[PEN-L:10379] Re: New creationism
I have to say I did not like that "New Creationism" article at all, and
wonder why the Nation would even print it, let alone make it their cover
article. In an age when Newsweek runs cover stories about how standards of
beauty are genetically determined, books like the Bell Curve get a serious
hearing from the press, and socio-biological explanations of every social
problem from alcholism to suicide run practically unchallenged as truth on a
weekly basis in the New York Times' Science Times, I find it hard to get to
worried about the left "overreacting" to bio-determinism in general. I have
never seen anyone on the Left trash Noam Chomsky for speculating that some
of our notions of justice, for example, may be innate.
The worst part of this article is that it lumps together those of us
on the Left who have no patience for bio-determinism, with the pomo attack
on science in general and its epistemological underpinnings. This is a nice
debating trick, but I am surprised that the editors of the Nation would fall
for it. The pomos are certainly right to reject socio-biological
explanations of social problems, and other forms of essentialism. But not
everyone who agrees with these critiques is "anti-science," or even
close-minded with regard to explorations of "human nature."
Mark Weisbrot
--- On Wed, 28 May 1997 08:32:59 -0700 (PDT) Wojtek Sokolowski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is an excellent article in the last issue of The Nation by Barbara
Ehrenreich on "new creationsim" -- radical social constructivism asserting
unqueness of human nature, stemming from a certain brand of postmodernism,
and characterised by its hostility toward "hard" sciences.
However, Ehrenreich seems to miss the class dimension of the problem, a
strange omission for a democratic socialist, indeed. Enclosed is a copy
my
letter to The Nation's editor on that subject. Any comments?
ws
encl.
---
In her otherwise excellent article on the "new creationism" (June 9,
1997),
Barbara Ehrenreich misses an important factor contributing to the spread
of
this phenomenon - the class structure of the American society. More
specifically, the over-growth of the "scribbling class." The US has a
much
larger university-educated class than any other industrialized nation: 24%
of
the population 25 to 64 years of age, as compared to the mean 12% for the
OECD
countries.
The economist John Kenneth Galbraith once described his profession as
"suppliers of needed conclusions to those in a position to pay for them."
That apt characterization pertains to other scribbling professions as well.
Together with the product-oriented culture of the academe ("publish or
perish"), the large size of the university-educated class translates not only
into the oversupply of the producers of intellectual commodity, but also into
the substantial demand for such a commodity.
Cultural identity politics and cultural relativism espoused by "new
creationists" are not just the matter of personal taste for scientific
nihilism. The professed absence of human commonality and the relativism of
scientific standards to narrowly defined group interests are also instrumental
in developing market niches which, in turn, reduce direct competition among
producers of intellectual commodity, aka critical evaluation of research
results and claims to scientific validity.
In such an intellectual climate, anything that is printed passes for
"scientific truth." The more bizarre an intellectual commodity, the greater
its chances of becoming a fetish for someone in search of unique cultural
identity. This is yet another example of what Marx aptly described as the
powerful influence of the forces of material production on the production and
distribution of ideas of our age.
wojtek sokolowski
institute for policy studies
johns hopkins university
baltimore, md 21218
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
voice: (410) 516-4056
fax: (410) 516-8233
---End of Original Message-
-
Name: Mark Weisbrot
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Preamble Center for Public Policy
1737 21st Street NW
Washington DC 20009
(202) 265-3263 (offc)
(202) 333-6141 (home)
fax: (202)265-3647
[PEN-L:10237] that says it all
"The point is that we and our friends control the keys to the clubs and the treasuries that Kabila will need to tap if he is going to rebuild the country -- the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, our development funds, and those of the Europeans." -- Chester Crocker, former Assistant Secretary of State for Africa from 1981 to 1989 and now a professor at Georgetown University, explaining why the US would still have "a tremendous amount of influence" over the new government in Zaire, despite having installed and helped to maintain one of the most corrupt dictatorships on earth in that country for the last 32 years. (NYT, Saturday, May 17,1997, p.A6) ---End of Original Message- - Name: Mark Weisbrot E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Preamble Center for Public Policy 1737 21st Street NW Washington DC 20009 (202) 265-3263 (offc) (202) 333-6141 (home) fax: (202)265-3647
[PEN-L:9691] job announcement: please circulate
JOB ANNOUNCEMENT (4/25/97) Project Coordinator: International Capital Mobility/MAI Preamble, a non-profit research and public education organization in Washington, D.C., is seeking a Project Coordinator for a one-year research and education project on the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI). The MAI is a new international economic agreement being negotiated among the world's industrial countries. It is similar to NAFTA, but broader in scope and jurisdiction. Views about the MAI differ sharply: it is supported by many business groups and the Clinton Administration, but is viewed critically by many environmentalists, labor unions and elected officials at the state and local level. Among the areas of concern are the MAI's effects on jobs and wages, consumer safety and the environment. Despite its possibly profound implications, there has been almost no public debate about the MAI. The project aims to raise public awareness of the proposed treaty and promote a thorough, reasoned public discussion of its terms and the broader issues it raises. The Project Coordinator will conduct: outreach to potentially affected constituencies; research on the MAI's potential effects on jobs and wages, economic development, and the environment; the publication and distribution of educational materials; media work; and efforts to organize spirited, constructive debate. The project coordinator will work in close cooperation with an existing team of researchers and organizers. The project will also involve research on the broader issue of capital mobility - the capacity of investors to move money and production facilities around the world at will. The Project Coordinator position calls for someone with a multiplicity of skills. Candidates must be able to: conduct public interest research and write for a popular audience, work with a wide variety of organizations - bridging gaps in workstyles and priorities to implement a common agenda, and advocate persuasively with journalists and community leaders. Candidates must have at least three years' experience in one of the following areas: labor or community organizing; public interest research and advocacy; electoral or legislative campaigns. Some knowledge of international economic is sues is desirable, as are strong computer skills. Salary and benefits are competitive with similar public interest positions. This is a one-year post beginning immediately, but may be extended. Women and people of color are strongly encouraged to apply. Preamble is an equal opportunity employer. Send resume, cover letter, brief writing sample and salary requirements as soon as possible to Preamble, attention "Project Coordinator Search": 1737 21st NW - Washington, DC 20009 - Fax: 202-265-3647 - Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Name: Mark Weisbrot E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Preamble Center for Public Policy 1737 21st Street NW Washington DC 20009 (202) 265-3263 (offc) (202) 333-6141 (home) fax: (202)265-3647
[PEN-L:9559] Re: MAI
I am posting below the article from the Ecologist that the Guardian article posted by Sid refers to. It was from us, and we are about to begin a major public education campaign on the MAI, in conjunction with Public Citizen. A similar article appeared in the Nation. If anyone wants to be on a list-serve that we are currently putting together for the campaign, send your e-mail address to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peace, Mark - Name: Mark Weisbrot E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Preamble Center for Public Policy 1737 21st Street NW Washington DC 20009 (202) 265-3263 (offc) (202) 333-6141 (home) fax: (202)265-3647 Worse Than NAFTA In popular mythology, economic globalization is a natural phenomenon, like continental drift: impossible to resist or control. In reality, globalization is being shaped and advanced by carefully planned legal and institutional changes embodied in a series of international agreements. Pacts like the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) promote the unregulated flow of money and goods across borders and strip elected governments of their regulatory authority, shifting power to unaccountable institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO). Virtually unreported, the latest and potentially most dangerous of these agreements is now under negotiation at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The purpose of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), as the proposed pact is known, is to grant transnational investors the unrestricted "right" to buy, sell and move businesses, and other assets, wherever they want, whenever they want. To achieve this goal, the MAI would ban a wide range of regulatory laws now in force around the globe and preempt future efforts to hold transnational corporations and investors accountable to the public. The agreement's backers (the United States and the European Union) intend to seek assent from the 29 industrial countries that comprise the OECD and then push the new accord on the developing world. Negotiations are already at an advanced stage. Yet few Americans have even heard of the agreement. Trade officials are treating MAI information like nuclear secrets; the mainstream media is oblivious. Whether the MAI is adopted, and, if so, just how far its deregulatory tentacles will extend, depends on whether opponents can force the proposal from its present obscurity into the light of public debate. As proposed, the MAI would force countries to treat foreign investors as favorably as domestic companies; laws violating this principle would be prohibited. Under these conditions, transnational corporations would find it easier and more profitable to move investments, including production facilities, to low-wage countries. At the same time, these countries would be denied the tools necessary to wrest benefits from such investment like laws mandating the employment of local managers. Efforts to promote local development by earmarking subsidies for home-grown businesses and limiting foreign ownership of local resources would also be barred. If adopted, the MAI will mean foreclosure of Third World development strategies, increased job flight from industrial nations, and new pressures on countries, rich and poor, to compete for increasingly mobile investment capital by lowering environmental and labor standards. A key MAI provision could also threaten corporate accountability laws championed by progressives in the U.S. The MAI takes aim at statutes in any nation that link subsidies, tax breaks and other public benefits to corporate behavior. This ban could be used to challenge a host of local, state and federal measures, including laws requiring subsidized firms to meet job-creation goals, community reinvestment rules that require banks to invest in underserved areas, and the "living wage" laws that are the focus of activist campaigns across the country. Perhaps most disturbing, the MAI would preempt strategies for restricting corporate flight to low-wage areas a major cause of job loss and income stagnation in the industrialized world. On top of the damage done by plant closings and layoffs, corporations use the threat of flight to undermine the bargaining power of unions and scare policymakers away from the tough regulation and strong public investment necessary to raise living standards. Though remote from today's policy agenda, rules limiting the capacity of corporations to flee are essential to restoring the ability of government and labor to deal with corporations on a level playing field. The MAI would bar such rules in any country that is a party to the agreement. In its scope and enforcement mechanisms, the MAI represents a dangerous leap over past international agreem
[PEN-L:9509] Fw: Re: RE: geometric-mean CPI
--- On Tue, 15 Apr 1997 11:19:57 -0700 (PDT) Richardson_D
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday, April 14, 1997 6:34 PM, Mark Weisbrot wrote
Mark also wrote the reporting on the BLS geometric mean
experimental index has been very misleading, creating the impression
that there is .25 percentage points just out there that are ripe for
the taking. This serves the interests of Clinton and those in Congress
who want to substitute a lower measure for the CPI. Whereas the BLS
will not find anything near that (Dave you can correct me if I am
wrong) if and when they do actually try incorporate these changes into
the CPI.
