrote: > It's a strange day when I seem to get more e-mail messages (from "Tony > Theriault") with viruses (viri?) attached than I get pen-l messages... > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > >
Re: Defining Recession
Robert Manning wrote: >Typically, a recession is defined by whether > friends/acquaintances lose their jobs. When we personally loose a job, > that's "depression." > > Robert D. Manning > > Rochester Institute of Technology > I'd agree -- except I think the terms have shifted. Remember, "Depression" was orginally coined as a euphemism for "panic". (I know this because of reading some really bad early 20th century mysteries about a professional "swindler".) These days, the shift has occurred again. "Recession" is now used where "depression:" used to be; "downturn" is used where "recession" used to be. And "correction" is used where downturn used to be. ..
Re: Re: Lenin's Super-Imperialism (was Britain/US split?)
Not only do we not see a single untied International Capitalist class; in the U.S. at least we do not see a single united U.S. capitalist class. To make a simple minded argument -- if capitalists were completely united, we would already be in concentration camps. Chris Burford wrote: > At 26/09/01 00:19 0800, Greg wrote: > >> Was it not Lenin in Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism who >> noted the emergence of some then "unstable" international cartels as >> precursors of the next stage? I trust no one has missed the fact that >> this form of combine is now both stable and plentifull.
FWD: Michael Albert: What's Going On?
http://www.zmag.org/whatsgoing.htm What's Going On? By Michael Albert The U.S. response to September 11 seeks to benefit elites in the U.S., and, to a lesser degree, around the world. There are various goals. --> Destroy the bin Laden network --> Topple the Taliban --> Build a coalition fighting selected terrorists internationally in exchange for trade and foreign aid benefits and the right of coalition partners to pursue their own dissidents locally --> Channel fear and anger to cut education, social services, health care, and other socially desirable expenditures --> Expand military spending --> Enlarge police and surveillance budgets --> Curb civil rights --> Deny and even aggravate just grievances around the world when doing so serves corporate interests even if it also fuels the despair that breeds terrorism --> Ignore international legality to curb notions that the U.S. ought to obey international law --> Avoid defining terrorism as any attack on civilians for political ends, to avoid indicting the U.S. and its allies. But if you are Bush, how do you juggle so many goals simultaneously? How do you neutralize bin Laden, topple the Taliban, and strengthen regimes supportive of U.S. interests, yet avoid destabilizing others we want to maintain? How do you create a domestic dynamic that expands police and military powers and that redistributes wealth upward by gutting social programs and enhancing regressive taxes, yet retain popular support? And what about dissent...how does that impact your choices? The good news is that I don't think it can all be done, supposing dissidents react with sufficient vigor and clarity. The campaign to elaborate an anti-terrorism war into national policy is ill-conceived. That last little proviso -- that they must avoid clearly defining terrorism -- is the Achilles heal of the entire undertaking. With sufficient resistance, the campaign will succumb to its own obvious hypocrisy. U.S. policy makers are terrorists too. There are numerous indicators that activists will have the room to mount the needed resistance and help communicate the towering hypocrisy. In the past thirty years I have rarely addressed an audience too big to fit in a large auditorium - but in the last two days I was on a national radio call-in with two million listeners for two hours, and I was on NPR, again nationally, for an hour. Demonstrations and gatherings are occurring locally all over the country, with education and solidarity resulting. Many feel this is the worst of times for leftists.but while it is certainly a time of great grief and fear, and a time of immense danger, and while it is certainly a time of widespread confusion and nationalism, nonetheless, regarding communicating with previously apolitical people, there are many more openings than closings of opportunity occurring, both on the local and on the national scale. So, again, if you were Bush, what would be your preferred agenda, if you could have your way? Here is my best guess...at the moment, with admittedly little information available. First, you would elicit fear and nationalism. Second, you would convince populaces worldwide that there is a long-term war we must fight (the same war that was at the core of Reagan's foreign policy twenty years ago), which requires a massive allotment of resources and energy, plus lock-step patriotism. Third, after saber-rattling sufficiently to arouse fear and passion, you would ratchet down the rhetoric in accord with the necessity to avoid actual military losses or risking destabilizing friendly regimes, and to avoid appearing to want to punish civilians. Fourth, to have a good shot at getting rid of the Taliban, you would close the borders of Afghanistan, starve the country, and hope that Taliban members start to defect and that the country rises up in anguish and despair. Fifth, to fill the ensuing power vacuum, you would support Afghanistan's Northern alliance. Most important, sixth, to diminish the groundswell of anti-war opposition to your combating terror with even greater terror, you would send food to Afghanistan's borders, and perhaps even drop food from planes inland. But, if you could have your way, not too much food, of course. Indeed, if you remained free to do so, you would provide only a pittance compared to the need generated by closing the borders in the first place and by removing larger sources of aid. Your goal would be to induce starvation sufficient to topple the Taliban. It would not deter you that such behavior is precisely the definition of terrorism -- attacking civilians for political aims - because seventh, you would blame the ensuing starvation, caused by your closing the borders, on the Taliban itself. Finally, you would claim, eighth, that we are humanely seeking to avoid innocent suffering, even as the starved bodies pile up. Assuming Bush and his advisors can overcome some internal opposition from their right and reign in the momentum to shoot someone tha
Re: 2000 less kille
The towers employed a lot of undocumented workers whose families might be deported if they report them as missing (or worse given anti-terrorism legislation). So 5-6 thousand may not be so far off, Karl Carlile wrote: > It now transpires that about 2000 less people were killed in tha attack on the twin > towers. The figures it appears were exaggerated. Yet Blair continues to say 6000 > thousand or so people were killed. > > Regards > Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) > Be free to join our communism mailing list > at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/ > > >
Peace activist detained at airport, denied right to travel because of anti-war opinion
(Note: normally when I do fowards I do not edit. In this case I've moved address, and foswarding appeals to the bottom ,because I think the content is so urgent.) --- GREEN PARTY USA COORDINATOR DETAINED AT AIRPORT PREVENTED BY ARMED MILITARY FROM FLYING TO GREENS MEETING IN CHICAGO "I was targeted because the Green Party USA opposes the bombing of innocent civilians in Afghanistan." - --Nancy Oden GREEN PARTY USA COORDINATOR DETAINED AT AIRPORT PREVENTED BY ARMED MILITARY FROM FLYING TO GREENS MEETING IN CHICAGO Armed government agents grabbed Nancy Oden, Green Party USA coordinating committee member, Thursday at Bangor International Airport in Bangor Maine,as she attempted to board an American Airlines flight to Chicago. "An official told me that my name had been flagged in the computer," a shaken Oden said. "I was targeted because the Green Party USA opposes the bombing of innocent civilians in Afghanistan." Oden, a long-time organic farmer and peace activist in northern Maine, was ordered away from the plane. Military personnel with automatic weapons surrounded Oden and instructed all airlines to deny her passage on ANY flight. "I was told that the airport was closed to me until further notice and that my ticket would not be refunded," Oden said. Oden is scheduled to speak in Chicago Friday night on a panel concerning pesticides as weapons of war. She had helped to coordinate the Green Party USA's antiwar efforts these past few months, and was to report on these to The Greens national committee. "Not only did they stop me at the airport but some mysterious party had called the hotel and cancelled my reservation," Oden said. The Greens National Committee -- the governing body of the Green Party USA - -- is meeting in Chicago Nov. 2-4 to hammer out the details of national campaigns against bio-chemical warfare, the spraying of toxic pesticides, genetic engineering, and the Party's involvement in the burgeoning peace movement. "I am shocked that US military prevented one of our prominent Green Party members from attending the meeting in Chicago," said Elizabeth Fattah, a GPUSA representative from Pennsylvania who drove to Chicago. "I am outraged at the way the Bill of Rights is being trampled upon." Chicago Green activist Lionel Trepanier concluded, "The attack on the right of association of an opposition political party is chilling. The harassment of peace activists is reprehensible." For further information, please call 1-866-GREENS-2 (toll-free) (The Green Party USA statement on the war against Afghanistan is at http://www.greenparty.org/911.html They are the original Green Party in the U.S. since 1986) == PLEASE FORWARD TO ALL MEDIA AND LISTSERVES. THANX (Mitchel Cohen) The Greens / Green Party USA 226 South Wabash, 6th floor PO Box 1406, Chicago, Illinois 60690 Toll-free Phone: 1-866-GREENS-2 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 2, 2001 MEDIA ALERT: GREEN PARTY USA will hold press conference in CHICAGO SATURDAY, NOV. 3 10 a.m. at the J. Ira and Nicki Family Hostel 24 East Congress Parkway (at Wabash), 2nd floor -
Re: The Third Way Sandinistas?
Ken Hanly wrote: > I wonder what Louis P. thinks of all this? Labor's Flag, the Worker's Flag is not so very red as you might think! Labor's Flag, the people's Flag proudly waves the palest pink!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Off topic - madmen
Marta Russell wrote:
> Carrol Cox11/12/01 11:56 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>>
>>Doyle Saylor wrote:
>>
>>>Greetings Economists,
>>>I very much agree with Marta's comments. I would add that a
>>>significant part of characterization of someone as a madman
>>>discounts why someone comes to feel the way they do. Emotions do
>>>respond to the loss that accompanies oppression. The men who
>>>crashed into the WTC towers certainly felt intensely about their
>>>political commitments.
>>>
>>I too agree with Marta, but the position does create a vocabulary
>>difficulty that I have been wrestling with for over a decade. Certain
>>intellectual positions that are perfectly sane -- that is, are held by
>>persons who do not in any sense suffer from mental illness -- are, in
>>the ordinary slang sense of the word, quite "insane": that is, they are
>>detached from reality. For example, when someone seriously suggests that
>>the anti-war movemnt has a responsibility for presenting a program by
>>which terrorism can be "punished" or "prevented," they are clearly
>>occupying a nearly solipsistic position, speaking of the world as though
>>it existed on a sand table before them and they had the power to move
>>about the pieces (nations, classes, armies, etc) on that board. [*] What
>>word can we use for such detachment from political reality? The best I
>>can come up with is to put it in Greek: they are (I don't know the greek
>>plural) _idiotes_, private persons, separated from the world of public
>>action. Even in greek, however, the word does carry the (quite
>>incorrect) references to "mental capacity" to which Marta objects. So I
>>dunno.
>>
>>
> Since idiot is a word also used in a pejorative sense directed at impaired
> persons, I couldn't agree to that one.
> Can't one be foolish as separate from insane?
>
> Marta
>
>
>
But doesn't the root of foolish ("fool") also contain an implication of
impairment? Oh well, "asshole" remains unobjectionable...
Re: Re: America is losing the battle forhearts and minds
Carrol Cox wrote: > I think it is debatable whether the war in Europe had to go beyond the > successful establishment of the Normany invasion. What might have been > the result of a really open invitation to the Germans to negotiate? Any settlement acceptable to Germany would have involved leaving the Germans in charge of their own territory (and large parts of Poland) long enough to cover up the concentrations -- via longer extermniation. So I suspect that one answer to your question is "even more dead Jews".
Re: irrelevant rate cut
Robin Hahnel uses it in his new book "Panic Rules" -- but I don't know if he orginated it. Rob Schaap wrote: > G'day all, > > Ten minutes with today's US papers discloses that OPEC's cutting production by > a million barrels, rocketing insurance rates and ever more exacting loan > conditions are hitting US businesses, earnings reports are yet further down, > big business September quarter profits are down monumentally, machine > toolmakers have soaring inventories, and mortgages are finally becoming > tougher to get. > > If one is looking for signs of a sustained profit crisis (now in its fourth > year, in my book) and an incipient credit crunch, one can find 'em without > looking beyond the front pages. But Wall St - which soars at the prospect of > a structurally impotent rate cut (other than keeping over exposed and > profitless concerns limping unto ever greater bad debts), and plunges > skittishly at the news of a downed airliner - persists either in believing > none of this matters any more, or that they have no alternative but to be in > the game while everybody else is there. > > Who was it who said there were only two rules on The Street: Don't Panic and > Panic First? > > Cheers, > Rob. > > >
Re: markets & profit maximization
In all fairness the same anomymity is possible under planning. Sensible proposals for planning generally do NOT abolish money (though they may call it something else). Yes, I know you have been arguing with people who do think money could be abolished; but this is rather as though I argued with extreme Randites and attributed their views to you. I do think you give more weight to Hayekian incentive for information gathering and transaction costs than neccesary. In terms of incentives, planning can be market like in this respect: A workplace is rated on efficiency based on actual output vs. actual input. (input being measure in money costs of buying the the inputs, output being measured what people willing to pay for what is produced). If efficiency falls below the minimum (say the average for the economy as a whole, or for the particulars sector) then the workplace is dissolved. Short of this workers have incentives to discover how to do things right because they get feedback as to how close to having this happen they are or how far away. In short, the further from bankruptcy you are the more secure your job is; the close to bankruptcy you are the less secure. In terms of transaction costs; assuming planning is done through an iterative feedback rather than micro planning , the transaction costs need be no more than that of planning under capitalism or market socialism. Justin Schwartz wrote: > > > >> >> Enormous amounts of resources are spent to market products that are >> essentially identical. Maybe you don't get phone calls from the phone >> companies >> > > Is that a reason to abolish markets? There is nothing wrong with price > competition for identical products. And this economic objection does not > go to my moral/practical objection that I don't want my neighbors or > fellow cituzens to democratically discuss my tastes in, e.g., Hayekian > economics, highly spiced food, bondage and domination equipment, etc. > There is a positive moral value to the anonymity of the market. jks > > _ > Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. > http://www.hotmail.com > >
Re: Re: Re: markets & profit maximization
Justin Schwartz wrote: >> > > > Well, I've been arguing with folks hereabouts. Ia gree that some > anonmytity is possible under planning. However there is little under, > for example, the Albert-Hahnel and Devine models, both of which require > the consumer to justify her choices to the world. No neither require it. In the Parecon model, justfifying private choices was once advocated. But they have pretty much acknowledged that it is not a REQUIREMENT of the model, and most advocates of Parecon don't support discussion of consumption at the private level. In short, if you want to spend your entire allocation on booze and drugs, your choice, your consequences. Albert and Hahnel themselves may still favor this sort of nattering, but it is not required by their system. Still, it's good to > see someone acknowledge that the democractization of choice is not an > unqualified good. The best planning model on this dimension is Madel's > cleaned up version of the Soviet system, where planning is basically > matter of projecting from current demand. There are other problems with > the model, such as insensitivity to changes in demand and stifling of > innovation, but preserving anonymity isn't one of them. Like I said I doubt any planning system REQUIRES discussion of personal choices, at least it most cases. Advocates of a particular model may tack it on, but that is not same thing as making a requiremetn of planning. > > >> >> I do think you give more weight to Hayekian incentive for information >> gathering and transaction costs than neccesary. >> >> In terms of incentives, planning can be market like in this respect: A >> workplace is rated on efficiency based on actual output vs. actual >> input. (input being measured in money costs of buying the the inputs, >> output being measured what people willing to pay for what is >> produced). If efficiency falls below the minimum (say the average for >> the economy as a whole, or for the particulars sector) then the >> workplace is dissolved. Short of this workers have incentives to >> discover how to do things right because they get feedback as to how >> close to having this happen they are or how far away. In short, the >> further from bankruptcy you are the more secure your job is; the close >> to bankruptcy you are the less secure. > > > That's an interesting thought. Not new to you I hope. > It does create consequences, which provide incentives, for inefficient behavior. >Note, though, that the > incentivesa re purely negative. There si the threat of "bankruptcy," but > no promise of "profit" for doing things better. I think "job security" is a pretty strong postive incentive. I note that in capitalism, during tough times people may go for years without a raise, and work damn hard and well for increased job security. But what cosequences of this provide incentives for inefficient behavior? We don't want the discussion to deteriorate to tis/tisn't - so when you say stuff like this, you need to explicate a bit. > > > > > Iterative feedback--like Albert and Hahnel? I think the transactions > costs would be horrendous. > All iterative feedback? Because markets are a form of iterative feedback too. So non-market iterative feedback automatically has horrendous transaction costs compared to market iterative feedback.
Re: Re: the state and democracy
Justin Schwartz wrote: > > >> >> people should realize that Arrow's theory is a critique of _all_ >> collective >> decision-making mechanisms, not just democracy. It also applies to >> markets. >> Can you think of a method of collective choice that isn't subject to the >> theorem? > > > Um, how so? The theorem says you can't have: nondictatorship, > independence of irrelevant alternatives, independence of order of > choice, and, dammit, one other thing I can't recall, all together. It's > a theorem in voting theory. These things are irrelevant to markets. Of > course a market with dictatorship (a monopoly) is distorted, but the > independence conditions simply don't matter to formulating a market model. >* Universality. The voting method should provide a complete ranking of all alternatives from any set of individual preference ballots. >* Monotonicity criterion. If one set of preference ballots preference ballots would lead to an an overall ranking of alternative X above alternative Y and if some preference ballots are changed in such a way that the only alternative that has a higher ranking on any preference ballots is X, then the method should still rank X above Y. >* Criterion of independence of irrelevant alternatives. If one set of preference ballots would lead to an an overall ranking of alternative X above alternative Y and if some preference ballots are changed without changing the relative rank of X and Y, then the method should still rank X above Y. >* Citizen Sovereignty. Every possible ranking of alternatives can be achieved from some set of individual preference ballots. >* Non-dictatorship. There should not be one specific voter whose preference ballot is always adopted Note that "voting" in this context is simply a means of aggreating individual preference into social choice. A "market" in which everyone has the same number of dollars would be a democratic vote by this criteria - one in which multiple choices are made by multiple voters. Note also that uneven distribution of money , short of severe monopoly does not resove the paradox, any more than uneven distribution of voting powers (where some people were allowed to vote multiple times) would resolve the paradox in any other election - short of dictatorship.
Re: Re: Re: market socialism. finis.
> > > > Well, yeah, if everyone is interested in continuing this discussion, > fine. I have not gotten much from it myself. The problem for me is that > the discussion has remained extremely abstract and has not done much > other than reinforce the prejudices people had when they started the > discussion. > > People have simply taken the nebulous concept of "market" -- like a > Platonic form; they have not distinguished what the differences might be > between a market under capitalism vs what how it might function under > democractic socialism; they have not talked about whether the market > should be the locus of exchange for all labor and the products of labor, > or whether it needs to be limited, nor have they explained (to my > satisfaction) how they "invisible hand" of the market is an agent > preferrable to human intelligence and the process of consensus building. > > So, if we're going to have a discussion, it would be really nice if > people addressed some of these issues. > > Joanna > > I just joined the discussion. If it continues we will.
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Market socialism as a form of utopianism
I don't think it is "ahistorical" to deal with the limits of the possible. Most "utopian socialists" today are activists. And in fact, I doubt that in the immediate issues, what we are fighting for today Albert and Hahel, Justin, and Michael Perlman would find much to disagree about. But if you want to win m ore than immediate reform, knowing where you want to go is part of knowing what to do. Besides, regardless on what you blame the failures on , actually existing "socialisms" have been pretty miserable places to live - not only in material goods but in terms of freedom. Workers are not stupid. If you ever want workers to support socialism in the future, you are going to have to give examples of how it can work better than it has in the past. Carl Remick wrote: >> From: Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> In the first instance, with Morris, you are dealing with a genre of >> literature, namely the utopian novel. ... In the case of >> Hahnel-Albert, you >> are confronted with *utopianism*, a form of political advocacy that seeks >> ideal solutions to problems that had historical origins. > > > Ralph Waldo Emerson much agreed with you. In criticizing the utopianism > of Charles Fourier, he said in part: "Our feeling was, that Fourier had > skipped no fact but one, namely, Life. He treats man as a plastic thing, > something that may be put up or down, ripened or retarded, moulded, > polished, made into solid, or fluid, or gas, at the will of the leader; > or, perhaps, as a vegetable, from which, though now a poor crab, a very > good peach can by manure and exposure be in time produced, but skips the > faculty of life, which spawns and scorns system and system-makers, which > eludes all conditions, which makes or supplants a thousand phalanxes and > New-Harmonies with each pulsation." > > Carl > > > _ > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com > >
Re: Re: Market socialism as a form of utopianism
>> > > I am sorry, Gar. This is not a question of activist credibility. This is > not why I object to "Looking Forward". It is about how socialism can be > achieved. I believe that it miseducates people to write elaborate models. > Marxists focus on strategies for revolution, not how future > post-revolutionary societies will function. If it is the only thing maybe. But as part of a broader program of activism, how does it "miseducate"? > > >>Besides, regardless on what you blame the failures on , actually >>existing "socialisms" have been pretty miserable places to live - not >>only in material goods but in terms of freedom. Workers are not stupid. >>If you ever want workers to support socialism in the future, you are >>going to have to give examples of how it can work better than it has in >>the past. >> > > I disagree. There will never be a revolution in a country like the USA > until the material conditions have worsened to an extent not experienced in > our lifetime. When that time arrives--as I am sure it will--people will > care less about what took place in the USSR. We are looking at corporate > malfeasance and declining stock markets, a combination that even Bush says > might lead to questioning of the capitalist system. We are also faced with > the prospects of a cataclysmic war with Iraq. In face of objective > conditions that are only likely to worsen in the next ten years or so, it > would be a diversion from our tasks as socialists to concoct castles in the > air. People will not want assurances how the system of the future will > work, they will want leadership to get the boot of capital off their necks. > Hate to sound apocalyptic, but that's the way I see it. > The worse the better eh? Both from personal experience, and from my reading of history people are mostly likely to engage in either radical or revolutionary activity when they have hope - when they believe things can be better. I think you can find more examples of revolution during times of hope than during times of despair...
Re: woops: correction
joanna bujes wrote: > To take an example, I think Pete Seeger's songs had much greater > influence on working class consciousness...than any utopian novel. > > I'm spacing...I meant Woodie Guthrie. > > Joanna > > Nmm, well regardless of what folk music represents today, there was a time lasting until the early sixties when folk music was a genuinely popular music - including Pete Seegar and Joan Baez. And I will note that the songs of those time were not above articulationg a concrete vision: >If each little kid could have fresh milk each day >If each working person had more time to play >If each homeless soul had a good place to stay >It could be a wonderful world Pretty concrete detail, no? That is how cold utopian vision make it into popular culture; someone conceives a utopian vision; if it is compelling enough artists and writers pick it up.
Re: Re: RE: Re: Repitition and Market Socialism
I think there is more advanced argument to be made against market socialism. If Justin has not been exiled from the list I would like a chance to make it in argument against the market socialists. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I would agree with Jim. While Michael may feel that the issue has > been debated sufficiently, I am somewhat disturbed by the > superficial analysis of market socialism that passes for critical > thought on this list. As someone who has worked for the past 15 > years in Jugoslavia and, most intensively, in Slovenia, I am > dismayed by the level of discourse on workers' self-management, > labour based economies, Jugoslav economic history, the theory > and practice of market socialism etc. Quite frankly, I would not > accept what is presented on this list at a second year level. I think > Justin may well be encouraged to drop the subject , but not > because he is going over old ground, but because it appears that > everyone's mind is made up and they have no intention of being > influenced by fact or argument.If anyone seriously wants to debate > the theory of market socialism I think they should look at the basic > literature. At risk of appearing arrogant on this, one place they > might begin is my and Jim Stoddard's contribution on market > socialism to the Encyclopedia of Political Economy. But please, > the level of debate so far is hardly complimentary to the list. > > Paul Phillips, > Economics, > University of Manitoba > > >>I agree with Christian. I do not see any reason to restrict Justin's >>contributions, I think the main job of the moderator is not to >>restrict the content of discussion but the tone (avoiding flame-wars and the >>like). >> >> > > >>Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine >> >> >>>-Original Message- >>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>>Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 10:52 AM >>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>Subject: [PEN-L:27920] Re: Repitition and Market Socialism >>> >>> >>> Here's my suggestion for Justin. Let's stipulate that >>>everything you said so >>>far is true. Do you have anything to add -- something that you >>>have not already said? If not, the discussion is finished. >>>If you have >>>something new to add, let's hear it.< >>> >>>This is pathetic, Michael. Having been on this list for a few >>>years, I can >>>only think of a few instances in which people have really >>>"moved conversations >>>along," on this standard. Besides, so what if debates don't >>>generate anything >>>new for you? Isn't possible that people _learn_ through >>>repetition? The >>>members of this list have talked almost incessantly about >>>"the current crisis" >>>or whatever for at least the last 4 years, and yet you can >>>never seem to get >>>enough of that. My point is not that this isn't >>>worthwhile--just the opposite. >>>But it's true for Justin, too. If people weren't really >>>interested, they just >>>wouldn't bother. Give the list some credit. >>> >>>Christian >>> >>> > >
Re: Re: LOV and Schweickart
Chris Burford wrote: > So there are contradictions within the camp of the admirers of market > socialism! Umm, to be fair, speaking as an advocate of planning, there are equally strong contradicitons among supporters of planning. For example I have heard some planning advocates speak in favor of a "moneyless economy" - which strikes me as absurd. Also, I think it is really unfair to suggest that a Bush would bring a leading market socialist into his camp. I don't think in a market socialist economy the trust issue is as difficult to resolve as in a capitalist society. Not that it does not need to be dealt with, but that it is easier to create independent auditors who are not beholden to individual enterprises - because the lower degree of inequality reduces the overwhelming degree of influence the rich have vs. the rest of us. (If I ever get to debate an actual market socialist, I'll explain why I use the term "reduces" rather than "eliminates". ) Under capitalism it is much tougher than it seems at first. Of course having companies hire their own auditors is absurd if the auditors are actully to serve a "policing" role. I have heard proposals that auditors should be employed by the SEC or by the stock markets. First, you will note how marginalized such proposals are. They are sensible (from a capitalist perspective I mean), but thanks to the influence of top managers, and leading accounting firms, they are (currently) political non-starters. But even if implemented, they would (though a great improvement) not be without problems. If we currently had such a law, I doubt that the Bush adminsitration would favor tough watchdogs in his appointments to such positions. Similarly, the various stock markets have a long term conflict of interest comparable the short term ones of CEOs. That is the stock market benefits from inflated valuations. I will note that this does not make such reforms useless. However much we deplore the weakness, and corporate leanings of the Food and Drug Administration, most Americans would hate to be without it. Similarly, I suspect that auditors who did not work directly for large corporations, in spite of flaws and corruption would do a better job than auditors do under the currrent system.