I am not sure that I understand this one. When we compared the
results of a Geomean calculation to the CPI using current methodology
from 1991 through 1996, the Geomean was, on average, 0.29% lower per
year. Now, if we implement the change, we will classify each of our
207 item strata as better represented by the Laspeyres framework (0.0
price elasticity at the outlet level) or the Geomean (1.0 price
elasticity). The result would be that some of the strata would
continue to be calculated by Laspeyres, and hence the 0.29% would
serve as an upper bound.
I think "upper bound" is the key phrase here. Dean Baker suggests that
about
half of the index is better represented by the Laspeyres framework, which
would leave us with a 0.145% reduction as a result of the geomean.
Nevertheless there is some bias that could
be removed fairly easily.
Mark writes further But I still think that, whatever the motivation
of the BLS in trying to measure the substitution effects-- and I
haven't seen any evidence that it is a result of political pressure--
the decision to do so is, in the sense described above, political.
That is, it is arbitrary from a logical/conceptual point of view, and
will result in a lower measured rate of inflation-- which will reduce
Federal benefits as well as future real wage gains. Fortunately, it
will probably end up being a pretty small cut, if it's left to the
BLS.
What would have happened if the effect of making the change would have
made the deficit worse? I really don't know the answer.
More generally, Mark's point is that, with the CPI as a price index,
there is no real reason to modify it in the direction of a Konus cost
of living index. The trouble with this is that it is used as if it
really were a cost of living index. It computes inflation adjustments
in union contracts, social security, tax brackets, etc. If the CPI is
to be interred as merely a price index, it will have to be
supplemented with a cost of living index. Thus the problem does not
go away simply by noting the (numerous) BLS statements that the CPI is
really a price index.
True enough, but the problem is that any attempts to modify it *will* lead
to a lower CPI, with the regressive effects I mentioned above; and it will
not necessarily make the CPI any more accurate as a measure of the cost of
living. There are two reasons that will assure this result. One is the
fact
that neoclassical microeconomics makes this arbitrary distinction, as
noted
above and in my last post, between substitution effects and the other
changes, many of which would raise the CPI. Perhaps more importantly, the
political pressures are all in one direction, which is to lower the CPI.
This can be seen with embarassing clarity in the Boskin Commission
report, a complete piece of slop that literally made up a good chunk of
its
estimates to come up with the conclusion that the CPI overstates
inflation.
Here's a nice sample of their methodology for those who haven't had the
privilege of reading it:
"How much would a consumer pay to have the privilege of choosing from the
variety of items available in today's supermarket instead of being
constrained to the much more limited variety available 30 years ago? A
conservative estimate of the extra variety and convenience might be 10
percent for food consumed at home other than produce, 20 percent for
produce
where the increased variety in winter (as well as summer farmers' markets)
has been so notable, and 5 percent for alcoholic beverages where imported
beer, microbreweries, and a greatly improved distribution of imported
wines
from all over the world have improved the standard of living."
("Toward a More Accurate Measure of the Cost of Living," Final Report to
the Senate Finance Committee for the Advisory Commission To Study the
Consumer Price Index. p.41-42 Washington, December 4, 1996)
These numbers, which came straight out of the Commission members' heads--
no
survey research, nothing-- were then added to their estimate of the
overstatement.
More importantly, what the Commission basically did was to look for
everything that could pos
[PEN-L:9493] RE: geometric-mean CPI
This is a point that most economists outside of pen-l will not be able to understand (and perhaps this is why Dave Richardson recommends that those fighting the CPI revisions should focus on sources of downward bias), but there is no legitimate, logically consistent reason for attempting to measure substitution effects in the CPI. The CPI is a *price* index, not a cost of living index. Conceptually, there is no difference between trying to measure substitution effects, and trying to measure how every other economic change that occurs with growth, relative price changes, changing consumption patterns, changes in income distribution, etc. affects people's well-being. In other words, once you get away from simply trying to measure how the price of a fixed bundle of goods changes over time, and into estimating the subjective "utility" derived by consumers as their consumption patterns change in response to price changes, there is no logical or conceptual reason to measure a substitution effect but not look at how all these other changes affect the cost of living. I think Dave is saying the same thing when he mentions the automobile and telephone as goods that have become necessities for many people, when they were once luxuries. Neoclassical microeconomics does not generally recognize that the "utility" derived from an individual's consumption is dependent on other people's consumption patterns, so the neoclassical economists will not consider the changes that Dave suggests should be incorporated, in any attempt to make the CPI more of a "true" cost of living index (which is the alleged intent of the proposed changes). There are a number of other logical and conceptual errors in these efforts to "fix" the Consumer Price Index-- especially the Boskin Commission's hack job; those who want more detail can see Dean Baker's latest book on the subject. Now for the practical implications, the reporting on the BLS geometric mean experimental index has been very misleading, creating the impression that there is .25 percentage points just out there that are ripe for the taking. This serves the interests of Clinton and those in Congress who want to substitute a lower measure for the CPI. Whereas the BLS will not find anything near that (Dave you can correct me if I am wrong) if and when they do actually try incorporate these changes into the CPI. But I still think that, whatever the motivation of the BLS in trying to measure the substitution effects-- and I haven't seen any evidence that it is a result of political pressure-- the decision to do so is, in the sense described above, political. That is, it is arbitrary from a logical/conceptual point of view, and will result in a lower measured rate of inflation-- which will reduce Federal benefits as well as future real wage gains. Fortunately, it will probably end up being a pretty small cut, if it's left to the BLS. Cheers, Mark - Name: Mark Weisbrot E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Preamble Center for Public Policy 1737 21st Street NW Washington DC 20009 (202) 265-3263 (offc) (202) 333-6141 (home) fax: (202)265-3647 --- On Mon, 14 Apr 1997 10:37:47 -0700 (PDT) Richardson_D [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim Devine is concerned that the move to the geomean may be largely political (see below). The argument in favor of the geomean is based largely on the idea that in the Laspeyres framework we are implicitly assuming a Leontieff (rectangular) utility function and an elasticity of substitution (ES) of 0.0. This has the implication that commodities must be consumed in exact proportions regardless of relative prices. The geometric mean implicitly assumes a Cobb-Douglas utility function with ES=1.0. In this case the share of income devoted to each commodity is unchanged and the deleterious effect of a price increase can be mitigated by substituting items whose prices have not risen. The idea of substitution as a possibility seems plausible to most people. A more promising tack in this debate is to concentrate on possible sources of downward bias in the index. For example, as technology advances certain products may become necessities. The most common examples are the telephone and the automobile. As "technological progress" has the result of lower density development and declining public transportation, more or less up to date modes of transportation and communication tend to become necessities, thus increasing the cost of living. This effect may not be picked up in the CPI. Dave Richardson -- Sent: Monday, April 14, 1997 11:58 AM Subject: [PEN-L:9478] geometric-mean CPI besides the obvious political advantages of using the geometric-mean CPI (lowering the budget deficit), is there any _theoretical_ reason why it is superior to
[PEN-L:9312] Re: Noam Chomsky on p.1 of NY Times today...