Re: : Market Socialism
Justin Schwartz wrote: > > >> >> I think there is more advanced argument to be made against market >> socialism. If Justin has not been exiled from the list I would like a >> chance to make it in argument against the market socialists. >> >> p > > > OK, shoot. What's the argument? > If you remember, the context on this was a discussion of Hayek. A big part of the argument FOR market socialism is a TINA argument against planning. Not a claim that non-market socialism is literally impossible, but a claim that it tends to be inherently inefficient, and probably undemocratic. So a big part of any critique of market socialism is the defense of planning. The conversation went like this: Gar > In terms of incentives, planning can be market like in this respect: A workplace is >rated on efficiency based on actual output vs. actual input. (input being measured in >money costs of buying the the inputs, output being measured what people willing to >pay for what is produced). If efficiency falls below the minimum (say the average for >the economy as a whole, or for the particulars sector) then the workplace is >dissolved. Short of this workers have incentives to discover how to do things right >because they get feedback as to how close to having this happen they are or how far >away. In short, the further from bankruptcy you are the more secure your job is; the >close to bankruptcy you are the less secure. > > Justin > That's an interesting thought. > Gar > Not new to you I hope. Justin > It does create consequences, which provide incentives, for inefficient behavior. >Note, though, that the incentivesa re purely negative. There si the threat of >"bankruptcy," but no promise of "profit" for doing things better. And then I asked you for the incentives for inefficienct behavior inherent in this; they are not self evident. I would add to this another incentive; effor ratings. Those you work most closely with, know whether you are putting out your best effort or not. (If they don't you are working in the wrong, place.) This is both a positive and negative incentive. If you work harder than the average bear, you get more than the average bear. If you slack, but not to the point where you are fired, you get less. The workplace ratings provide an incentive to rate effort fairly. Or to put it another way workplace ratings provide a material incentive to see that everyone else works efficiencly, including rating others on effort as fairly as possible. (Because if you rate someone too highly, you encourage them to slack and have to carry their load in order to maintain a good workplace rating. If you rate them too low, they will find other work, and you will end up with someone new who you either rate fairly or...) But of course I would not object to market socialism if I did not think it vastly inferior to planned socialism. My major objection is that market socialism requires a greater degree of inequality than planning does - especially in disribution of income. Because the subject of equality and inequality is one on which many pro-planning Marxists (including Marx) agree with marketeers - that equality qua equality is not very important or is even undesirable.
In defenser of egalitarianism
I hit send prematurely on my last post - but actually it is not a bad place to break (other than ending a post with a sentence fragment). The question of egalitarianism is of much broader interest than that of market socialism. Marx in the Gotha program, and a great many Marxists since have sneered at egalitarianism. I think a fair representation of this attitude is: People differ in strength, ability, needs etc.. and thus equality is nonsense, an attack by the jealous peasant leveler mentality that wishes to destroy anything that cannot be evenly shared... This is nonsense - egalitarianism is not "identicalism". It does not seek to make everyone alike, merely assume that power and income are divided approximately evenly, Now even Market socialists and Leninists will acknowledge that this is desirable. Where most Marxists differ from egalitarians is the assertion that "approximately" can be a very wide range indeed. I know that "Against Capitalism" suggest that the range of wages vary by a factor of ten - say from 20,000 to 200,000 American dollars. (I suspect a real market socialism would end up with a much greater disparity than that. The former Yugoslavia, for example ...) And a great many "planned" economies ended up with disparities greater than that. So, if the workers own the means of production, what is wrong with some making $200,000 and other making $20,000? If the social wage (health care, child care, education, housing subsidies, old age pensions) are decent no will starve or suffer material want. And what is wrong with some being managers and planners, artists, lawyers and writers while others dig ditches, staff assembly lines, wait tables, and repetitive fill out forms on computers? After all the managers are still elected or under under the control of elected boards. Those in more privileged positions still have around 20% of total votes. Part of the answer is that you create a social group (I would say class) with shared interests that differ from those of the majority in society. Suppose you are one of those under Market socialism, making $100,000 per year, or $200,000. The subject of old age pensions comes up; those pesky old people are campaigning for another pension increase. The majority, knowing that this will be their pension some day too, favor the rise. But you know that you will gain more in old age from your savings than than from pensions. At 200,000 a year, with interest on consumer savings at around 4% it is not great burden for you to save a million or even two in the 40 or so years of your work life. So why should you pay higher taxes for people who simply have not bothered to prepare themselves for life as well you have? Of course they should get something. You are no capitalist; you don't want anyone to starve to in their old age. But you firmly believe that above a decent minimum, people should SAVE for their old age. Of course this argument may not go down well with others in your local factory, but perhaps you could suggest that lower taxes, combined with higher interest rates at the consumer savings banks could provide better pensions in the long run. And when it comes to education, well of course you want to see the schools decently funded. But full national funding does not make sense to you. Not everyone cares about their kids equally, Or perhaps everyone does, but some people simply know that their kids need training in a trade more than training in a profession they probably are not equipped to join. So once a minimum school funding was provided, why not let people in individual neighborhoods decide pay for local schools - as much or as little as they wish? Since most people in your neighborhood earn around 150,000 or more, this would provide more funding for your local schools, than a national tax at lower tax rate than national income tax does. Of course if you put things exactly that way you will be outvoted. But your experience in arguing in meetings and making and justifying decisions gives a little experience in arguing. You know how to put things. And unlike the janitor in your factory you can put a fair amount of cash into seeing that your message gets out. So you may not win everything you want - but you will get concessions. If you are part of a top 20% whose interests differ in important ways from the rest of the "socialists" society and you have both more spare money to put into politics, and more experience in the type of thing that wins in a political context. Things will go the way the top 20% want a lot more often than 20% of the time. And of course your children will grow up with whatever privilege you win for them. So the income disparity will be a little greater. The educational, and power disparities will be a little higher. So they will have the chance to win a little more power and privilege for their children, who will use the increased disparity to win a li
Re: Re: Re: : Market Socialism
Ian Murray wrote: > > > [from an interview with Phil Condit, CEO of Boeing in > yesterday's Guardian] > > In the six years since he and his executive team put > together > Vision 2016, they have transformed Boeing from a maker of > airplanes into a "systems integrator", a vision, he says, > buttressed by this week's merger. Now, building on the > experiences > of the war in Afghanistan and, with savage irony, the > opportunities provided by September 11, he wants to go > further and > place Boeing at the forefront of what the Pentagon calls > "system-centric warfare": commanding and controlling the > low- or > no-casualty (of friendly forces) battlefield of the > future. > > > ***So the issue seems to be whether markets and planning > are complementary institutional processes and it would > seem to be an empirical matter as to what kinds of > decentralization would be workable. > > Ian > > > > I don't think decentralization is the word in this context. Markets are extremely centralizing institution. And there is no inherent reason planning needs to centralized. As you say, degree of centralization and decentralization is an empircal question. But this is true in both markets and planning.
Re: Re: Iraq
One thing: I think in opposing this invastion, we should not refer to stuff like Americans coming home in body bags, implying that this will a tough invasion to carry out. If it turns out that the U.S. m iliatry has an easy time destroying the current Iraq goverment do we then support it? And also we don't know that it will be tough. No-one can predict this sort of thing. Saddam may well have put together an army capapble of resisting a U.S. invasion. He certainly has had time; and the support for resisting a U.S. invasion is probably strong regardless of how people feel about their government otherwise. But he has not had a whole bunch of money to buy weapons with nor great access to the supply market in general (to put it mildly). The bottom line is WE DON'T KNOW how strong Iraq resistance will be. It is better to premise our opposition on another basis. Michael Perelman wrote: > Bush should attack in late September/early Oct. according to the official > wag the dog election calendar. > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 11:49:59AM -0700, Ian Murray posted: > > >>World leaders appear to be in deadly earnest over warnings >>that Saddam must be deposed by force. But some in the US >>are asking why a blueprint for the conflict was leaked at >>the moment when sleaze scandals hit a new peak. Report by >>Jason Burke in London and Ed Vulliamy in New York >> >> >
Re: Michael Perlman's personal email address
Hi, any email to your personal address is refused. (I used my reply function.) It is telling me that my mail server at earthlink is boycotted by your mail server. Just to let me know that I am neglecting to reply to your email - I just cannot get through. I am having this problem with other addresses, and apparently ISP is not resolving whatever issues are getting it boycotted. I am going to be looking into switching ISPs, but in the meantime if personal e-mails don't get replies, this is probably why. For some reason this has not yet happened to any of my lists.
Re: Re: Re: Iraq
Oh - and just to clarify, I know Michael used no such reference. It is a general comment I thought important, and happened to come up in reply to his post. Gar Lipow wrote: > One thing: I think in opposing this invastion, we should not refer to > stuff like Americans coming home in body bags, implying that this will a > tough invasion to carry out. If it turns out that the U.S. m iliatry has > an easy time destroying the current Iraq goverment do we then support > it? And also we don't know that it will be tough. No-one can predict > this sort of thing. Saddam may well have put together an army capapble > of resisting a U.S. invasion. He certainly has had time; and the > support for resisting a U.S. invasion is probably strong regardless of > how people feel about their government otherwise. > > But he has not had a whole bunch of money to buy weapons with nor great > access to the supply market in general (to put it mildly). The bottom > line is WE DON'T KNOW how strong Iraq resistance will be. It is better > to premise our opposition on another basis. > > Michael Perelman wrote: > >> Bush should attack in late September/early Oct. according to the official >> wag the dog election calendar. >> >> On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 11:49:59AM -0700, Ian Murray posted: >> >> >>> World leaders appear to be in deadly earnest over warnings >>> that Saddam must be deposed by force. But some in the US >>> are asking why a blueprint for the conflict was leaked at >>> the moment when sleaze scandals hit a new peak. Report by >>> Jason Burke in London and Ed Vulliamy in New York >>> >>> >> > >
Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraq
A good concise statement the only change I would make is in tense. Between sanctions and regular bombings we are killing innocent people now. The question is why we are going to kill more of them. pms wrote: > How about, Even when Saddam had plenty of help from Cheney's buddy Jim > Baker, he couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag, so why are we going to > kill all those innocent people? > - Original Message - > From: Gar Lipow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 8:11 PM > Subject: [PEN-L:28022] Re: Re: Iraq > > > >>One thing: I think in opposing this invastion, we should not refer to >>stuff like Americans coming home in body bags, implying that this will a >>tough invasion to carry out. If it turns out that the U.S. m iliatry has >>an easy time destroying the current Iraq goverment do we then support >>it? And also we don't know that it will be tough. No-one can predict >>this sort of thing. Saddam may well have put together an army capapble >>of resisting a U.S. invasion. He certainly has had time; and the >>support for resisting a U.S. invasion is probably strong regardless of >>how people feel about their government otherwise. >> >>But he has not had a whole bunch of money to buy weapons with nor great >>access to the supply market in general (to put it mildly). The bottom >>line is WE DON'T KNOW how strong Iraq resistance will be. It is better >>to premise our opposition on another basis. >> >>Michael Perelman wrote: >> >> >>>Bush should attack in late September/early Oct. according to the >>> > official > >>>wag the dog election calendar. >>> >>>On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 11:49:59AM -0700, Ian Murray posted: >>> >>> >>> >>>>World leaders appear to be in deadly earnest over warnings >>>>that Saddam must be deposed by force. But some in the US >>>>are asking why a blueprint for the conflict was leaked at >>>>the moment when sleaze scandals hit a new peak. Report by >>>>Jason Burke in London and Ed Vulliamy in New York >>>> >>>> >>>> >> > >
Re:: In defense of egalitarianism
Carrol > > Consider just one actual example -- me and my migraine headaches. Three > years ago I got hit with what was eventually diagnosed as "atypical" > migraine -- atypical in that instead of centering around one eye they > occurred on the top of my head, and they were several orders of > magnitude worse than the "ordinary" migraine I had been plagued with for > decades but was (mostly) controlled by my anti-depressants. They put me > in emergency room about every five days (with my ordinary 'upper' > bloodpressure number of 110 going up to well over 200). Finally they > were brought under control by a medication called Zanaflex (originally > developed for another purpose. It makes it possible for me to live. You caught me being overly succinct - maybe a first for me. I am speaking specifically of the nature of compensation for an *individual's* labor. Of course you will have a social wage that will provide health care, compensation for sick time, education, child care, compensation for disability , fire, police, garbage collection, parks - collective consumption in general as part of a social wage. In this sense any socialism (and for that matter most reasonably advanced capitalisms) will have a certain amount of communism in them. But I still say that to the point that you people are compensated for labor on individual basis - that they are paid money wages, or a share in the surplus of the enterprize that it should be on as equal a basis as possible - with differences due to productive effort and sacrifice. Ken Hanley > COMMENTS: Why would anyone think that power should be divided approximately > evenly? How would this be possible? > And how does one measure power to divide it up? Judges have certain powers. > Police officers have certain powers. School principals have certain powers? > Members of boards of regional health authorities. Power does not seem like > money where one could distribute it "equally" just as you could divide up a > pie. Note too that most power is not by virtue of being an individual with > certain mental or physical powers but accrues to individuals because they > occupy a position in a certain social unit, a school, a court, a crime > control system. With respect to power one would not expect it to be divided > equally nor is it something that individuals have simply qua individuals.. > What is desirable is accountability of those with power, and collective > power to control holders of power etc. Fascinating all the assumptions in this paragraph. You seem to be asserting that this type of divsion of labor *is* handed down by god. Do you think it is inherent in a division of labor that some jobs (as oppose to tasks) consist mostly of pleasant and empowering, and others mostly of rote, or highly unpleasant ones? Do you really thing that "judge" in will be position that amounts to limited petty monarch as it does in our society? > While I appreciate the force of your arguments as to the possible > consequences of large salary differentials I have doubts about whether it > makes much sense to stipulate a range of allowable salaries. If salaries are > to be used as an incentive to fill jobs that are not likely to be filled > unless they are well rewarded, what happens if situations occur where there > are shortages of type x workers but they are already paid at the highest > allowable salary? If you give non-salary perks, how is that any different > than simply giving them the number of dollars the perks are worth? > That is why you divide the perks up as evenly as possible. In general a job consists of a number of tasks. If jobs are structureed in such a way that every jobs contains about as much pleasant and empowering work and as much unpleasant and rote, as any other then people will be attracted pretty much evenly to every job as every other, and you can have equal base hourly wages. In fact that is more or less the test. You have divided your labor in such a way that you think most job complexes are balanced, that is just about every job is as attractive as every other. Then you look at actual qualified applicants compared to other jobs requiring the same qualifications. If your job attacts too few appliations then it is not attractive enough. You either rebalance so that it has a greater share of the fun jobs, or (if that is not possible) you raise the wage offered. If you get too many applicants then you either rebalance the job complex by adding some rote or unempower tasks. If that is not possible you lower the base pay until it attracts qualified applicants in pretty much the same ratio as other jobs with the same qualifications. > Just to use your first criterion of fairness payment for productive effort. > Jean gets paid 5 dollars for hour for making ten widgets an hour.. > John gets paid 6 dollars for hour for making ten widgets an hour This happens only if John is working harder. >