--- On Tue, 1 Apr 1997 10:24:23 -0800 (PST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Weisbrot writes, I haven't seen anything like this on the front page of the NYT for at least 20 years. I think the end of the cold war is finally opening some space in the media for some truth on these matters. It is very limited, of course, but it appears to be a qualitative change. I'm not convinced. The U.S. media have before been willing to air *past* errors and mistakes (sic) of U.S. foreign policy, but only long after the struggles in question had been resolved and the revelations could be quickly consigned to the dustbin of history. This seems to be more of the same. Look what happened when the SJ Mercury broke the story on Contra drug running. All the mainstream media rallied around the flag quicker than you could say "communist propaganda." You're right about the pattern of admitting horrible crimes of the US government, in passing, after they are long past. But this article was a little different. First, the US intervention in Yeltsin's election is not exactly ancient history. Second, the *theme* of this article was that it is hypocritical for the US to make such a big deal about Chinese interference in the our election, given the history of US foreign policy. Third, it was placed on the front page, when normally such criticism would get only token representation on the op-ed pages, at best. It is by these criteria that I cannot think of anything similar in the last 20 years of NYT reporting. Can anyone else think of anything? (I am thinking of Seymour Hersh's reporting, in 1975, on the CIA's role in Chile as perhaps comparable-- but even this was breaking news from the Church committee hearings, etc.). The only reason I brought it up is that some of our friends on the left have a tendency to overlook the small but significant little clearings in the ideological fog that have begun since the end of the Cold War. While it is most important to emphasize, in light of the prevailing consensus, that the Cold War was first and foremost an excuse for everything evil that the US government wanted to do in the world, it is also true that intellectuals and other servants of the Cold War order actually *believed* to a large extent that they were helping to save the world from Communism. The loss of this element of the liberal intelligensia's belief system renders it vulnerable to change. It is easy to overlook these openings in light of the fact that the present period is also in which not only capitalism itself reigns unchallenged as perhaps never before in its history, but even worse, the worship of markets and the weakening of social democratic reform efforts are also at historic record-breaking levels. It thus appears that we have merely gone from the frying pan into the fire. But that's only half the story. The other half is that they have lost a huge part of the ideological glue that held it all together. The foreign "enemy-of-the-month" (Iraq, Iran, Libya, etc.), welfare recipients, immigrants, or other domestic scapegoats are very poor substitutes. The little changes in reporting by the corporate media are just one manifestation of this phenomenon. How's that for "optimism of the will?" Let the ruling class tremble, Mark Weisbrot ----- Name: Mark Weisbrot E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Preamble Center for Public Policy 1737 21st Street NW Washington DC 20009 (202) 265-3263 (offc) (202) 333-6141 (home) fax: (202)265-3647
[PEN-L:9286] Re: Noam Chomsky on p.1 of NY Times today...
I haven't seen anything like this on the front page of the NYT for at least 20 years. I think the end of the cold war is finally opening some space in the media for some truth on these matters. It is very limited, of course, but it appears to be a qualitative change. In the same vein, the Washington Post (Sunday, March 30, pC2) ran a very honest and truthful op-ed piece which detailed the terrible role of the US in Zaire. The article is a nice political critique of "When We Were Kings," (which is still a very good documentary, IMHO), and a very appropriate critique, since the fight itself that the movie is centered around was apparently used successfully by Mobutu to gain legitimacy. It's by Steven R. Weissman, who is listed as a senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. I don't know much about this organzation, but I do remember they had some very bad people who lent ideological support to the war against Nicargua during the 80s. (If anyone wants to decribe them further, I am curious). Peace, Mark Weisbrot --- On Mon, 31 Mar 1997 12:01:26 -0800 (PST) Thad Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, not quite, but still quite a long article on front page of the Times today by John Broder called "Political Meddling of Outsiders: Not New for U.S." which plainly points out the hypocrisy of the current discussion re China's covert political campaigns in the U.S. Stops well short of fingering US complicity in genocides, of course, but still not bad; gives a big quote to Peter Kornbluh of the National Security Archives, a good radical. Does anyone know if Broder is a new or old reporter there? Can we expect more of this? Nice to have a small and surprising ideological triumph on monday morning. Thad p.s. Nice to see some attention given, finally, to agriculutral workers, also on p.1 Thad Williamson National Center for Economic and Security Alternatives (Washington)/ Union Theological Seminary (New York) 212-531-1935 http://www.northcarolina.com/thad ---End of Original Message- - Name: Mark Weisbrot E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Preamble Center for Public Policy 1737 21st Street NW Washington DC 20009 (202) 265-3263 (offc) (202) 333-6141 (home) fax: (202)265-3647
[PEN-L:9099] New book on Boskin Commission and CPI
--- On Mon, 24 Mar 1997 18:46:02 + Dean Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Warning: The Following is an Unpaid Commerical Advertisement In December of 1996, the Boskin Commission released its report on the accuracy of the Consumer Price Index. The Commission concluded that the CPI overstates the true increase in the cost-of-living by 1.1 percentage points annually. Since its release, this report has been widely used as a justification for reducing the cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security and other indexed programs such as food stamps and the earned income tax credit. Income tax brackets are also indexed to the CPI. Therefore a lower measured rate of inflation would lower the bracket cut-offs, thereby raising taxes by pushing more income into higher brackets. The savings that would result from a recalculated CPI have made it an attractive political solution to the deficit. A lower measured rate of inflation also changes the path of real wage growth. Many conservative economists are now arguing that the wage stagnation of the last two decades was simply a result of measurement error, that an accurately measured CPI would still show wages increasing at a substantial pace. In fact, accepting the Boskin Commission's conclusions would require re-writing virtually all of recent economic history. Clearly this debate has some serious consequences. I will be putting out a book this fall titled "Getting Prices Right: The Debate Over the Consumer Price Index". The book will consist of a short introduction framing the issues, the Boskin Commission's report (approximately 90 pages), my detailed response (approximately 100 pages), Senate testimony by Katherine Abraham, Barry Bosworth, and Martin Feldstein, and a comprehensive bibliography of work related to the issues raised in the CPI debate. The book should give a basic understanding of all the key issues. It is written at a level where it should be accessible to Washington policy wonk types, which means it should be usable in intermediate or upper level undergraduate classes. My essay includes more than twenty user friendly graphs, which should help stave off narcolepsy. The following is the index from my essay: Overview Section 1: The Implications of the Boskin Commission's Conclusions 1.1 The CPI in Economics 1.2 The CPI in Economic Policy Section 2: The Evidence For an Overstated CPI 2.1 Substitution Bias 2.2 Retail Outlet Substitution Bias 2.3 New Goods and Quality Bias 2.31 The Boskin Commission Estimate 2.31a Introspection 2.31b Misinterpreted Research Findings 2.31c Questionable Extrapolations 2.31d Ignoring Changes in BLS Procedures 2.31e Misidentifying the Composition of the CPI 2.32 Summing Up: Is There Evidence for Quality and New Goods Bias? Section 3: Is Inflation the Same For Everyone? Section 4: The CPI Compared With a Cost of Living Index Section 5: Conclusion: Is the CPI the Best Measure of Inflation? Appendix 1: The Record on Adjusting for CPI Bias in Research by Commission Members Appendix 2: Selected List of Quality Adjustments in New Cars Related to Durability Since 1992 The book will be published by M.E. Sharpe and will be available in time for the fall semester. (I believe the price is $18.00). If anyone wants more info, they contact me at "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". ---End of Original Message- - Name: Mark Weisbrot E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Preamble Center for Public Policy 1737 21st Street NW Washington DC 20009 (202) 265-3263 (offc) (202) 333-6141 (home) fax: (202)265-3647
[PEN-L:9052] grad programs in international development
A friend of mine is looking for a master's program in International Development (perhaps International Relations is ok). She had been doing good anti-imperialist organizing in the US and would like to continue this kind of work, just wants a program that would further her education in a way that would be helpful at a practical level. I really didn't know what to recommend. Anyone have any suggestions? If you do, please send them to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks in advance, Mark - Name: Mark Weisbrot E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Preamble Center for Public Policy 1737 21st Street NW Washington DC 20009 (202) 265-3263 (offc) (202) 333-6141 (home) fax: (202)265-3647
[PEN-L:7948] free breakfast at ASSA mtgs
There may be no free lunch for economists, but there is a free breakfast at the ASSA meetings. Okay, so it's kinda early, but you get to hear Dean Baker blab about the CPI. Actually it's a pretty interesting story, despite the hour and the technicalities of double counting, etc. Dean has been in the thick of the battle to beat back the Boskin Commission's attempt to force a revision of the CPI, and the tide is finally turning our way. Here's the announcement: The AFL-CIO will be having a breakfast at the ASSA meetings: Sunday, January 5 7 a.m.- 8 a.m. Fairmont Hotel, Grand Ballroom, New Orleans. Dean Baker of the Economic Policy Institute will speak on the topic of "Does the CPI Really Overstate Inflation?" Complimentary continental breakfast will be served. ----- Name: Mark Weisbrot E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Preamble Center for Public Policy 1737 21st Street NW Washington DC 20009 (202) 265-3263 (offc) (202) 333-6141 (home) fax: (202)265-3647