Re: : Market Socialism
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Gar in a recent post on Market Socialism and inequality (I > accidently erased the wrong post) made the statement that > inequality under market socialism would be worse than under > planning and used Jugoslavia as an example. Unfortunately for his > argument, this is not in accord with the facts. Income distribution > within the republics in Jugoslavia were among the lowest in the > world, and far lower than in the USSR or eastern European > command economy countries. I have searched the literature pretty thoroughly. I can't find anyone who says this. Everyone seems to agree that income inequality increased pretty continuously. Um there were two periods here. 153-1963 which was self management, but not necessarily market socialism. Because the enterprises were still dominated by party led managers, investment was pretty much decided by central planners, and key prices were controlled. Still it was more "market like" than the Soviet U nion. And secondly was period of true market socialism - 1963 through early or mid seventies. Inflation, unemployment and rising inequality seem to be almost universally considered side effects. (Income distribution between > republics were high but did not increase with the adoption of > market socialism and, depending on which statistics and years > you use, may have declined. There is some evidence that they > declined during the period of market socialism and then widened in > the subsequent period of socialist self-management.) An > economist at York University in Toronto (his name escapes me at > the moment) has published a number of studies showing the very > egalitarian wage structure within the Yugoslav republics. There > was also of course redistributive taxation to provide social services > (health, education, etc.) which further reduced real (market plus > social wages) incomes. I need to look at this study. The reason I'm not citing any of my sources is that none of them give numbers - just general assertions. You are in a similar position with a source whose name you do not remember. What we really need is some Gini coefficients for Yugoslavia, and some of the planned economies, year by year from 1950-1975. Failing that we need some citations from people in a position to know what they are talking about. And, especially given the problems that followed, I'm not sure that low gini coefficients within regions would be relevant if they are high between regions. At least, I consider the income disparity between Alabama and Connecticut relevant to judging the U.S. > In Mondragon, originally the wage spread was limited to 3 to 1, > though I believe it was raised to 4.5 or 6 to 1 because the co-ops > were simply unable to hire or retain professional workers > (engineers, scientists, etc.) at the original 3 to 1 rate operating, as > they do, within a capitalist market system. Obviously, this would > be easier in a socialist market system. Mondragon is a different case. But one thing to consider is that Mondragon has always hired non-member managers at the top, and a certain amount of non-member labor at the bottom. So 3 to 1 was *never* the real income distribution. Also Mondragon took place in a very poor area. The value per worker produced did not vary so much - which made a fairly egalitarian income distribution possible (though not 3 to 1). But in addition to pressure from foreign markets, there is also the pressure of it's own success. That is, as some, but not all, plants produce greater value per worker - there is a greater value disparity per worker, which makes egalitarianism more difficult. > Incidently, a number of my Slovenian students have lamented > the growth of inequality and the rise in selfishness with the ending > of socialist self-management. There is a real nostalgia for the > egalitarianism of their old socialist market/self-management > system. This is all the more interesting since many of them were > too young to remember the old system. But what they are lamenting is the introduction of capitalism. I never denied that market socialism (if it implemented in a way that is truly socialist) is preferable to capitalism. Also, because the repression in Yugoslavia was weaker than the Soviet Union
Re: Re: : Market Socialism
OK - I found some GINI data on Yugoslavia, (A World Bank Spreadsheet). Apparently the problem is that Eastern Bloc nation data from this period is very unreliable. Here are the Yugoslavia numbers: Year Low High 1963 24.63 34.51 1964 23.00 23.00 1965 30.60 30.60 1966 23.00 27.20 1967 24.00 25.80 1968 17.91 34.74 1969 24.00 26.00 1970 25.00 25.00 1971 23.00 24.30 1972 22.80 23.00 1973 22.00 32.00 1974 21.00 22.70 1975 21.00 21.80 1976 21.00 21.40 Note that I included a high and low for each year. Generally there is more than one of them per year. If you graph them there is a very spiky result, but I admit it tends slightly downward. Tomorrow maybe someone else can find similar data for the then Soviet Union or for Poland or Rumania. Most of these data points are from source rated by the WB to be inconsistent, or from samples not representing the whole country or from incomplete and unreliable tax records and so forth... In short I don't know if this Gini is meaningful...
Re: Re: Prostituting nature for Alcoa
Hydrogen is a way to store and transport now, not a way to create it. Iceland does get a lot of it's energy from hydropower; the hydrogen economy it envisions will be based upon hydropower and geothermal. Michael Perelman wrote: > I was very surpised by this article. I would have thought that a small, > well educated, supposedly environmentally aware nation would not have > sponsored this project. Iceland is supposedly intent on becoming the > first hydrogen economy. > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >
Re: Critique of the WB's poverty metrics
To this non-economist, this looks like really good solid stuff. Thanks for forwarding it, Ian. Ian Murray wrote: > < http://www.columbia.edu/~sr793/count.pdf > > > "How Not to Count the Poor" > Sanjay Reddy and Thomas Pogge > > >
Bankruptcy Bill - stalled for the moment
July 27 -- WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A bankruptcy bill before the U.S. House of Representatives that would make it harder for individuals to walk away from their debts ran aground over an abortion related-provision early on Saturday, congressional aides said. The bill will now have to wait until after Congress returns from its summer recess, they added http://printerfriendly.abcnews.com/printerfriendly/Print?fetchFromGLUE=true&GLUEService=ABCNewsCom
Re: Re: Bankruptcy Bill - stalled for the moment
This is the same one. The house and Senate had passed different version. The conference committee had worked out a compromise based on going after anti-abortion protestors - meaning the house leaders had compromised. But apparently keep house repubs did not accept the compromise so the deal collapsed. Bill Lear wrote: > On Friday, July 26, 2002 at 23:31:51 (-0700) Gar Lipow writes: > >>July 27 -- WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A bankruptcy bill before the U.S. House >>of Representatives that would make it harder for individuals to walk >>away from their debts ran aground over an abortion related-provision >>early on Saturday, congressional aides said. The bill will now have to >>wait until after Congress returns from its summer recess, they added >> > > Didn't Congress recently pass a bankruptcy bill? How does this one > differ, if so? > > > Bill > > >
Re: Re: Schweickart's Model
>> >> For me, the adoption of a MS economic development strategy appears to >> be the only logical position given the total disrepute which socialist >> planned economies have in the popular mind (despite their successes in >> the early Soviet Union and under Ché in Cuba). > > > Agreed, > > jks Actually it is not socialist planned economies which have total disrepute in the popular mind. It is socialism - period. So by your logic, it "only makes sense" to support some form of more progressive capitalism, and forget about socialism. No I'm joining the chorus accusing you of being non-socialist - simply pointing out that you just agreed to some very bad logic...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Drudgery
Justin Schwartz wrote: > > Why would be a such a great idea to have the demos tell college > professors how to run their shop? In most of this country, that would > result in the shut-down of biological departments, except for ag depts, > the conversion of most philosophy depts into bastions of conservative > Christian fundamentalism, etc. All the remaining socialists would be > fired at once. For that matter, what does the demos know about surgery? > Would you want to be operated on by medical professionals who were > accountable, in doing their job, to anything but their expertise? > Likewise, if I may say so, with us legal professionals. Would you want > my considered legal judgment, given as best as I can give it, or my > judgment as informed and limited by what a bunch of people who know no > law nor how the legal system works nor anything much except that they > don't like lawyers because we are all greeedy rich crooks? > > In my typical, class-blinkered, petty bourgeois manner, I am a real fan > of expertise. Democracy has its place, but not in micro-managing the use > of real expertise by real experts. There are skills that require long > study and constant application to master, and where the opinion of the > populace has no damn role, except indirectly in setting general ethical > standards and rules and regulations embodied in law. Don't tell me how > to manage my shop. > > jks (proud advocate of a nation of shopkeepers) Two flaws - the use of straw men, and a real misunderstanding of the role of expertise. 1) The straw men: Democray in this context does not mean that everybody votes on the details of "how you run your shop". It does mean (and Schweickart agrees) that everybody in your shop gets a vote. That is the in a hospital, not only doctors, but nurses, Xray techs, receptionists, floor sweepers, nutritionists, cooks all get an equal say in running the place - whether via direct democracy, the election of a council, or the choice of a manager answerable to an elected council. And democracy also demands that priorities in terms of how capital is allocated also are set democratically. 2) Secondly, for the most part expertise does not mean a right of decision making, but a right to advise. For example if I go to my doctor and she recommends an operation, she has no right to order me to have that operation, I can refuse, and if the doctor knows what she is doing suffer or die as a result. But the point is that choice is mine; the doctor's expertise gives her only a right to advise, not to order. As lawyer, you should be all to well aware that the same is true for lawyers. I suspect you can think of some cases where you have been extremely frustrated by clients who ignored your advices. I suspect that most of them had reason to regret doing so; but if a client ignored your advice and flourished thereby you might find ite even more frustrating. In general, though, I think this is the kind of respect that expertise deserves - an unlimited right to advise, but no right to order. You may be the expert on means and consequences; but I remain the expert on my preferences. What about expert action rather than advice? Well, if I (individually or collectively) hire you as an expert to do a job for me, I also have the right to put constraints how that job is done. As with ignoring advice, this may not be wise - but I am the person who lives with the consequences. Of course you (individually or collectively) have a right as a worker not use your expertise on behalf of those who insist on imposing constraints beyond those you find tolerable. **Completely off the subject. Your answer to my question on legal briefs did not quite give the information I was looking for. Let me put it this way. Imagine I'm about to go to trial in a civil suit with a lot of money at stake. Taking your 15 hours a day for three weeks straight figure means I will need 105 hours a week spent on legal briefs for the next three weeks. If I have a choice between one Lawyer working 105 hours a week for three weeks straight, and two lawyers working 52.5 hours a week for three weeks straight, would the latter provide worse legal briefs? Is there something inherent in the task that decreases the quality of work when it is shared by two lawyers? Because if not, I would think sleep deprivation would seriously lower the quality of work in the one guy 105 hours a week case.
Re: Re: RE: Expertise
Justin Schwartz wrote: >> > > Legalese is awful. It's not even English. But there were striitings in > America to make it more like English quite a while ago. The Legal > realists, like Jerome Frank and Thurman Arnold, were quite good writers, > following in the manner of their master Justice Holmes, who was a great > writer. Judge Posner is a follower here, and a fine writer himself. > > jks > I think it is great that legalese be eliminated as far as possible. As of course since a lot is just jargon, that can be a great distance. But I suspect that there is a limit to how far this is possible. Can contracts, for example, can ever be written in as simple English as an ordinairy description? Suppose I want to have the inside walls of my house painted. Well, this nice one sentence description tells you what I have in mind. But if I hire a painter I don't know personally there are all sorts of things that have to be taken into account. To protect me it must specify that a decent grade of paint be used (and define this somehow), that my furniture, carpet, and everything not to be painted be protected, that any damage done be repaired. Similarly the painter needs protection; she wants assurance that these things are not defined so broadly that she can do a great job and still not be paid based upon some technical flaw. And there weill probably need to be some pharseology to assure her that if I just turn around and don't pay for no reason that she can get a lien against my house. (I think this is built into the law somewhere rather than needing to be specified in a particular contract - but the point remains; whether in a contract or a law you some of the specifications have to be technical.) Also a decent contract has to allow for contingencies; if this happens that this is remeedy, but only up a this point; otherwise that is the remedy. What is comes down to is that a contract has to allow for someone setting out to interpet it in bad faith. A law has to try and allow for the same possiblity of attempts bad faith interpetation - someone looking for loopholes. There is no 100% guarantee against this; even if there are no valid points someone can always raise an invalid one for nusiance value. Thus I don't think you will be able to write all laws and contracts in simple English; the effort of protecting against other lawyers will prevent it if nothing else. Though I'm sure that it can be done a lot of the time.
RE: Expertise
Justin said > There are political technicians--Lydons Johnsons, Dick Morrises, Karl > Roves, who are political machers, who can make the system work to attain > particular ends. Thoise people need to be used and kept on a short > leash. Why not take that attitude to experts in general?