[PEN-L:7485] more science still (just can't get enough)
--- On Mon, 18 Nov 1996 22:02:15 -0800 (PST) Ajit Sinha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Weisbrot said: I can't tell you how many times I have heard pomo scholars assert such things as, e.g., we don't know any more about the physical universe than we did 5000 years ago. Needless to say, this undermines their credibility, and the credibility of the academic left in general, on more directly relevant political issues. __ But on what *ground* you could say *more*, Mark? That is the question. How do you respond to Levi-Strauss' thesis in the 'Savage Mind'? Haven't read that thesis, please explain if you think it is important to this discussion. But I will respond to your other question-- I will assume for now it is a serious question and not merely rhetorical. For me the *ground* is a whole body of knowledge about the physical universe that has been accumulated, a small part of which I have studied. One does not need to subscribe to a positivist methodolgy, or naive conceptions of science as idelogically neutral, or be imperialist, etc. to recognize that through a process of observation, constructing theories, and using logic, that we gain knowledge about the world. (I have deliberately left out experimentation, hypothesis testing, and prediction because I believe it also possible to gain knowledge-- more tentative and with more difficulty-- in the social sciences, without being able to manipulate the independent variable, predict, etc.). Of course this knowledge is colored by ideology, limited by the historical period, and so on, and many things we believe to be true today will later turn out to be false. It is also true that people have committed great crimes against humanity, based on beliefs they held to be true. But none of these are compelling reasons to throw out the concepts of truth or falsity, however much we may want to temper our beliefs with the appropriate degree of scepticism and modesty, as well as tolerance. By now most people on pen-l have probably tuned out this whole discussion, since most of us have long ago made up our minds at least on the epistemological questions raised here. I don't blame them. Also I'd be willing to bet than no one following this discussion will change their minds very much. So why am I wasting my time (and yours) on this? To me the main importance is that pomo (relativist) epistemology is indeed the dominant epistemology among the academic left (in at least the humanities) today. I share Doug's concern that this is how most young minds are being introduced to critical thinking at the universities. It is an unnecessary handicap for an intellectual left that is already marginalized. It is also very often part of the default world view that students assimilate from mass culture and journalism. That is, they are very comfortable dismissing left analyses of events as just "a matter of opinion," to be chosen, --according to one's tastes, without regard to logic or historical evidence-- from among the various offerings. So I guess the best that could come of this discussion is that those who are teaching and otherwise participating in the academic world, and who have rejected this part of the pomo world view-- I would bet it is the overwhelming majority on this list-- might challenge it a little more often. I wouldn't make it a huge battle or anything, and I think it is best to keep some politeness here, because I think the pomo-academic left is still making a significant net positive contribution. I like to look at some of the jargon-filled discourse as a form of poetry, and its practitioners as progressive artists and poets who write primarily for each other, but still radicalize students who sometimes do good political work (as do some of the professors). Their poetry and subculture contains important elements of truth that are both political and radical. As an aside to Doug, who described Chomsky as "more anti-pomo than I [Doug] am," the few remarks that I have heard him make about pomo were rather dismissive, but not hostile. As I remember it, he said something like there were a lot of smart people among the pomos who had some interesting things to say, but unfortunately they had to dress it up in impenetrable verbiage for professional reasons. - Name: Mark Weisbrot E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Preamble Center for Public Policy 1737 21st Street NW Washington DC 20009 (202) 265-3263 (offc) (202) 333-6141 (home) fax: (202)265-3647
[PEN-L:7461] Re: more science!
A theoretical problem: if there is no truth, only provisional
constructions
of truth, and if there is no master narrative, but only a polyphony of
local narratives and situated knowledges, than how can you criticize the
official (celebratory) version of history as "false"?
Doug
I have no trouble criticizing theories for their effects, without needing
to argue that they are false. Look at NC theory. I can argue compellingly
(my previously brainwashed students all or mostly think so) that NC theory
contributes to a stream of inequities and miseries of all sorts and is
generally a "bad," without any need to say that it is wrong or false or
inaccurate.
Blair
I think it's a huge mistake to give up making truth claims about the world.
In the example you cite, the student (or NC economist) can simply respond by
saying, ok, maybe the theory does justify various inequities, etc., but it
is true. In which case you are stuck. Because if it is true, then the
neoclassical policy prescriptions are the best we can do. Many arguments
about social change in general, especially in the classroom, quickly boil
down to differences about the validity of underlying assumptions or
theories-- these days, more often than neoclassical economics it is
sociobiology ("human nature") at the core of conservative arguments. It's
not enough to say that you don't like the implications of their underlying
theory-- if you can't challenge the veracity of it, you will find yourself
in a very weak position against anyone who can carry out a logical argument.
This is one of the big drawbacks of of pomo epistemology that I referred to
earlier.
-----
Name: Mark Weisbrot
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Preamble Center for Public Policy
1737 21st Street NW
Washington DC 20009
(202) 265-3263 (offc)
(202) 333-6141 (home)
fax: (202)265-3647
[PEN-L:7439] more science!
I would like to think that the traditional left has had as much of an influence on the academy as the pomos have, but it doesn't seem to be true. Noam Chomsky, whose critique of pomo I agree with, has had a pretty small audience for his political writings. Until the recent pamphlets published by Odonian press, his largest-selling book was "The Manufacture of Consent," (co-authored with Ed Herman). This book sold about 25,000 copies. This is very sad but true, and I think if it weren't for his academic superstardom in linguistics, he wouldn't have gotten as far as he did. It is very difficult in this society to speak the unvarnished truth to power and get a hearing, either inside or outside of academia. So while it may be true that Chomsky as an individual has "done more to popularize such critical thinking in the U.S. than any professor of identity ever has," the same is not true for the intellectual current that Chomsky represents versus that represented by pomo-- at least in the last couple of decades. Hundreds of thousands of college students who will never hear of Chomsky will get their introduction to at least some aspects of critical thinking through pomo courses and pomo-trained instructors. The comparison with Chomsky is a good one though, for illustrating a couple of points. One is that the pomos have been able to establish themselves in academia partly *because* they have developed an inpenetrable jargon that serves (as does most of the math in economics) to insulate them from criticism of the non-initiated. Chomsky, on the other hand, in order to write books on politics, has had to pursue a second career of scholarship (in addition to having become one of the most cited authors in history in the course of his first career), which most of us are not capable of managing. Back when deconstruction was the rage, I used to ask my pomo friends why they needed all that jargon, when Chomsky was doing a fine job "deconstructing" all sorts of horrible institutions (and language), without any of it. I never got much of an answer. The other comparison with Chomsky speaks to Doug's second point: the idea of "a polyphony of local narratives and situated knowledges" is much less threatening to academics then having to tell them they are flat out wrong about some really obvious phenomena in the real world. This is another reason for pomo success in the academic world, and I think from a sociology-of-knowledge standpoint, a big reason for the staying power of their relativist epistemology. --- On Sun, 17 Nov 1996 14:03:06 -0800 (PST) Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 7:06 PM 11/16/96, Mark Weisbrot wrote: IMHO, the pomos have made a major positive contribution by transforming a large part of the humanities' undergraduate curriculum, to the point where it is now common for freshman comp. courses to question such "myths" as American democracy, equality of opportunity, etc. Did the pomos do this? Really? Old-fashioned lefties have been trying to do this for decades without the benefit of having read Of Grammatology. Noam Chomsky, who is probably more anti-pomo than I am even, has done more to popularize such critical thinking in the U.S. than any professor of identity ever has. A theoretical problem: if there is no truth, only provisional constructions of truth, and if there is no master narrative, but only a polyphony of local narratives and situated knowledges, than how can you criticize the official (celebratory) version of history as "false"? Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html -End of Original Message----- - Name: Mark Weisbrot E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Preamble Center for Public Policy 1737 21st Street NW Washington DC 20009 (202) 265-3263 (offc) (202) 333-6141 (home) fax: (202)265-3647
[PEN-L:7428] more science!