Re: Re: question
I can't speak for Ellen, but I suspect she was talking more aboutr government programs - especially since none of the sectors she mentions can be universal without heavy government involvement. I too would be interested if someone does know where such cross comparisons are available. Mohammad Maljoo wrote: > A Conference Summary paper summarizing some background papers on the > status of the philanthropic and nonprofit sectors in ten societies > throughout Asia Pacific: > > http://www.asianphilanthropy.org/appc/appc_conference.pdf > > > > > >> From: "Ellen Frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: [PEN-L:28752] question >> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 10:08:22 -0400 >> >> >> Does anyone know of a (preferably on-line) source that >> compares social programs across countries -- like unemployment, >> pensions, health care? >> >> Ellen Frank > > > > > > _ > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com > >
Re: Re: Re: Re: question
I don't want to make you angry. You were being helpful. And sure, government funding of NGO activies is one social program. But it is not that much of a clue to overall size. I mean in the US, we have president who is strongly committed to two principles - cutting overall funding of social programs, and increasing government support for religious charities. So government funding of NGO spending is not that useful index for cross-country comparisons of overall social spending. But I really didn't mean to be rude about your reply. Mohammad Maljoo wrote: > As noted in the "Conference Summary Paper," philanthropic funding > sources supporting NGO activities in China, Hong Kong, and Korea > consist of individuals, corporations, foundations, and the like as well > as of government. Isn't the latter a government social program, a > "heavy government involvement"? > > Mohammad Maljoo > > > > Gar Lipow wrote: > > I can't speak for Ellen, but I suspect she was talking more aboutr > >> government programs - especially since none of the sectors she >> mentions can be universal without heavy government involvement. >> >> I too would be interested if someone does know where such cross >> comparisons are available. >> Mohammad Maljoo wrote: >> >>> A Conference Summary paper summarizing some background papers on the >>> status of the philanthropic and nonprofit sectors in ten societies >>> throughout Asia Pacific: >>> >>> http://www.asianphilanthropy.org/appc/appc_conference.pdf >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> From: "Ellen Frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Subject: [PEN-L:28752] question >>>> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 10:08:22 -0400 >>>> >>>> >>>> Does anyone know of a (preferably on-line) source that >>>> compares social programs across countries -- like unemployment, >>>> pensions, health care? >>>> >>>> Ellen Frank >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _ >>> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com >>> >>> > > > > > _ > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com > >
Re: Re: Vandana Shiva
Michael Pollak wrote: > > > > The second is whether GM crops should be admitted to the fields of India. > And specifically in this case, whether Bt cotton use should be expanded. > The argument for as I understand it is that it's cheaper because you can > spend less on pesticides. The argument against is that this gain will > only be short term because there is evidence the pests are already bulding > a Bt resistance. I'm inclined to think that's true, but I don't know why > that would make introducing Bt cotton a bad idea -- at least there would > have been a few years of fewer pesticides. > > > Michael There are at least two problems. One is that right now cotton, though normally grown with very harsh poisons, can be grown with some fairly mild BT based pesticides -admittedly at the expense of some productivity. When the "no pesticide" cotton period is up, only the harshest of pesticides will be usuable, and not all of them. In short, due to pest reisistance, there will be a narrower range of options available. The second problem, as has been shown with corn, is that the geners will spread to other plants. So on the one hand pests that prey on all types of crops, not just those that prey on cotton will become pesticide resistance. And on the other hand weeds will grown hardier. I'm not in principle against GM. But right now, in the hands of the big biotech companies it is being done carelessly at least, and in some cases with the deliberate intent of wiping aout competing methods of agriculture, and of maintaining monopoly rights. BT crops in general are a means of wiping out competing means of agriculture that depened on natural BT based pesticides that break down before entering the food chain or water table. Terminator crops, are a means of enforcing intellectual property rights on seeds; they have no other purpose. The record of thsoe actually developing and producing GM crops is beyond horrible. So as each particular GM crop is developed, I think we need to look at it carefully, and (given who is producing it) consider it guilty until proven innocent.
Re: Re: RE: Re: The size of the bubble?
Worth remembering: 1) 55% of the population never owned stock - throughout the bubble. 2) Of those who did - the vast majority owned less than 25,000 in stock - purchased through the 401 K plans they were given in place of pensions, or via IRAs they were told to use in place of pensions. And every place they could go for advice, they were told that stocks were the best long term investment. Ah, the fools, how could they make such a mistake? Carl Remick wrote: >> From: "Davies, Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> At 09:16 AM 07/30/2002 -0400, you wrote: >> >4] To what degree has the bubble (aka "new") economy been nothing >> more than >> >an elaborate and calculated scheme to steal money from employees and >> middle >> >class investors, or was it more fortuitous accident of history for those >> who >> >got rich at every one else's expense? >> >> ach. Was it Phineas T Barnum who pointed out that "you can't con an >> honest >> man", or someone else? ... >> >> If charging $300 for VA L:inux stock, or giving eToys a larger market >> cap. >> than Toys-R-Us, were con games, they weren't exactly subtle ones. At the >> end of the day, the worst you can accuse the dot.com billionaires of is >> George Washington Plunkitt's epitaph "He Seen His Opportunities, And He >> Took' Em". > > > Ah, the magic of the marketplace! First you're swindled, then you're > ridiculed for being a fool. In all of human progress, has there ever > been a more inspiring or consoling sentiment than that of "caveat emptor"? > > Carl > > _ > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com > >
Re: query: George Bernard Shaw
Devine, James wrote: > does anyone know where I can find G.B. Shaw's theory of exploitation > (based on rent theory)? > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > If you want Shaw's own words, why not try "The Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism and Capitalism (1928)". (He used the term "Woman" of course in a general sense to mean both women and men. There is also a Fabian pamphlet "Socialism and Superior Brains" which deals with this in passing, and also is an interesting anti-elitist argument from a very elitist point of view.
Re: Horning in on Bethune: &"espertise"- Levels of:in PEN-L digest 227
This herring is so red it is back lit by glowing neon! There is no "anti-expertise" position. The question is "rule by experties". And ultimately in the cases you mentioned, the expert give advice. But if the patient is a dedicated Jehovahs witness, they have the right to go on not being treated the doctor - to stick to asprin - even though this is a foolish choice. So the answer reamins that experts have the right to advise, and perform their work expertly. But ultimately, subject to not infringing ot the rights of others,people have the right to make their own decision and not have them imposed by experts. The division is pretty clear. An expert can tell be the cosquences of certain actions (like the risk of not having a brain turmor ruled out by a MRI scan). But I'm the only expert on my preferences. Similarly in collective decision making an expert may be able to say, the consequences of medical funding following below such and such are thus and so. But ultimately, if the society is a democratic one, that non-experts must weigh this against the need to fund education , and old age pensions and so forth. In short the question is not one of allowing experts to do their jobs. Doctors should not be micro-managed. But neither should carpteners or street sweepers. It is simply that in general expertise should not translate into authority - the right to control others. Hari Kumar wrote: > ORIGINAL: "I wasn't talking about the author. But the book is about ol' > Norman, if I > recall. jks" > Reply: Yes of course you are right. I was just suggesting if anyone > wanted to find said book - NB was not the target. > By the way your cataloguing of "Let me count the ways" of being > misunderstood (or whatever label people wish to attach) was rather funny > in my view. > To the anti-experts: A scenario: > You have headaches: You take aspirin; > Fails; You ask your neighbour who says ask the pharmacist - the > pharmacist says go to the doc as you have started having eye aches; > You delay; and you delay; then your eyesight becomes hemianopic (for the > non-expert that is half-vision of your full visual fields); > You see the GP/Primary care physician - AN expert that woudl be > acknowledged by all the discussants. However, the Expert ...does > not refer you on & says "there there - have a little stress pill" - it > was your trauma at being rejected at play school. > How many of the non-expert camp would accept that? > How many of the non-expert camp would prefer their brain tumour > possibility being ruled out or in, by a combination of a > neurologist/neurosurgeon/CT scanner/? > & how many will prefer the ministrations of the janitor? > What is the point of all that long tale? I agree it was long, but: > i) No one denies that there are differing levels (or even types) of > expertise - but, surely for specific matters you want the most relevant > set of expertises possible? > ii) No one denies that the para-medical staff have crucial insights. But > most people would argue that (Whether one has a communist mentality, or > even a Christian/Hindu/Muslim - respectful humane mentality) -ALL people > have a set of additional crucial insights. But, given a concrete set of > scenarios, not all cannot make the necessary mental connections etc - in > order to make a diagnosis. That this is achieved usually (regretabbly in > my view) with a traingin tha encoruages rote learning - that does not > invlaidate the acieved expertise requisite to make siad diagnosis. > By the way I have participated in ward rounds in the former PSR > Albania- & I can assure you that while nurses and ward clerks were > treated with utter dignity & the drs did sweep the wards - decisions as > to very complex medical decisions were made by those competent to do so. > The complexity of the human emotional response of the patient - was (& > is in most systems) certainly radically differently interpreted by the > nurses. That is why even under capitalism, it is a very foolish dr that > ignores what the whole team tells her/him (Over 50% of docs in my > teaching hospital are women). > Sorry to be so long winded. But this long spiel on how bad expertise is > - was becoming very ridiculous in my view. I view it as not the central > matter anyway, the central matter is the control of power. In a > capitalist system, this is unlikely to favour the masses. > Hari Kumar
Re: Re: final word on "expertise"?
joanna bujes wrote: > Jim wrote: > > >> One thing we should do is to make sure that the experts don't restrict >> the supply of education in order to shore up their status as experts. > > > > You mean like the American Medical Association? > > Joanna > Since we were talking about doctors, I'm sure the AMA policy of restricting the availablity of medical training is exactly what meant.
Re: Repetitious Experts, Oregon & the AMA
Since you brought up Oregon, I'm going to change the subject slightly. An initiative has qualified for the November ballot (which thanks to Oregon's vote my mail system most Oregonians will receive by the first week of October) that would implement single payer Health in the state of Oregon. I know some of the people on this list live in Oregon. Right now the campaign is asking supporters in Oregon to tell at least ten friends about the initiative, and ask them to tell ten friends and so forth. The HCAO website has the following description: > The Oregon Comprehensive Health Care Finance Act will ensure access to comprehensive affordable quality health care for all Oregon residents by providing payment for all medically necessary health care. >* Universality . All residents of the state of Oregon are eligible to participate. > * Security > Health care that cannot be taken away if you change jobs, retire, or have a pre-existing condition. > * Choice = Quality > Residents can choose care from any state licensed, certified, or registered traditional or alternative health care practitioner. Preventive care is a priority. > * Affordability >Progressive tax on payroll and income tax dedicated to the plan will cost most individuals and businesses less than they spend now You can find details at http://.healthcareforalloregon.org/
Re: The leisure life of a lump of labor lie
Please be a little less Zen. What is the "lump of labor" fallacy? Ok no one actually believed it; but what is it that no one actually believed. Tom Walker wrote: > Editor, the Wall Street Journal, > > In a bold effort to vaccinate Americans against the insidious lump-of-labor > virus, the Wall Street Journal today carries an article by one Christopher > Rhoads headlined, "Europe's Prized Leisure Life Becomes Economic Obstacle." > The analytical nub appears in a paragraph located almost midway through the > piece: > > "Enter the shorter working week. Unions argued that reduced hours would spur > job growth by spreading the same amount of work among more people. Most > economists dismissed the theory, but some argued it could force Europeans to > become more efficient, squeezing more work into less time. > > "Neither turned out to be true." > > What Mr. Rhoads neglects to inform his readers is that the preceding is a > formulaic set piece, the prototype of which first appeared in an 1871 > Quarterly Review article by Mr. J. Wilson entitled "Economic Fallacies and > Labour Utopias." The formula was perfected in a 1901 screed featured in the > London Times under the headline, "The Crisis in British Industry." From 1903 > to 1913 -- when a congressional investigation brought their activities to > light -- the National Association of Manufacturers spared no expense of > political bribery, financial extortion and physical intimidation to inscribe > the same message as the common sense consensus of all sane, sober, > self-respecting economists everywhere. > > In short, Mr. Rhoads' paragraph is a hoary slander. What is more, if there > can be such a thing as plagiarizing slander, the paragraph -- fraudulently > represented as Mr. Rhoads' own observation of some recent "argument" about > "spreading the same amount of work" and the subsequent "dismissal" of the > "theory" by "most economists" -- is a plagiary. > > Although Rhoads discretely omits the tell-tale term, the drill often passes > under the sobriquet of "the lump-of-labor fallacy". It was a mainstay in > Paul Samuelson's Economics through the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s even though > the Nobel Prize winning textbook author has subsequently been unable to > account for its source or validity. > > Speaking of fraud, why doesn't Mr. Rhoads write an article advocating > accounting fraud as a boost to global competitiveness? Perhaps he could even > crib a few passages in support of his case (sans acknowledgement, naturally) > from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. > > Tom Walker > 604 254 0470 > > >
Re: War Question
pms wrote: > Cynthia for one, is running an incredibly bad campaign in a bid for > re-election. I don't know who's doing a better job of assuring her > defeat, the Repugs, the state Dem-repug-wannabees, or her campaign > manager. It's very sad. Details please... Thanks Gar
Re: Re: Stalinophobia
It seems to me that attacking something called "Stalinphobia" is more the flame bait. Michael Perelman wrote: > guaranteed flame bait??? > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 08:45:09PM +, Justin Schwartz wrote: > >>I think "Stalinophobia" means an unreasonable refusal to support Milosovic >>and an incorrect refusal to recognize that the Yugoslav regime from 1990-98 >>represented a last bastion of socialism. What this has to do with anything >>that is relevant today, I don't know. I personally regard Stalin as a >>butcher and a tyrant, and Stalinism, as a social system, as wicked and >>contemptible, but the struggle against Stalinism, understood as support for >>regimes like the fSU before Gorby, China, and the ex-bloc nations, is not >>exactly front and cxenter in today's politics. jks >> >> >>>what is "Stalinophobia"? does its rejection mean that we should embrace >>>"Stalinophilia"? >>> >>>Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine >>> >>> >>> >>> -Original Message- From: Louis Proyect [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Since I regard the FI and Solidarity as Stalinophobic, especially around the question of Yugoslavia, I could not join, but I certainly believe that they are doing good work all in all. >>> >> >> >> >>_ >>Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. >>http://www.hotmail.com >> > >
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stalinophobia
The actual law was that the first person to bring up "Hitler" was automatically the loser of the debate. Since no one mentioned Stalin until LP brought it up, does that mean this applies to him? Michael Perelman wrote: > Someone once proposed -- I think they pronounce it a law -- that once the > word Hitler appears in the debate all dialogue is finished. If that idea > is a law, a Stalin corollary is warranted. > >
Re: Re: Rising stock market redistributes wealth?