I have been hesitant to get involved in the pomo debate, for fear of causing offense, and also because I have more mixed feelings than Doug does about the contribution of the whole trend to the academy, and by extension,to politics. IMHO, the pomos have made a major positive contribution by transforming a large part of the humanities' undergraduate curriculum, to the point where it is now common for freshman comp. courses to question such "myths" as American democracy, equality of opportunity, etc. On the other hand they have appropriated a terrible weakness for themselves, which spills over some to the rest of the left. This is the relativist epistemology that now prevails among graduate students in the humanities, and pomo circles generally. Doug argues that pomos "deny there's a physical reality independent of human observation," but I think it would be more accurate to say they deny that we can ever know anything about it. It is of course impossible to be consistent with this position, so for some pomos this is just a core belief (like a very abstract belief in God, for example) that does not affect their politics very much. They continue to make arguments, use logic and evidence, and argue for the "truth"-- with a small "t" as they are fond of saying-- of their positions, just as an ordinary, non-pomo leftist would. But others, especially when they are trying to be more consistent with their relativist epistemology, will say things that anyone who is not trained in this tradition can see as absurd, and this is a liablility. I can't tell you how many times I have heard pomo scholars assert such things as, e.g., we don't know any more about the physical universe than we did 5000 years ago. Needless to say, this undermines their credibility, and the credibility of the academic left in general, on more directly relevant political issues. To take a recent and less blatant example, there was an op-ed piece in the NYT not too long ago, attacking the national history standards from the right, for deviating from the official story. The argument the author chose to attack was the predominant, pomo-influenced argument-- i.e., American history looks different from the point of view of Native Americans, slaves, etc. I couldn't help feeling that the left was on more solid ground when we had revisionist historians like William Appleman Williams, or-- someone who continues in the non-pomo left tradition, Noam Chomsky-- making our case. These folks would (and do) argue that the traditional American history is false and distorted, and-- while fully appreciating the subtleties and difficulties in understanding any historical period or events-- put forward an alternative version which is not only more valid from the point of view of the oppressed, but is more consistent with principles and values that are nearly universally held to be true, even by our adversaries. These arguments are more difficult to dismiss. (It also helps that people like Chomsky avoid needless jargon, but that is another issue). Name: Mark Weisbrot E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Preamble Center for Public Policy 1737 21st Street NW Washington DC 20009 (202) 265-3263 (offc) (202) 333-6141 (home) fax: (202)265-3647
[PEN-L:7038] Krugman-- one more shot
Krugman wrote a terrible and uncritical review of Pete Peterson's latest garbage on social security in the NYT book review on Sunday, Oct. 20 (I missed some pen-l around then so I don't know if anyone has already discussed this). Anyway, among other stupidities he blindly accepts Peterson's conflation of Social Security and Medicare, which allows the granny-bashers to pretend as though the crisis of the *private* health care system (which drives Medicare costs) is a demographic problem which somehow involves Social Security. This was especially amusing in light of his recent response to Kuttner in the American Prospect, where he declares his contempt for people who make "factual assertions that can be flatly disproved by spending a few minutes with the Statistical Abstract of the United States and a hand calculator." How about the report of the trustees of the Social Security trust fund? Maybe he should have looked at that. It's also ironic that in light of Krugman's recent credentialism as to who is a serious economist and who isn't, he should be completely snookered by Pete Peterson, an investment banker and propagandist with no known economic credentials (but a big personal stake in the outcome of social security "reform.") I couldn't resist poking fun at Krugman for this in my latest column on Social Security (it's scheduled to appear in the Christian Science Monitor this week). Mark Weisbrot
[PEN-L:4332] EPI op-ed network
To all interested Pen-l members: The Economic Policy Institute is putting together a group of progressive economists to write opinion pieces for daily newspapers and appear on talk radio programs across the country. We are seeking academics from across the nation who are willing to be part of a network of progressive economists who are interested in popularizing economic issues. You have been suggested as someone who may be interested in participating in this endeavor. The goal of this project is to provide media assistance to those academics who are interested in having a greater impact on the op-ed pages and the air waves in their local community, state, or region. We would like to assist in helping you write and place op-eds, and then promoting you and the issue to talk radio programs. Our Op-Ed Network will operate along the following lines: _ Each month, EPI will assemble an information packet (see enclosed sample) on a topical economic issue. The packet will include the following: _ Fact Sheet - suggesting points to include in an Op-Ed and potential news hooks _ EPI Issue Brief - a three-page brief on the topic _ other EPI published materials on the topic _ related materials _ Members of the network will then draft an Op-Ed and forward it to EPI for: _ substantive editing _ style editing _ placement assistance While we will send out information packets monthly, how frequently you write an op-ed obviously depends on your schedule. The network will follow the structure above with an eye toward getting "ahead of the curve" on issues and giving you some lead time. However, some topical issues cannot be predicted in advance; therefore, we may occasionally send out additional materials on breaking news or time-sensitive information. In addition, we encourage members to write additional op-eds on topics other than those we suggest, and we will be happy to assist in editing and placement on these enterprising pieces. When an op-ed is published, we would use that clip to book you on talk radio programs. Depending upon your availability, we would also want to call on you periodically to do talk radio programs pertaining to your area of expertise. We currently have a growing, active network of regular op-ed writers that includes Jeff Faux, Robert Kuttner, Julianne Malveaux, David Kusnet, and Richard Rothstein. This month, EPI is launching an effort to expand this network of active op-ed writers. If you are interested in participating in this network, please call me at 202-331-5546. Also, please call if you will not be able to participate and you would like your name removed from the materials mailing list. I hope you will consider taking part. Sincerely, Nan Gibson Communications Director Economic Policy Institute (202) 331-5546 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mark Weisbrot 2501 Q Street NW, #111 Washington DC 20007 (202) 333-6141 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:4333] TIAA-CREF update
Pen-l members: Some of you may recall a proposed shareholder resolution for TIAA-CREF (the world's largest pension fund), which would require the trustees to actively work to place limits on executive compensation in corporations in which they hold a financial interest. It looks like it will appear on the ballot this fall, although we are still a little nervous that they could scuttle it. So if anyone who is a member of this fund is on the list and would like to call and check up on the status of the resolution, this would be a very good thing to do. The person to call (or fax) is: Albert J. Wilson Vice President and Chief Counsel, Corporate Secretary TIAA-CREF phone: 212 916-4259 fax: 212 916-6231 I have attached the latest version of the proposed resolution, which apparently meets the legal requirements. I think this has at least some chance of passing, and if it does, many stomachs will be upset in high places. Cheers, Mark Weisbrot Secretary, Board of Overseers TIAA-CREF 730 3rd Ave. New York, NY 10017-3206 To the Secretary: I would like to propose the following resolution be put up for a vote in the next proxy ballot sent out to members of TIAA-CREF: TIAA-CREF shall work to have limits placed on individual executive compensation packages in any corporation in which it holds an equity interest. The target for these limits should be 150 times the median annual wage in the economy (presently approxiamtely $3,000,000). This limit is to include salaries, benefits, bonuses, and the value upon redemption of any stock options included in a compensation package. The excess value of redeemed stock options (averaged over the years for which they were earned) can revert back to the corporation. TIAA-CREF should attempt to have such limits imposed through discussions with corporation officers and directors, and other shareholders, and through proposing and supporting proxy resolutions to this effect. It should report back to members each year on its progress in its annual report. There are several reasons why this proposal should be approved. First, executive compensation comes directly out of revenue that otherwise could provide an additional return to shareholders. Compensation for top executive officers has grown far more rapidly than for other types of workers over the last two decades. Since there is no reason to believe that the demand for the skills of these executives has increased dramatically relative to other occupations, or that the supply of these skills has decreased, this relative increase is most likely attributable to a market failure. Specifically, the shareholders of firms have failed thus far to place sufficient downward pressure on the compensation of these officers. Since the compensation of top executive officers vastly exceeds the compensation for other occupations requiring comparable levels of skill, a concerted effort by major shareholders can lead to lower compensation levels without any reduction in the quality of the performance of these officers. Second, in the long-run compensation caps will probably lead firms to be more productive, since workers will feel more committed to a firm if they believe they are being treated fairly. The enormous degree of inequality at present almost certainly undermines any sense of loyalty and commitment among lower paid workers. It is worth noting in this respect, that the degree of inequality between executive officers and other workers is far lower in every other western nation. Third, the high salaries available to corporate executive officers are increasingly affecting salary structures in other institutions. The institutions where this is most directly relevant is at colleges and universities. Compensation packages for college and university presidents have risen far more rapidly than the average compensation levels for the faculty as a whole. These compensation packages are justified by reference to the high compensation received by corporate executives. The same situation has arisen in other institutions, including at TIAA-CREF itself. If some discipline can be placed on compensation packages for top corporate executives, it would place downward pressure on the pay of the top officers in other institutions that directly affect the lives of TIAA-CREF members. Sincerely, Dean Baker Mark Weisbrot 2501 Q Street NW, #111 Washington DC 20007 (202) 333-6141 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:3961] CPI (from Dean Baker)
. This places the median family income in 1960 and 1953 at 113% and 80% of the 1994 poverty level, respectively. The high bias index implies that the median family income in 1960 and 1953 measured in 1994 dollars was $14,384 and $9,600, respectively. By this measure, median family income in 1960 was less than 95% of the 1994 poverty level. Median family income in 1953 was just 63% of the 1994 poverty level. Figure 1 shows the path of real family median income deflated by these two indexes since 1953. * The existence of a large bias in the CPI would have a significant impact on current policy priorities. In particular, the current concern about generational equity with reference to the well-being of future generations would be turned on its head. Figure 2 shows the path of the average real wage through the year 2070, adjusting the Social Security Administration's projections in accordance with the Boskin Commission's estimates of the bias in the CPI. The 1995 median income for a family over 65 is given as a reference point. Mark Weisbrot 2501 Q Street NW, #111 Washington DC 20007 (202) 333-6141 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:3591] Support Striking Workers at Yale
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 10:15:26 -0500 (EST) From: Jennifer C Berkshire [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Support Striking Workers at Yale MIME-Version: 1.0 -- Forwarded message -- Dear progressive faculty member: Massachusetts Jobs with Justice is collecting as many signatures as possible for the following letter which will be presented to the Yale Administration. If you would like to sign on, please send a short message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] indicating your name, title, and your institution. If you would like more information about how you can become a part of JWJ's Academic Committee for Workplace Justice (and build solidarity between labor and academia without ever leaving your office,) let me know. Just a reminder--the striking workers at Yale have no strike fund and are depending upon our solidarity. If you would like to make a donation, please send a check to the University Chaplain's Hardship Fund, P.O. Box 209078 New Haven, CT 06520-9078. Thanks for your support! In solidarity, Jennifer Berkshire [EMAIL PROTECTED] AN OPEN LETTER TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF YALE UNIVERSITY We, the undersigned, wish to express our deep concern regarding Yale University's failure to bargain in good faith with its clerical, technical, service, and graduate employees. We also wish to make clear our opposition to the administration's proposals which provoked the union to strike in the first place: unlimited subcontracting of union jobs and massive cuts in retirement benefits. As faculty members at universities all over the country, we are keenly aware that the outcome of the situation at Yale will set the stage for the future of labor relations on other campuses. We do not share Yale's vision of the future. All university employees, whether food service workers or full professors, deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, receiving adequate compensation and benefits for the work they perform. We urge you to negotiate seriously with the members of Locals 34 and 35. Mark Weisbrot 2501 Q Street NW, #111 Washington DC 20007 (202) 333-6141 (202) 965-0830 (day) fax: (202) 965-0831 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:3113] All TIAA-CREF members please read!