Bill Lear wrote: > On Friday, August 16, 2002 at 20:36:34 (-0700) Eugene Coyle writes: > >>Well, before the market went up your neighbor had $9,999,990 more money (in >>this asset) than you did. Afterwards he has $19,999,9980 more. I think he >>has done better than you have. > > > No, because distribution of wealth is measured by ratios, not > differences. If he has ten times more money than I do at time T, and > ten times more money at time T+1, there has been no change in > distribution. > > > Bill > > You are forgetting that the wealthy have more disposable income than the rest, and can afford to put more in the stock market.: So if you have around 9% of your wealth in the Stock Market, (because your home, car, household goods, and cash savings constitute most of your asset and Richie Richie has 45% of his wealth in the stock market - then when the stock market doubles you will gain around 9% and Richie rich will gain by 455 - his ratio of wealth to your wealth increases. Secondly in a lot of cases stock increases come at the expense of decreasing wages or barely increasing wages. At any rate the stock market (during a boom) rises a lot faster than wages. So if wages constitute 80% of your income, and wages constitute 1% of richie riches income then there is another place where his assets increase faster than yours as a percent of base income. I'm going to illustrate the first - the consequences of a rich guy being able to afford to invest a higher percent in the stock market than you can. Assume you are a member of the coordinator class ( or prosperous worker). Your assets my be distributed as follows: Stock Market$10,000 Home Equity $50,000 Cash Savings$25,000 Car $19,000 HOusehold goods $11,000 === total assets$115,000 Now, this is during the boom - pre- rate cuts so: Assume stock doubles, home equity increases by 7%, cash savings earns 5% interests. Car and household goods depreciate by 10% each. So : Gains in Assets Stock Market+$10,000 Home Equity +$3,500 Cash Savings+$1,250 Car -$1,900 Household goods -$1,100 === Net Increase$9,850 So you (the prosperous worker or coordinator) Increase your assets by around 8.57 percent. Note that in this example you are a lot better off than most people. Your assets at end of year= $115,000+$9,850=$124,850 -- Now take Rich Rich (Not even super rich - just rich). Mansion , Yacht, Cars, and household goods $3,000,000 Bonds $2,500,000 Stock $4,500,000 == Total $10,000,000 Gain or Loss in assets during boom Mansion , Yacht, Car, and household goods -$,300,000 Bonds $125,000 Stock $4,500,000 == Net increase $4,325,000 percent increase - 43.25 % Rich Riches assests at end of year= $10,000 + $4,325,000= $14,325,000 Ratio of Richie Richies assets to yours at beginning of year $10,000,000/ $115,000 = 86.96 to 1 Ratio at end of year $14,325,000/$124,850 = 114.75 to 1 So richie rich has increasd wealth more than you. The ratio of his assets to yours has increased.
Bob Herbert on the criminal injustice system
I don't know if anyone has noticed. But Since July 29, Bob Herbert, in his NY Times op-ed Columns has been giving some of the examples of the oppressiveness of our criminal inustice system I've seen. His recent stuff belongs on the front page as investigative reporting. Unfortunately, NY Times stuff moves into premium content fast. Here are the articles still available in the free archive August 12 - the last of a series on Tulia, Texas where one dishonest informant has lied a large portion of the black population of entire town into jail. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/12/opinion/12HERB.html?pagewanted=print&position=top The 15th and today - a retarded woman, and her friends are convicted of the murder of a baby who never existed. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/15/opinion/15HERB.html?pagewanted=print&position=top http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/19/opinion/19HERB.html?pagewanted=print&position=top
Re: Re: Re: citigroup
Michael Perelman wrote: > Balzac: The secret of great wealth with no obvious source is some > forgotten crime, forgotten because it was done neatly." > Didn't Marx have good things to say about Balzac? Does anyone have the quote handy?
Re: Blandford MSA proposals
Ok. I looked at the Blanford proposal. It is not really worth spending much time on. Single payer (say the Canadian system) is so obviously better. I'll just make a few points. 1) The system he suggests still relies heavily on private insurers. In the U.S. about 30% (almost 1 in 3) health care dollars is spent on administrative costs caused by insured requirements, plus (secondarily) the insurance premium (the difference between dollars paid to insurers and paid out for medical care). 2) He proposes a false dilemma - that paying large amounts for the severely ill does not allow enough for the mythical "average" person. The Canadian example cotradicts this. Severely ill people in Canada have pretty extensive treatment. Yet people in good health still get their regular checkups paid for , along with repairs to occasional broken leg, treatment of really severe flu and such. One can imangine paying so much for the severely ill that nothing is left for less severe cases. But it is a mental excercise only; there is no evidence that is actually happening in the U.S. or in Canada. 3) Canada is able to use single payer leverage to negotiate lower prices for pharmecueticals. A MSA account system would do nothing to solve the problem of the U.S. paying more for drugs than anyone else in the world. I'm not going to go any further. Debating this kind of personal proposal is a distraction from the real struggle. My energy right is going towards trying to see that Oregon passes measure 23 this November (our own state single payer iniative). I would also be willing to debate against the MSA proposal officially supported by the AMA; this MSA proposal has real political muscle behind it and is worth spending some energy to oppose. ken hanly wrote: > If anyone has a critique of these I will forward them to the Healthre list > whence it came> CHeers, Ken Hanly > > In my approach to universal health care, > www.his.com/robertb/hlthplan.htm I require that there be a mandatory MSA > for workers in the same sense as Social Security is mandatory. > > Some have questioned this mandatory requirement. In looking over the > writeup I noticed that I do not explain why I feel that it is a > requirement that the MSA be mandatory; so here is an explanation. I > would appreciate any comments from the list as to why the MSA should or > should not be mandatory. > > Bob Blandford > Alexandria, VA > > - > Why MSA Feature Should be Mandatory > > The MSA needs to be mandatory because it is desired that the voucher + > MSA, together with strongly regulated catastrophic insurance, as much as > possible take the place of comprehensive insurance, whether private, > medicare, or medicaid. > > If the MSA is not mandatory, employers will be much more tempted to > grant comprehensive insurance as a benefit to their employees, in order > that the employees need not draw down their voucher. On the other hand, > if the MSA is mandatory, most employers and employees will feel that > comprehensive insurance is not necessary. Employers in that case, if > they decide to provide any health benefit, will be inclined to > contribute extra money to the employees with the proviso that it go into > the MSA. > > It is important that comprehensive insurance not dominate; if it did, > then the health market would be suppressed, because third party payments > would continue to distort the market. If many employers, especially > employers of the middle and upper-middle classes, offered comprehensive > insurance; then that paradigm would be seen to be standard and > desirable. So advocates for the poor would continue to argue that the > poor also should have comprehensive insurance. If, on the other hand, > the middle-class get MSA-support from their employers; then the Federal > government will be urged to give the same benefit to the poor; enhancing > the market. > > Also, these middle-class people are the ones who will seek out the > lowest prices and thus make the market. They also are the people who > will make the best use of the information sent back from the federal > government to those who use the voucher and MSA to pay bills, thus > enhancing market efficiency. (This information feedback is a feature of > my approach). > > I do discuss in the existing writeup that a mandatory MSA is not as > radical as it may seem in light of the fact that taxes for Social > Security and medicare are mandatory and progressive, and that it is > mandatory to pay the taxes which support medicaid. So mandatory MSA is > less confiscatory than many other taxes; at least the money goes > exclusively for the good of the taxed person. > > Of course the general, progressive taxes nonetheless pay for the > lifetime voucher, yearly use-or-lose voucher, and strongly rationed > safety net which are features of my approach. > -- > >
Re: When they say 'no need to panic', it's time topanic
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Japan's economic crisis is intensifying again, and the chief of the IMF says > "no need to panic". I will merely recite my No-Panic Contrary Rule: When they > say there's "no need to panic", that is precisely the time to start to panic. > > --Scott Harrison > This is just a special case of a more general law: "Believe nothing until it is officially denied." This is often attributed to Claude Cockburne, aces father. Although in his "Discord of Trumpets" he attributes it as a saying common among the journalists of his era.
Robin Hahnel's: The ABCs of Political Economy
http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=2544§ionID=36 ZNet Interviews Robin Hahel About The ABCs of Political Economy by Robin Hahnel; October 27, 2002 (1) Can you tell ZNet, please, what your new book, The ABCs of Political Economy, is about? What is it trying to communicate? The ABCs of Political Economy: A Modern Approach (Pluto Press, November 2002) is an introduction to modern, radical, political economy. It presumes no prior economics background. It provides a radical framework for understanding the relationship between economic and political, gender, and racial dynamics. It defines and defends progressives core values: economic democracy, economic justice, solidarity, and environmental sustainability. It teaches readers the essential concepts for understanding how markets work, where unemployment and inflation come from, the logic of monetary and fiscal policy, the relationship between the financial and real sectors of the economy, and how international trade and investment affect participating economies. In particular it focuses on rebutting myths about capitalism perpetuated by mainstream economics. In the last two chapters The ABCs of Political Economy explains why capitalism is inherently undemocratic, unfair, and environmentally destructive, and what can be done in both the short and long run to replace the economics of competition and greed with the economics of equitable cooperation. (2) Can you tell ZNet something about writing the book? Where does the content come from? What went into making the book what it is? This book has been percollating for three decades. A few years back I taught an introductory course on political economy on ZNet's Left On Line University where I posted lectures every week and engaged in discussion with activists taking the course via email. Some of the core material originated in those "on-line" lectures. Much of the material is the distillation of teaching introduction to economics and political economy at American University for over a quarter century. In that context I have watched most of my fellow academic political economists abandon large parts of the traditional Marxist theoretical framework and struggle over what to replace it with. Of course a few have refused to abandon any part of the Marxist framework. Many others have abandoned their radical perspective along with the Marxist framework -- throwing out the baby with the bath water. I have long been convinced that we can retain and expand upon the radical insights of Marxism without clinging to outdated and illogical theories. I believe The ABCs of Political Economy offers the non-professional audience a modern replacement for historical materialism, the labor theory of value, and Marxist crisis theory that is a vast improvement over the old theory. A great deal of the last two chapters is based on decades of thinking and writing about participatory economics. (3) What are your hopes for The ABCs of Political Economy? What do you hope it will contribute or achieve, politically? Given the effort and aspirations you have for the book, what will you deem to be a success? What would leave you happy about the whole undertaking? What would leave you wondering if it was worth all the time and effort? Personally, I hope The ABCs of Political Economy answers many of the questions I get not only from my students at American University, but from activists who email me daily, asking me to explain -- from a radical perspective -- how some part of the economy or some policy recommendation works. I plan to keep an earmarked copy of the book next to my computer so I can type in a few page numbers, hit the reply key, and get back to my own work more quickly! More seriously, I hope the book helps progressive minded people sharpen their thinking about economic issues. I hope it helps progressives clarify what they mean by economic democracy, economic justice, economic efficiency, and environmental sustainability so they better understand what will accomplish those goals, and what will not. I hope it will prevent progressives with little or no economics background from backing down from debates with people with more formal economic training who tell them they should accept hierarchy and injustice because there is no alternative. I hope it will help people whose values I share become more proficient at doing their own economic analysis. This is a book that teaches people with humane instincts how to think more clearly about economics.
Re: Re: "single-payer national health insurance plan"
From: Chris Burford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Washington Post 16 Nov:- Gore already was making political news. On Wednesday night, he told a New York audience that he had "reluctantly come to the conclusion" that the only solution to the "impending crisis" in health care was a "single-payer national health insurance plan" for all Americans. That marks a sharp break with his past position, pushing him sharply to the left on what could be an important issue in the next presidential campaign. Back to the question of timing. As a lot people have pointed out, this would have don a lot more good if it had been done during the 2000 election. But it would still have done a heck of a lot of good if it had been announced a few weeks earlier when a single payer plan was on the *Oregon Ballot* - this month.
Re: Re: Hi Joanne- re 2WW - I almost forgot
Hi Joanna - I'm an anarchist leaning independent socialist myself. (I
would explain why I'm not an anarchist, but I doubt it would be of great
interest to anyone.) I know that Stalin was a butcher, monster, a mass
murderer and a totalitarian. He did almost nothing I would defend. But
almost everyone I talked who knows anything of the military and
political situation at this time, defends that particular pact.