Fellow TIAA-CREFERs, I sent the proposal below and accompanying justification to the Board of TIAA-CREF, to be considered for their next proxy statement. The purpose is to have TIAA-CREF work towards placing serious restrictions on the compensation of top corporate executives. At present CEOs of major corporations often earn more than $10 million per year, and sometimes more than $100 million per year. There is no justification for such outrageous salaries. To have this proposal accepted as a ballot resolution the Board has to be convinced that this issue would be of interest to TIAA-CREF members. Some supporting letters would be very helpful in this respect. I would appreciate any letters that people could send to the Board at the following address: Secretary, Board of Overseers TIAA-CREF 730 3rd Ave. New York, NY 10017-3206 Also any help in circulating this note via computer networks, fax, or more primitive means would also be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Dean Baker Economic Policy Institute 1660 L St., NW Washington, DC 20036 (e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) TIAA-CREF should actively work to have limits placed on individual executive compensation packages in any corporation in which it holds a financial interest. This limit should not exceed 150 times the median annual wage in the U.S. economy (currently about $20,000 per year). This limit is to include salaries, benefits, bonuses, and the value upon redemption of any stock options included in a compensation package. The value of the latter can be averaged over the years for which it was earned (rather than just the year of redemption). The amount by which redeemed stock options push average compensation over this limit should revert back to the corporation. TIAA-CREF should attempt to have such limits imposed through discussions with corporation officers and directors, and other shareholders, and through proposing and supporting proxy resolutions to this effect. It should report back to members each year on its progress in having such limits accepted in its annual report. There are several reasons why this proposal should be in the interest of TIAA-CREF members. First, and most obviously, executive compensation comes directly out of revenue that otherwise could provide an additional return to shareholders. Compensation for top executive officers has grown far more rapidly than compensation for other types of work other last two decades. Since there is no reason to believe that the demand for the skills of these executives has increased dramatically relative to other occupations, or that the supply of these skills has decreased dramatically, this rise in compensation is most likely attributable to a market failure. Specifically, the shareholders of firms have failed thus far to place sufficient downward pressure on the compensation of these officers. Since the compensation of top executive officers vastly exceeds the compensation for other occupations requiring comparable levels of skill, there is good reason to believe that a concerted effort by major shareholders can lead to lower compensation levels without any reduction in the quality of the performance of these officers. A second reason to support executive compensation caps is that in the long-run it will probably lead firms to be more productive, since workers are likely to feel more committed to a firm if they believe they are being treated fairly. At present, some packages have become so bloated that the per hour compensation of a chief executive can exceed the yearly compensation of a typical worker. It is hard to believe that this degree of inequality can be consistent with a sense of fairness for workers. In the long-run this inequality would almost certainly undermine any sense of loyalty and commitment among workers. It is worth noting in this respect, that the degree of inequality between executive officers and other workers is far lower in every other western nation. A third reason why TIAA-CREF members should support this resolution is that the high salaries available to corporate executive officers are increasingly affecting salary structures in other institutions. The institutions where this is most directly relevant is at colleges and universities. Compensation packages for college and university presidents have risen far more rapidly than the average compensation levels for the faculty as a whole. These compensation packages are often justified by reference to the high compensation received by corporate executives. The same situation has arisen in other institutions, including at
[PEN-L:2682] Mexican Congress Statement
I was told that a large number (almost all) of Mexico's Congress signed a letter to the President denouncing the government's policies. If this is true, does anyone know where I can get hold of the text (Spanish or English)? Mark Weisbrot [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:1363] urgent request for informations
Comrades, Anyone out there have any sources on privatization experiences, especially in poorer countries? I have Brendan Martin's "In the Public Interest?," which is good, but haven't found much else. Any references to articles or books would be most appreciated, as soon as possible. Thanks in advance, Mark Weisbrot 500 1/2 6th, #12 Charleston IL 61920 (217) 345 4983 fax: (217) 581-5997 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:1316] Re: Fed tightness
In response to Doug Henwood's posting: "Central banks in Japan Europe are also quite tight, considering the weakness of their economies. I think capital smells an imminent total victory over labor, and will not let up until the task is accomplished." Is the Japanese Central Bank really pursuing a tight monetary policy? Last time I looked they had short-term rates around one per cent. But I haven't followed it enough to know what's tight and what's expansionary by historical standards in the Japanese economy. Also, I'm not sure what you mean about capital trying to win a total victory against labor. It seems to me that the Fed has an extremist view of inflation-- Greenspan and others on the Board have stated that they would like to see inflation at zero, and I think if they could get away with it without jeopardizing the Fed's "independent" status they would probably wring the US economy thru a severe recession to actually get there. Of course they don't care at all about unemployment. But it's a little hard for me to believe that their main goal is really to further weaken organized labor in the US at this particular moment in history. I know Doug likes to minimize the differences between finance and industrial capital over monetary policy, and he may be right to do so, but it still seems to me that the Fed's behavior is better explained as extreme inflation-hawkishness (for both ideological reasons and the direct interests of the bondholders) than as part of a co-ordinated attack on labor. I realize the two are often difficult to distinguish, since the Fed's "sado-monetarism" obviously weakens labor, and the Fed's official propaganda sees inflation as originating in "excessive" wage growth which then leads to a "wage-price spiral." But the distinction is probably still worth making, because if it were all just part of the assault of capital on labor, we would have no way to explain the opposition to Fed policy by e.g. Chrysler, or NAM (which is most hostile to labor). And also we want to understand the Fed as an institution as best we can. Also I think there is a typo here: "Measures of total compensation, which include fringe benefits, tell a very different story -down 2.7%, the worst performance since the series began in 1980" should be "up 2.7%." Cheers, Mark Weisbrot 500 1/2 6th, #12 Charleston IL 61920 (217) 345 4983 fax: (217) 581-5997 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:1251] Haiti SAP Alert
Pen-l-ers: I am forwarding this message because I think it actually might do some good, anyone with an organization or just individuals calling Brian Atwood at USAID. They have overstepped their bounds a bit here and could be persuaded to back off. If anyone wants more info, you can contact me. Mark Weisbrot 500 1/2 6th, #12 Charleston IL 61920 (217) 345 4983 fax: (217) 581-5997 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Forwarded message: From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Nov 2 11:28:12 1995 X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-Id: v02120d02acbe4cdb890f@[136.152.68.87] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Eudora 2.1.2 Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 10:30:47 + To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Oxfam Advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] (by way of [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Rosset)) Subject: Haiti SAP Alert ACTION ALERT! HAITIANS RESIST STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT US REACTS BY WITHHOLDING AID In response to public outcry over privatization, the Haitian government last week refused to sign a World Bank loan agreement which would require implementation of a structural adjustment program. In turn, USAID reversed its commitment to the Haitian government and is withholding $4.5 million in balance-of-payments support in order to pressure the Haitians to agree to the adjustment plan. The following letter is being sent to USAID and the international financial institutions. To sign on, please contact Lydia Williams at Oxfam America (include name of signer and org.) via phone (617/728-2409), fax (617/728-2596, or e-mail ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). The deadline 5 pm (est), THURSDAY, NOV 2. Also, please contact USAID today to demand that desperately-needed funds Haiti not be linked to acceptance of the structural adjustment plan: Brian Atwood, USAID Administrator phone: (202)647-9620 fax: (202)647-0148 - -- SIGN ON LETTER TO IDB, IMF, WORLD BANK, AND USAID Dear [donor agency]: We, the undersigned US, non-governmental organizations, write to express our serious concern that pending decisions by international donor institutions are stifling democratic debate in Haiti. One year ago, the international community demonstrated its commitment to democracy by helping to restore the government of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Following President Aristide's return, international donors conducted a Joint Assessment Mission to Haiti to determine what role they would play in the nation's reconstruction. In the report from the Mission, the