Basically Stalin had three choices:
1) Start the war against Hitler then and there, with no help from any
allies, and in fact with secret aid going to Hitler from the U.S. and
Britain. Maybe, given Munich, with open aid going to Hitler.
2 )Do nothing, and leave Hitler with military advantage of controlling
all of Poland.
3) Make the treaty that was actually made, and end up with Hitler 500
miles further from Moscow than he otherwise would have been without the
treaty.
I have heard this from virulently anti-Soviet right wing military
veterans, from liberals, from social democrats, from anti-marxist
socialists - none of whom had any prejudice in Stalins favor. That does
not make it true; I'm definitely no military expert; but I've never seen
it refute.
joanna bujes wrote:
Dear Hari,
Of course the imperialists wanted Hitler to mop up those troublesome
commies; of course the imperialists had no objection to Hitler's
building a SLAVe camp in the east...that goes without saying.
The problem has more to do with our very different views of Stalin. And,
I suspect these views are irreconcilable; I started out as a
socialist/Trotskyist and seem to be growing into a socialist-anarchist.
That's if a label is necessary.
So. Other than that I find your writing very interesting and I suspect
that relative to more contemporary goings on we have a lot more in common.
Best,
Joanna
At 05:36 PM 11/06/2002 -0500, you wrote:
Hi Joanne:
I know, I know - I said I would not try to reply to all your points!
But in amongst all the recent & extraordinary mud-slinging - I had
overlooked your dump on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Well, none of this
will convince you, But at least it is off my chest!
I will argue here, that the diplomatic history of the period shows that
the USSR tried BLOODY hard to get an anti-fascist front, but that the
imperialists were trying to shove Hitler East.
See for instance "Documents Relating to the Eve of the 2nd WW";
International Publishers; New York; 1948;
or; Axell A: "Stalin's War Through the Eyes of His Commanders"; London
1997;
or "Grand Delusion: Stalin & The German Invasion of Russia"; Gabriel
Gorodetsky; Yale 1999.
They butress my following precis of the argument drawn from an anlysis
by the alte W.B.Bland, at our web-site. All of these (& many other
books) more or less project the following scenario:
1) that the USSR was being set up for attack, & that this was the
"function" of the infamous Munich appeasement sessions. The "set-up" of
the USSR had started in the Spanish Civil War (which I note you have
commented on also, & I would contend that Stalin was aiding the
Republicans & that the USSR was being sabotaged in this also: see:
http://www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/CommunistLeague/Compass123-Spain1996.htm
).
2) The secret diplomacy of the pre-SWW shows clearly the collusion of
the imperialists with the German fascists. e.g.:
"British Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax is on record as telling Hitler
in
November 1937 that:
"he and other members of the British Government were well aware
that
the Fuehrer had attained a great deal. . . . Having destroyed
Communism in his country, he had barred the road of the latter to
Western Europe and Germany was therefore entitled to be regarded as
a
bulwark of the West against Bolshevism. .
When the ground has been prepared for an Anglo-German
rapprochement, the four great West European Powers must jointly set
up the foundation of lasting peace in Europe".
('Documents on German Foreign Policy: 1918-1945', Series D, Volume
1;
London; 1954; p. 55)."
See:
http://www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/AllianceIssues/WBBJVSNaziPact.htm
3) The onset of moves agisnt Poland by fascist Germany provoked Lloyd
George to set up talks with the USSR. However, the Anglo-French
delegation did not exactly set off to the USSR in a hurry - nor
empowered to actually take substantive steps: :
"On 23 July the British and French governments finally agreed to begin
military discussions before the political treaty of alliance had been
finalised,
and a British naval officer with the quadruple-barreled name of Admiral
Reginald Plunkett-Ernie-Erle-Drax was appointed to head the British
delegation. No one, apparently, had informed the British government that
the
aeroplane had been invented, and the delegation left Tilbury by a slow
boat
to Leningrad, from where they proceeded by train to Moscow. When the
delegation finally arrived in Moscow on 11 August, the Soviet side
discovered
that it had no powers to ne
Re: Re: Re: Hi Joanne- re 2WW - I almost forgot
joanna bujes wrote: When is the quarter/semester over? This question, in the context of what is below confuses me. Joanna At 04:29 AM 11/19/2002 +, you wrote: Gar Lipow wrote: > Hi Joanna - I'm an anarchist leaning > independent socialist myself. (I would > explain why I'm not an anarchist, but I > doubt it would be of great interest to > anyone.) This makes the three of us! Good to see that I am not alone. Best, Sabri
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hi Joanne- re 2WW - I almost forgot
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 11/18/02 7:23:29 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Monster, butcher, mass murderer? I have an opinion about monsters in American history and previous to this history hundreds of years of extreme human depravity. You know in your heart that Stalin was a monster. O.K., I have not the time to unravel the constituent components of your heart, although it is a simply question that can be answered if you provided the raw data that traces your historical and political linkage. Umm, in case you did not notice, I was defending Stalin on that particular issue - saying he made the best choice of those actually available to him; the other choices open to the Soviets at that point would have helped Hitler. As it happens Stalin was "Stallin" at a time wnen "Stallin" was the right thing to do. I mean was he supposed to take on Hitler without allies? Or let Hitler take all of Poland instead of half? He would have been an idiot not to have stalled at that point. He chose the least evil of the bad alternatives available in those circumsances. As to Stalin being a mass murderer, a butcher a monster - I didn't know anyone still argued it. And I don't know why recogizing that Stalin was a monster would keep anyone from recognizing the monstrosity in U.S. Capitalism. I don't want to argue the point. I just want to note that someone who very anti-Stalin can recognize that he made the right choice in Poland.
Some Cheap Election Laughs
New Recipe for Texas Presidential Omelet: First steal 12 eggs... New Presidential Theme Song: Hail to the Thief... New election standard: Three Strikes and you're President
Re: Re: Re: oil and socialism
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > And does Yoshie really believe that we can raise all the current > population to a decent level of material living without destroying the > world ecology? > The answer to the above is definitely yes -- the obstacles are political, not technical. I don't have time to do a decent essay on this. I simply going to make a list of assertions, whose truth or falsity you can research for yourself -- not fair I know, but the nice thing about list communication is you do not have to meet academic standards I am going to outline thee case that we can not only provide a decent material standard -- but a standard close to that of the US. This does not mean that the US good keep the same goods that it has now or that others could duplicate them, but that we could have equivalent goods provided in a slightly different manner for everyone: ** Energy+Transportation -- we could provide equivalent output in terms of heat, cooling, transportation, driving industrial engines etc -- while using 90% less ecologically destructive goods: This would involve: Super-insulation of new and existing buildings -- reducing heat loss and gain Co-generation -- use of waste heat from fossil fuel plants to heat buildings and water for commercial, industrial and home use, short term use of Hybrid-autos where autos have to be used -- long term, train and trolley based transportation, including use of subsidies and taxes to encourage populaton shifts to urban coridors. Use of more effiecient electrical motors, Use of solar heating , cooling and air conditioning as an additial conservation measue in areas where this is practical (many). Use of wind power to generate a percent of electricty. A requriement that goods be manufactured with minimum lifespans to reduce the requriements for replacing them. (I.E. -- a great deal of energy is spent on the original manufacture of goods, quite separate from the energy required to operate them. A doubling or tripling of goods lifespan would save a great deal fo energy.) === Food and Fiber -- You may have been joking, but at least one banned sustance hemp could provide complete protein, a good sustitute for ecologically unsound cotton at a much lower enviromental and energy cost, and a substitute for wood fiber in fiberboards. It PROBABLY could produce paper as well -- although there are problems with converting hemp to paper on a large scale, and hemp paper is only produced in small scale operations -- thus is very expensive, and not always a high quality paper. This probably is solvable , but until solved should not be included in any calculations.. In general organic waste from food and fiber production could at least provide chemical feedstocks for industry. Barry Commoner claims to have worked out some cycles incorporating corn and cattle by which meat, alchohol and methane could be produced, providing food and fuel without robbing the soil.. (and unlike some current production methods -- providing net energy). Similarly, a combination of designing goods for long life, designing them to be produced with minimal waste, and designing them to last a long time could greatly reduce the materials used in producing goods -- in addition to reducing energy as already mentioned above. In short technology commercially available now could sustain an USA Quality (though not USA Style) level of material goods while consuming natural sources and sinks at a level of around 5% to 10% per capital of what the USA does. (And yes, as a US citizen I agree the USA should set the example for this.) Note that I am not including fuel cells, projectiong cheap PV or any technolgy not currently available. And yes fossil fuels would still be needed -- but at a level that is environmentally sustainable. In short the barriers are not techical, nor are they feasability questions -- the costs of the switch in terms of labor and materials is by no means overwhelming. They are strictly political; our current economic system could not tolerate many of the changes and could not make many of the changes it could tolerate. > > Paul Phillips, > Economics, > University of Manitoba > > Date sent: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 17:40:26 -0500 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: Yoshie Furuhashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject:[PEN-L:4582] Re: oil and socialism > Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Jim D. says: > > > > >Michael P. wrote: >>>Jim, don't underestimate the importance of > > >fossil fuels. Without fossil fuels there would be virtually no > > >surplus value; thus, no capitalism.<<< > > > > > >saith I: >> why?<< > > > > > >Michael replies: >Because given the limits of technology today, > > >without fossil fuel, we would be unable to produce a surplus over > > >and above the subsistence needs of workers< > > > > > >Not even if the intensity of la
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: oil and socialism
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Obviously Gar Lives in the USA. I implied it pretty clealy. > > If he lived in Canada (a cold climate), he would realize that this is > nonsense. Every bit of it? Super-insulation will not save energy in Canadian houses? Waste heat from electricity generation cannot heat Canadian buildings and water? Longer lasting goods would not save the energy need for more frequent manufacture in Canada? More efficent autos will not burn less fuel in Canada? Agriculturural (and forestry) waste could not produce fuel or feedstocks in Canada? Canada has no city dwellers who could benefit from more mass transit? > > Paul Phillips, > Economics, > University of Manitoba > > Date sent: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 22:23:29 -0800 > From: Gar Lipow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject:[PEN-L:4593] Re: Re: Re: oil and socialism > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > And does Yoshie really believe that we can raise all the current > > > population to a decent level of material living without destroying the > > > world ecology? > > > > > > > The answer to the above is definitely yes -- the obstacles are > > political, not technical. > > > > I don't have time to do a decent essay on this. I simply going to make a > > list of assertions, whose truth or falsity you can research for yourself > > -- not fair I know, but the nice thing about list communication is you > > do not have to meet academic standards > > > > I am going to outline thee case that we can not only provide a decent > > material standard -- but a standard close to that of the US. This does > > not mean that the US good keep the same goods that it has now or that > > others could duplicate them, but that we could have equivalent goods > > provided in a slightly different manner for everyone: > > > > ** > > Energy+Transportation -- we could provide equivalent output in terms of > > heat, cooling, transportation, driving industrial engines etc -- while > > using 90% less ecologically destructive goods: > > > > This would involve: Super-insulation of new and existing buildings -- > > reducing heat loss and gain > > > > Co-generation -- use of waste heat from fossil fuel plants to heat > > buildings and water for commercial, industrial and home use, > > > > short term use of Hybrid-autos where autos have to be used -- long term, > > train and trolley based transportation, including use of subsidies and > > taxes to encourage populaton shifts to urban coridors. > > > > Use of more effiecient electrical motors, > > > > Use of solar heating , cooling and air conditioning as an additial > > conservation measue in areas where this is practical (many). > > > > Use of wind power to generate a percent of electricty. > > > > A requriement that goods be manufactured with minimum lifespans to > > reduce the requriements for replacing them. (I.E. -- a great deal of > > energy is spent on the original manufacture of goods, quite separate > > from the energy required to operate them. A doubling or tripling of > > goods lifespan would save a great deal fo energy.) > > > > === > > Food and Fiber -- You may have been joking, but at least one banned > > sustance hemp could provide complete protein, a good sustitute for > > ecologically unsound cotton at a much lower enviromental and energy > > cost, and a substitute for wood fiber in fiberboards. It PROBABLY could > > produce paper as well -- although there are problems with converting > > hemp to paper on a large scale, and hemp paper is only produced in small > > scale operations -- thus is very expensive, and not always a high > > quality paper. This probably is solvable , but until solved should not > > be included in any calculations.. > > > > In general organic waste from food and fiber production could at least > > provide chemical feedstocks for industry. Barry Commoner claims to have > > worked out some cycles incorporating corn and cattle by which meat, > > alchohol and methane could be produced, providing food and fuel without > > robbing the soil.. (and unlike some current production methods -- > > providing net energy). > > > > Similarly, a combination of designing goods for long life, designing > > them to be produced with minimal waste, and designing them to last a > > long t
Re: Re: oil and socialism