donors determined that, in the past "international cooperation to Haiti has had two basic shortcomings: no impact and no sustainability." Sustainability, it concluded, required Haitian society to "further build consensus on basic societal values and goals..." As a first step, the Mission called for "increasing the link between communities and their elected officials, in order to increase the legitimacy of authority..." and "fostering of a dialogue with the government and the social sector which could lead to active participation of social organizations in national development strategies and programmes." Barely one year later, donor attempts to push through significant economic reforms belie these earlier commitments. For example, with the parliamentary and local elections just completed, and the new parliament seated mere days ago, public debate about the privatization of state-owned industries and other fundamental economic issues is just beginning. And yet, donors have already determined that privatization is a priority and will proceed along a certain course and timetable. This has led to public outcry and major disagreement within the government, resulting in the resignation of the prime minister. The situation raises two related concerns: First, the donors seem to have patently dismissed the legitimate concerns of Haitian citizens vis a vis sovereignty, due process, and equity. Secondly, donor agencies continue to use Haiti's urgent budget needs to force hasty acceptance of policies which will have a long-term impact on the Haitian people. Such pressure from donors can hardly be said to be supportive of democracy. Nor are donor agencies doing their job in ensuring that information about their programs and policies is getting to the people who are supposedly the beneficiaries and, in the case of assistance from the multilateral banks, will be expected to repay the loans. Earlier this month, some of our organizations hosted a 13-member delegation of leaders of Haitian non-governmental and grassroots organizations. The purpose of their trip was to collect information and meet face-to-face with multilateral development bank officials to begin the process of analyzin
[PEN-L:365] Privatization
If anyone has any good sources on the recent experience of privatization of publicly owned enterprises-- decsriptions, critiques, alternatives, struggles against privatizing, the role of IMF/WB in forcing them, etc.-- I could sure use them as soon as possible. You can send them directly to me if you want (unless other pen-l-ers request posting). Thanks in advance to all who respond; I will track down any citation I get. Mark Weisbrot (217) 345 4983 fax: (217) 581-5997 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5055] TIAA-CREF
Here's the latest from Dean Baker on the plan to attack exorbitant executive salries thru TIAA-CREF. Comments, suggestions, and volunteers to help organize the effort are welcome and needed. Comrades, I've been investigating the possibility of getting a proxy vote on the TIAA-CREF ballot for a resolution which would restrict the fund from investing in companies that give excessive executive compensation. Apparently, the only procedure involved is sending a letter to the Board of Overseers. They are supposed to make a decision based on whether they believe the measure is likely to have significant support from members. I suspect a good letter writing and e-mail campaign from PEN-L types and fellow travelors should pass the test. (Whether they respond fairly and actually put the measure up for a vote is another question, but we can at least start by assuming good faith.) Anyhow, I would like to send in such a proposal which I hope will have support. The following is my proposed text. I would like to get input from PEN-lers (or others), before actually submitting it. TIAA-CREF should not purchase the stock, bonds, commericial paper or other financial instruments of any corporation that provides a compensation package to any executive employee that exceeds $ 3,000,000 per year. This limit is to include salaries, benefits, bonuses, and the value upon redemption of any stock options included in a compensation package. The value of the latter can be averaged over the years for which it was earned (rather than just the year of redemption). The amount by which redeemed stock options push average compensation over $3,000,000 million should revert back to the corporation. This can be supported as a means of imposing discipline on executive salaries that have grown way out of line with the overall pattern of wages and salaries in the economy, without any obvious rationale. It is entirely appropriate that TIAA-CREF approve a measure like this since lowering executive salaries will directly increase the return to its members as shareholders in these corporations. Also, it should be possible to lower the compensation paid to TIAA-CREF's management. (They argued against a salary cap that was up for a proxy vote last year by saying that it would be impossible to get good people if they couldn't pay multi-million dollar salaries. If these "good people" didn't have the option to earn to multi-million dollar salaries elsewhere, then TIAA-CREF would not have to pay them so much.) We can also argue directly about the moral issue here (just as with South African investment in Apartheid days). The enormous growth in inequality is bad for the nation, and we should be prepared to use our power insofar as we control to try to reverse it. It is also likely that TIAA-CREF, acting in conjunction with other pension plans, could enforce some restriction like this on most corporations. Approximately 40% of publicly owned stock is held by pension funds. It would be very difficult for corporations to be cut off from such a large pool of capital.
[PEN-L:4823] a TIAA/CREF proposal
Consider this proposal from Pen-l alum Dean Baker: How about trying to get a shareholder proposal within TIAA/CREF, which would mandate that the pension fund would not invest in any company whose compensation for any single executive exceeded a certain amount, say, $3,000,000? We have a lot of TIAA/CREF members on pen-l and could easily use the internet to scare up lots more. Anyway I don't know the exact procedure for getting these things to a vote, but if we even succeeded in doing that, win or lose it would have to have scare the hell out of a lot of important people. (Some of you may have seen the recent NYT article on TIAA/CFRE using its muscle on W.R. Grace). What say, any takers? Mark Weisbrot
[PEN-L:4824] Re: intro econ history text
I have used Duboff's "Accumulation and Power"-- a bit hard to read for freshmen unless they have more than the usual motivation. But I like it. Mark Weisbrot A request to economic historians on the net: I am part of the teaching team for an interdisciplinary course which includes a component on U.S. economic history. Our students are first-semester freshmen with little economics background. Last year we used Heilbroner and Singer, but there is an interest in looking at alternatives for next year. I am not a historian myself and have not taught a course in economic history. Are there any texts that you would recommend that cover this terrain reliably and readably? Please reply to me privately. Thanks. Peter Dorman
[PEN-L:4208] URPE at EEA: It's getting kinda late. . .
URPE Sessions at the Eastern Economic Association Meetings March 17-19,1995, Roosevelt Hotel, New York City There is still room for more participants in the URPE sessions at the Eastern Economic Association this March. Below you will find listed the panels that will be included in the URPE sessions; some discussants and chairs are still needed, so please volunteer if you are interested. If you volunteered previously for a general topic, please pick a specific panel and let me know right away. I have listed the titles of papers that I have received titles for; I have also listed institutional affiliation if I have it. We need this information immediately in order to include it in the EEA program. If your name appears here, and you have information to add, please e-mail me immediately and send a copy of your message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Carla Scott) If you are listed and wish to participate you must also register as soon as possible for the conference; you can get a registration form via e-mail from Carla Scott at the above address. You must do this as soon as possible in order to be included in the program. You can respond to me at: Mark Weisbrot [EMAIL PROTECTED] fax: Department of Economics, (217) 581-6247 Phone (217) 581-6968; 345-4983 (home) Panels: 1. The IMF, the World Bank, and Structural Adjustment Esmail Hosseinzadeh (Drake University), Structural Adjustment Program and Inflation Controversy in Iran: Domestic Money Supply or Balance of Payments Problems? Asghar Adelzadeh, On Structural Adjustment in South Africa Terisa Turner and Craig Benjamin: Everything for Everybody: Structural Adjustment and Class Recomposition in Mexico and Ecuador Discussants: Cheryl Payer Phillip LeBel Chair: Anthony Gabb (St. John's University) 2. The Internationalization of Capital Cyrus Bina (Harvard), A Prelude to Internationalization of the Post-War Economy Kamran Nayeri (SUNY-HSCB), On Causes and Consequences of Internationalization of Capital and Economic Integration: Contributions of Steven Hymer Discussant: Anthony D'Costa (University of Washington) 3. Recent Research in Competition, Growth, and Crisis: Mary C. Malloy (College of New Rochelle), Long Wave Recoveries in Historical Perspective Katherine Kazanas (New School for Social Research), Is This A Long Wave Recovery? Lefteris Tsoulfidis and Kostas Velentzas (University of Macedonia, Greece): Techical Change and the Rate of Profit in Greek Manufacturing Discussant: Anwar Shaikh (New School for Social Research) Chair: Chair: Charles Post (Borough of Manhattan Community College-- CUNY) 4. The Mexican Economic Crisis: Implications for Mexico and the Future of the Neoliberal Experiment Papers: Robert A. Blecker (American University): NAFTA, the Peso, and the Contradictions of the Mexican Economic Growth Strategy David Barkin Colin Danby (University of Massachusetts at Amherst) Discussants: Mark Weisbrot (Eastern Illinois University) Susan Fleck (American University) 5. Is Labor Power a Commodity? Sue Himmelweit, A Critique of the Concept of the Value of Labor-Power Ajit Sinha (York University) Please respond as soon as possible. Thanks, Mark Weisbrot
[PEN-L:4056] URPE at EEA: It's not too late!
Call for Papers and Participants URPE Sessions at the Eastern Economic Association Meetings March 17-19,1995, Roosevelt Hotel, New York City ItUs not too late to participate in the URPE sessions at the Eastern Economic Association this March. We still need papers and discussants, as well as chairs. Below you will find listed the partially completed panels for which we still need both papers and discussants. All of this must be wrapped up within a week or so if it is to be included in the EEA mailing, so please respond as soon as possible (preferably by e-mail; fax is second best). I have listed only the general subject for each possible panel because it may be necessary to have some leeway in combining papers. I will post regular updates as the panels near completion. In addition to the URPE panels, there are a number of other heterodox panels planned for these meetings, e.g., about 10 panels from the International Conference on Value Theory, several panels on methodology, and since the theme of the conference is Dialogues in Economics, we can expect an interesting turnout. Despite this substantial overlap, I think it is still possible to have a significant URPE contribution if people respond quickly enough. Please respond directly to me: Mark Weisbrot [EMAIL PROTECTED] fax: Department of Economics, (217) 581-6247 Phone (217) 581-6968; 345-4983 (home) Subjects for URPE panels: 1. The Internationalization of Capital 2. The Mexican Economic Crisis: Implications for Mexico and the Future of the Neoliberal Experiment 3. Heterodox Economists in the Economics Profession 4. Appropriate Technology and Development 5. Issues in Marxian Value Theory 6. The Political Economy of Haiti: At the Crossroads? 7. The IMF and the World Bank New panels can also be created and are welcomed. All inquiries will get a response within 12 hours, and I will e-mail registration forms for the conference to all participants. Please respond as soon as possible. Mark Weisbrot Department of Economics Eastern Illinois University Charleston, IL 61920
Re: social security query
What's the pen-l line on social security reform? Cut benefits? Increase taxes? Increase retirement age to 70? Other? Or is there less to the standard argument about the "baby boom bulge busting the bank" than meets they eye? -bob naiman There's a lot less than meets the eye. Last year I attended a seminar given by C. Eugene Stuerle, author of a well-respected book on the so-called crisis of the social security system. One of his graphs showed soc. sec. revenues and outlays, with the former exceeding the latter for the next ten years or so, then a ballooning deficit as baby boomers retire. I asked him, at what interest rate are you assuming the government will pay back the surplus it borrowed from the soc. sec. trust fund (last time I looked it was about $50 billion a year). He said he assumed that it wasn't going to paid back at all! What if it was? Well then the deficit wouldn't appear for another 20 years after the one shown on his graph. So, I suggested, the crisis is not really a crisis of the social security system, but a crisis of whatever the Federal government spent the trust fund's money on. His response: "It doesn't matter, the government is still going to have to raise taxes to pay social security benefits." The logic of this is incredible, even for a neoclassical economist (Steurle's work has been for Brookings and the American Enterprise Institute). It is often repeated in the media, which for years has pointed to social security (usually lumped with other "entitlements") as the biggest item in the budget, saying it is impossible to reduce the deficit without cutting the latter, neglecting to mention that social security itself has not contributed one dollar to the deficits of the last decade and a half, since it has been running a surplus. Steurle's seminar was a joke; I imagine the book is too, altho if any pen-l-ers have read it I would like to hear their opinion. The most these people can say is that sometime in the next 35 years the government will have to raise taxes to maintain the current level of benefits. So what? He has all kinds of wonderful suggestions to avoid this calamity, e.g. people live longer so we should raise the retirement age or limit the number of years after age 65 that people can collect. Sorry but I don't have much sympathy with those who are losing sleep over this far-off "crisis" which may force us to return to pre-Reagan concepts of progressive taxation sometime in the unforeseeable future. Mark Weisbrot [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: election disaster
Just a postscript to my previous note on the elections: After reading Bob Pollin's postings, I think he is correct about the damage that Clinton and other Democrats have inflicted on themselves, and by association on the left, by abandoning any kind of program that would actually benefit working people. And California has some special problems, in that most of the 4.5 million people who voted for Proposition 187 probably knew what they were voting for, and it is a racist initiative. Also the resounding defeat (73-23) of the single payer initiative is bad news for future efforts. But I would still maintain that the national results reflect not so much a "conservative shift" among the voters as among the politicians, whose continuous ranting about crime, welfare, etc. dominated the sound bites that reached the voters. With such one-sided political discourse, what do we expect? This is a far cry from fascism, or even the conservatism that Newt Gingrich would like to believe was demonstrated by the vote, both of which presuppose a considerably stronger interest in politics than actually exists here. I think the phenomenon we have witnessed is for the most part very superficial, much like Bush's 90% approval rating after the Gulf War, which faded rather quickly and left no increase in the public's appetite for foreign military adventures just a few months after the war was over. How's that for optimism of the will? Cheers, Mark Weisbrot [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mandela
Does anyone have any of the specifics regarding what Mandela has agreed to do, at the request of the IMF/WB or other representatives of international capital? What did they ask for, what were these conditions attached to (e.g. an particular IMF agreement or WB structural adjustment loan), and what specifically did Mandela agree to do? I'm having a hard time evaluating this discussion without at least some of this relevant information. Incidentally, from what I've seen of the recent documents surrounding Aristide's "surrender," as some of the postings on this net have described it, he hasn't agreed to much in the realm of specifics. So far at least it's just a bunch of vague platitudes about opening up the economy, removing "distortions," etc. I would withold judgement on the nature of his government until they actually do something. Mark Weisbrot [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PEN-L Media Watch
While we're on the media watch, yesterday's NYT at the end of a front page article on Latin American growth and poverty quoted an Argentine economist as saying that the U.S. economy had created 41 million jobs in the last 22 years, with 5 out of 6 in the private sector; and Europe had created 8 million jobs in the same period, with 6 out of 10 in the public sector. Does anyone know where these figures come from? Is it really possible that the European economy (I assume he means the EC) created a fifth as many jobs as the U.S.? Maybe these are gross figures, not subtracting jobs lost? The point being made by the author was that, despite the fact that the poor have been left behind in the last 4 years of economic growth for the continent, the "American" model was still a better choice than the "European" welfare state. Mark Weisbrot [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Recommended articles
In response to Sid's recommendation of Paul Krugman's latest article, it should be perhaps kept in mind that Krugman is on a rampage against all those who depart from neoclassical orthodoxy in trade policy matters (his own theoretical research notwithstanding, of course). That's not to say that he doesn't have some valid critique of some of the "competitiveness" arguments that emanate from what he calls "pop internationalist" economists. But the overall thrust of his argument is reactionary, I think, with an emphasis on denying that "globalization"-- either in the form of capital mobility or increased low-wage import competition-- has had *any* effect on e.g., wages and living standards in the U.S. Not to mention that he deserves the 1994 BIG BABY award for his incessant whining about not getting the CEA post for political reasons-- tho I wouldn't want to imply that his rants against "Clintonomics" which he compares to creationism in biology, has anthing to do with this bitterness. (Latest whining may be found in the Washington Post, Sunday Apr.3,p.H1.) The Clintonomics he targets is not the deficit-cutting, welfare-"reforming," Nafta-worshipping, don't-criticize-the-Fed-even-if-they're-crazy,etc. Clinonomics, but the part that surrounds itself with the likes of Robert Kuttner and Lester Thurow. He also considers these people (Reich, too) to not be sufficiently educated in the realm of economic theory to be advisers. Cheers, Mark Weisbrot American University [EMAIL PROTECTED] for