Carrol -- on these issues I'm doing what anyone not an expert has to do -- choosing which experts to believe. Virtually all serious environmentalists who look at this issue seem to agree. Barry Commoner is who I learned this from back in the 70's. Amory Lovins is good on the technical end today -- though with a touchingly naive belief in the power of markets to bring it about. (However the latest electricity deregulation seems to have brought some doubt to his opinions.) Ultimately, society has to make this type of decision -- and since experts will always conflict -- in the end people will have take the trouble to inform themselves and decide who is the more reliable expert. Also there are some basis judgement. On the micro level this stuff is pretty much available now. In terms of the 'net energy sink' issue on solar -- Ivan Illvich is the guy who made this argument -- and I was able to do the math to tell you that his numbers (at least) did not make sense. Don't know how Nuclear energy got into this; I first learned this stuff when I was in the no-nukes movement. I don't think I advocated Nukes at all (though Jim Heartfield might). On some specific issues -- superinsulated houses do not have to be "sick" houses. They can be well ventilatated with lots of air changes via heat exchangers and bafflers. And it terms of Global warming -- again we have to make judgements on stuff like this. The arguments that it is happening, and due in part to human intervention seem overwhelming. The belief that laypersons cannot rationally hold opinions on these subjects leads to the kind of "all opinions are equal" stuff that insists that creationism be taught alongside the theory of evolution in biology classes -- or that both be omitted. Carrol Cox wrote: > > Gar Lipow wrote: > > > > > > > Every bit of it? Super-insulation will not save energy in Canadian > > houses? Waste heat from electricity generation cannot heat Canadian > > buildings and water? Longer lasting goods would not save the energy need > > for more frequent manufacture in Canada? More efficent autos will not > > burn less fuel in Canada? Agriculturural (and forestry) waste could not > > produce fuel or feedstocks in Canada? Canada has no city dwellers who > > could benefit from more mass transit? > > Gar, Most of these proposals in the short run, and some perhaps even > in the long run, are energy sinks -- that is their implementation would consume > more energy than they would save after being implemented. Nuclear power > is definitely an energy sink (and will continue to be so for thousands of years > after its utilization ceases). > > Let me post one of my recurrent warnings against the invocation of fragments > of scientific learning by non-biologists, non-chemists, non-climatologists, > non-engineers. I myself don't have a clue as to whether in fact Gar's utopian > suggestions are energy sinks or energy savers -- and neither does he. > > Amateur 'knowledge' of climatology and energy physics is probably not quite > so destructive as amateur 'knowledge' of evolutionary science (which can > generate fantasies, for example, about the evolutionary justification of "trophy > wives") but can nevertheless lead to false fears and, more importantly, naive > conceptions of what can be done. > > Carrol
Re: Re: oil and socialism
Michael -- there is not doubt that it will require time and resources to implement such strategies. That is why enviromentalists campaigned to start the transition to such technoligies back in 70's; if it had been started then we would have been thirty years into the transistion. But enough savings could be implemented quickly to at least prevent further exacerbation of global warming. And yes all of these methods have environmental costs. But these costs are a lot lower than the methods they replace. For instance Windmills kill birds; does anyone doubt that coal power plants kill a hell of a lot more birds (per KWH) than windmills do? We could still might be able to make the transition in time; I am not optimistic that we will do so for poltical and social rather than technical reasons. We have the problem that a series of bad decisions still being made will collectively lead to horrible problems in the future; this is the externality problem squared; in short we have the kind of problem capitalism is least able to deal with -- short term goods with external costs that accumlate catastrophically, and have to be paid all at once in the future. Michael Perelman wrote: > > Gar is certainly correct that many potentially energy-saving strategies > exist. However, implementation of these strategies also requires > considerable amounts of fossil fuel. In addition, implementation will > require a good deal of time. > > For example, society could save enormous energy by redesigning cities to > minimize transportation demands. It could not, however, do so > instantaneously. Nor could we modernize the entire automobile fleet > overnight. Finally, keep in mind that some of these energy-saving strategies > have problems of their own. Not just hydroelectric power, but even wind. > For example in California, the windmills are creating havoc for bird > populations. > > -- > > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: oil and socialism
If there is a crisis -- it won't be particularly good for socialism, or even for liberalism. Depends on how far it goes of course; if it comes in 20 years, with 12 billion people suddenly trying to survive as hunter gatherers, then neither capitalism or socialism will be the issue. The question is will capitalism be flexible enough to avoid this crisis. I guess I am now little Mary Sunshine on this list (God knows what Kelly will do with that straight line). I still maintain that avoiding the crisis is TECHNICALLY feasible; and capitalism could not only survive, but thrive in a world with "soft" technology. The problem seems to be that it isn't making the transition. Maybe for for once the institutions captialism has created will prevent it from reacting to a crisis in time -- if so, not to anyones benefit. Ken Hanly wrote: > > So there will be a crisis but this will not guarantee the collapse of > capitalism. In the great depression people could not afford cars or fuel to > run them. The result: Bennett buggies: hooking up cars to horses so they > were no longer horseless carriages. > There was no revolution. Surely leftists should by now realise the ability > of capitalism to survive contradictions of its own making at least in the > short run. What is the suggested strategy of those who paint these gloomsday > scenarios re energy in the near future. What is their view of what is to be > done? > Cheers, Ken Hanly > - Original Message - > From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2000 2:39 PM > Subject: [PEN-L:4614] Re: oil and socialism > > > Gar is certainly correct that many potentially energy-saving strategies > > exist. However, implementation of these strategies also requires > > considerable amounts of fossil fuel. In addition, implementation will > > require a good deal of time. > > > > For example, society could save enormous energy by redesigning cities to > > minimize transportation demands. It could not, however, do so > > instantaneously. Nor could we modernize the entire automobile fleet > > overnight. Finally, keep in mind that some of these energy-saving > strategies > > have problems of their own. Not just hydroelectric power, but even wind. > > For example in California, the windmills are creating havoc for bird > > populations. > > > > -- > > > > Michael Perelman > > Economics Department > > California State University > > Chico, CA 95929 > > > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Bankruptcy again
Ken -- when accusing others of writing gibberish it is good to avoid it yourself. *Ethanol* is what is produced from grain, and sugarcane. *Methanol* is an alcohol produced through destructive distillation -- usually of coal or wood or garbage. Ken Hanly wrote: > > Well reallyI thought that the price of natural gas is skyrocketing and > supplies are limited. The stuff about methanol is complete gibberish...Do > these people have a clue what they are taling about. Shit, methanol is > grown nowThere is a plant 30 miles from me at Minnedosa and another > owned by an aboriginal band in Saskatchewan.. Of course it is not literally > grown but grain is fermented to produce ethanol and this is added to > gasoline. I have no idea what genetic engineering might contribute except to > produce grain that gave higher methanol content. > Given the inputs necessary to grow the grain some environmentalists have > argued that the process wastes energy although others argue for it since it > burns cleaner.. > Many ethanol plants us wheat as the two I mentioned, although some use corn. > There is no genetically engineered wheat licensed as yet, although there is > some corn. Ethanol is sometimes also manufactured from waste forestry > products. > It is strange that there is no mention of geothermal power. Even in the > north here it is gaining in popularity and the electricity involved to > circulate the water under pressure is about 1/3 or so of that of electric > heat. What of wind power..? > Cheers, Ken Hanly > - Original Message - > From: Lisa & Ian Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 8:19 PM > Subject: [PEN-L:7119] Re: RE: Re: RE: Bankruptcy again > > > via micro-turbines, internal combustion engines and fuel cells. There will > > be an increased used of natural gas because it's clean, cheap and > available. > > > . One > > example is the conversion of natural gas to diesel fuel for > transportation. > > "Gas to liquids technology offers an exciting, economically attractive > > opportunity to convert natural gas from remote locations-which otherwise > > would be wasted-into easily transported and inherently clean fuel," said > > Denny Stephens, Senior Research Scientist for Battelle's Energy Products. > > > > 8. Energy Farms: The use of bio-engineered crops for fuels will be hurried > > along by the genetic revolution that permits cultivation of crops to > produce > > fuels such as ethanol. "We will grow gasoline, so to speak, to lessen our > > dependence on imported oil," Millett said. "With advances in DNA > > engineering, we will be able to grow energy as well as food crops." > >
[PEN-L:4037] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: circularities
Actually I would say that treating classism as just another factor to be considered along with racism, sexism, disability rights etc. is not a bad idea. A more formal way to put it is that oppression occurs along certain axis. Class is one. Kinship is another (including gender, homophobia, cross-gender, transgender ect. ). Culture is another (i.e. race, nation, etc.) . Why automatically assume that class oppression is the base, and all other axis of oppression are superstructure? Why not consider them all of equal abstract importance, and decide actual relative strategic importance based the best analysis you can make of the facts at a given moment? rc-am wrote: > > >I can't claim to be an expert on postmodernism, but some of its > proponents > >want to treat Marx's theory not as an abstraction to be made more > concrete > >but as just another factor to be thrown in with all the other factors > >(classism in with racism and sexism and homophobia and ...) as a sort > of > >pluralistic soup. > > i'll help you along: laclau and mouffe do indeed do this - radical > democratic pluralism. which is pretty anemic stuff, if not just silly. > > but, when you respond to doug's query: > > >Why > >does Monthly Review have to publish symposia "In Defense of > History"?< > > with: > > >Why not? even if one doesn't think that PoMo is the Devil's Brew, > isn't it > >worth criticizing an alternative theory that advertises itself as > replacing > >Marxism? > > the assumption that certain writers are in fact attempting to develop > an alternative to marxism is not entirely correct, and this is an > assumption deployed more by marxists than the ostensible 'other side'. > moreover, the MR volume is disingeneous: there is no assault on > history from 'postmodernism'. > > there is a sometimes vociferous debate over the disciplinary practices > of History in the academy, which is precisely the terrain of this > volume. that practitioners of a certain kind of historiography will > seek to defend their assumptions and methods against others by > conflating their stuff with History as such is understandable, but not > accurate. > > an example which is worth noting i think in this context: here in > australia, our esteemed prime minister and his various co-thinkers > have been for some time engaged in 'defending history' (his words) > against both the marxian historians such as clark and some > vaguely-defined 'postmodernism' in the name of 'restoring balance'. > needless to say, this is simply an attemtp to make History once again > servicable for the victors: the squattocracy, mining companies and > pastoralists.whatever some people think might be the effect or > meaning of this internecine conflict of the faculties on marxism (and > i for one have little adherence to the boundaries of the academy), in > the australian political landscape, the pre-occupation of some > marxists with 'defending history against the pomo assault' has the > consequence of a distraction and a playing into the arms of those who > are in a real position to announce what history is or is not and in > whose service this is mustered. thankfully, here those marxists (who > are most marxist historians) who know what the stakes involved are > beyond the academy have gotten on with the job of opposing Howard's > amnesia and happy white nostalgia, and not spending time in skirmishes > with an enemy who is only a mild irritant in the context of the > faculty syllabi committee. > > angela -- Gar W. Lipow 815 Dundee RD NW Olympia, WA 98502 http://www.freetrain.org/
[PEN-L:4050] Re: Re: local money
Hi Peter. One point you might want to mention is that when people accept sound hours for work, they don't neccesarily accept them at the "nominal" rate. That is one sound hour is worth ten dollars. But a person may accept half a sound hour for an hours work if the market value of an hour of their labor is than ten/hour or more than a sound hour if the market value is more than ten dollars an hour. I wonder if a real "labor dollar" would not be more progressive -- where an hour of socially useful labor is always exchanged for an hour of socially useful labor. This would actually be promoting an equalization of income to the extent that these local hours are accepted. Of course Marx made some quite cogent criticisms of trying to implement this within a capitalist context. But I think such local experiments can be quite effective, both in implementing a small voluntary transfer of income from higher to lower income people, and as a form of propaganda by example -- a small living example of non-market exchange. The current form strikes me as simply a local currency, promoting smaller scale local capitalism -- useful insofar as it expresses opposition to the actually existing form of capitalism, but not really presenting a viable alternative. Peter Bohmer wrote: > > In Olympia, WA where I live by joining up with the local currency system you > get four Sound Hours = $40. One sound hour = $10). There are many services and > stores that accept sound hours as either partial or full payment for goods and > services. For example, at the local food coop, you can pay up to half of your > bill in sound hours, the rest must be paid in dollars. Some services except > Sound hours, eg. gardening, baby sitting, etc. > > These are some questions people have asked me about local currencies and i am > interested in comments on them by other members of Pen-L. > > 1) To what extent do local currencies increase employment, income, economic > activity within the community where they are used? > > 2) Do they and can they spur local business activity by decreasing economic > leakages out of the community. > > 3) Under what circumastances are local currencies likely to be inflationary; > or have no overall macroeconomic impact but just substitute for dolllars? > > 4) Can they be effective in communities with high unemployment rates in > reducing unemployment, raising incomes of low income members of the community? > > 5) What is key in organizing local currencies sothat they further income > equality, employment, local production? > > Thanks, Peter Bohmer > > Jim Devine wrote: > > > from yesterday's SLATE: > > > > >The LA TIMES's "Column One" describes the blooming of a little-known > > economic phenomenon cropping up here and there in small communities > > threatened by the outflow of local cash to say, big retail chain stores in > > the nearby city: the creation of local currencies, good only in town. There > > are now, says the paper, 65 such local denominations, like the Ithaca (New > > York) HOUR (the original--created nine years ago), the Berkeley BREAD, and > > Kansas City's (Missouri or Kansas? The paper doesn't say) Barter Bucks. > > Surprisingly, local currency is clearly legal. U.S. law prohibits local > > governments issuing money, but not nonprofit collectives. < > > > > so I should set up a nonprofit collective and start printing? > > > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & > > http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html -- Gar W. Lipow 815 Dundee RD NW Olympia, WA 98502 http://www.freetrain.org/
Re: [Fwd: NZ and OZ currency meltdown. Why]
The old joke that leftists has predicted 20 of the last 2 recessions has probably gone stale -- from pure accuracy. However it is even truer that they have predicted 200 of the last 2 crashes. Eugene Coyle wrote: > > > >Part 1.2Type: Microsoft MHTML Document 5.0 (message/rfc822) >Encoding: 7bit
