[PEN-L:12513] New NAFTA Reports from EPI
New from EPI: NAFTA's Casualties: Employment Effects on Men, Women, and Minorities" NAFTA and the States: Job Destruction is Widespread" (Includes state-specific numbers) Both by Jesse Rothstein and Robert E. Scott. For more information, check our web site, EPINET.ORG For information on how to order, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky ===
[PEN-L:12414] Re: slurs
From: Ajit Sinha [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:12401] Re: slurs Let me add one thing here. The problem here could be cultural as well. I hope I'm not condemning all Indians of impolitness, but it is true that Indians argue among friends with a lot of passion and not much concern for politness. But heated philosophical and political arguments usually do not affect personal relationships and friendships. In West, I have noticed that people attach their ego a bit too closely with the ideas they are arguing for. So i need to be more sensitive about that. Cheers, ajit sinha Without getting into the substance of the thread on language or the specific words beween others on this list, which I have archived for future deep consideration, I'd like to second this point about differing cultural norms of politeness, particularly relevant to e-mail. Around my Jewish parents' dinner table in the Jersey suburbs of NYC, "you're nuts" had about the same rhetorical temperature reading as "please pass the salt," but a visitor of ours from the Midwest took great umbrage to such remarks. She was nuts, but that was not why we divorced years later. MBS =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:12373] Re: NAFTA
Bill B said: I agree with this, but I disagree you can "point to larger solutions" by blaming job losses on NAFTA in a way that is virtually indistinguishable from Perot et all. I'm not suggesting maximum program everywhere, all the The focal point of left opposition to trade liberalization is a defense of the principle of labor rights and environmental standards in all nations. I think that is distinct from Perotista appeals. Actually, our side is trying to move away from the job loss issue to the implications of liberalization for job quality and pay. Obviously job loss is a problematic theme with 5 percent unemployment. It is really shorthand for losing relatively good jobs and getting relative bad ones. time, but the left should raise proposals in a way that unites our side and brings out our common interests, not reproduces those that e.g. are imposed by imaginary lines on the earth's surface. It's doing that. In fact, starting with the NAFTA debate this work has entailed collaboration with trade unions and progressives in Canada and Mexico. . . . solution" in both the US/Canada and Mexico. And yes, I am in favour of 'trade liberalization' if by that is meant freer access for oppressed countries to world markets. Aren't you? . . . When you say it that way, who can disagree? Isn't the issue always the way principles such as this translate in practical application? In other words, it is really-existing trade liberalization in question. To clarify: it was * against* the "dispossession of Mexican peasants from their [communal] land". Right. Pardon my shorthand. Michael Perelman asked if we should not have the right to pass protective regulations in a city or state or country. Of course, and I'm all for improving the regulations. But he goes on to say "The problem is that capitalists use trade organizations to break down the protection of local control". First, on the *strictly formal* level, and please correct me if I am wrong, I don't think NAFTA stops countries from adopting national regulations etc. It mainly imposes a certain kind of 'template' on these, which I understand as a kind of a pro capitalist trade 'template'; an extention of the direction GATT moved in for decades, e.g. no 'discrimination' against capitalists on the basis of (certain specific) nationalities. Well, this is what a major part of the debate is about. Will trade regimes undermine national or (in the U.S.), state sovereignty? It seems pretty obvious they do, though the scope and importance of this is open to debate. What else do you call the right of Mexican truck drivers to drive in California without a U.S. driver's license in an uninspected truck carrying uninspected produce working below U.S. minimum wage? What is left of U.S. national regulations in light of that? If Michael is saying our stance on trade should be based on something like "protection via local control" under capitalism, well, I just can't agree, because it seems to me like tilting at windmills, or weaving ropes out of sand, or some such metaphor. I would disagree as well. Standards are intrinsically broad in scope, otherwise they are not standards at all. Local jurisdictions may be best suited to run their schools, but localization goes fundamentally against the grain of labor and environmental standards, for pretty obvious political and technological reasons, respectively. BTW, I was serious about soliciting better fuel for this debate from you and this list. Thus far it seems you have been dwelling on the maximum program. Solidarity with workers in other nations, for instance, around what exactly (or approximately)? Cheers, MBS =============== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:12375] Re: 1997-09-12 Abraham Nom inated Bureau/Labor Sta
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 07:35:13 -0700 (PDT) Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: jf noonan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:Multiple recipients of list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:12372] 1997-09-12 Abraham Nom inated Bureau/Labor Statistics Comm Does anyone know if this is good, bad, or indifferent? Has she commented on the push to change the CPI? She's been a tower of strength in her resistance to bullying by Newt et al. Her basic position has been the BLS is responsible for doing the CPI on the basis of the best available scientific evidence and acccording to well-established processes of internal review, and no ad hoc committee of professors however eminent is in a position to do better on the merits or by any legal right. It is worth noting that the centrist Brookings crew -- Bosworth, Gramlich, etc. -- has been supportive of this position and critical of the analytics behind the Boskin Commission report. MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:12336] Re: the beautiful poor
This post reminds me of the Kathleen Turner's line in Prizzi's Honor. Jack Nicholson learns with shock that his girlfriend is a hit-person with many jobs under her belt. Expressing his amazement to her, she replies, "Well, it's not that many if you take it as a proportion of the population." Now Doug, I thought you liked numbers, especially as they pertain to ratios (%):). How about getting the stats on widow burning? This is an old "internal" versus "external" debate. An understanding of social change in India informs us that local institutions have interacted with those introduced from the outside. There is a significant variation across regions: dowry deaths seem to be taking place in northern Hindi speaking belt (centered around Delhi and other urban centers). Paradoxically it is associated with the middle classes. As for widow burning you need to update your information. The last case I heard was in the 1980s, in a village in rajasthan, perhaps one of the most economically underdeveloped state. As for restrictions on property ownership it is still a problem. The institution of patriarchy will not be easy to eliminate. =============== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:12343] Re: NAFTA
NAFTA's job effects. We had the same in Canada about the impact of Canada-US 'free' trade: some anti 'free' traders made wild claims about job losses due to its implementation and completely ignored the effect of the recession or capitalist crisis. When this line became untenable the fallback was a near-conspiracy theory that the recession was caused by the Bank of Canada's high interest policy ...implemented at the behest of *US* corporations. Its not domestic capitalists but foreign capitalists that are blamed, in other words not capitalism at all, but foreigners. I can't speak about Canada, but there was no conspiracy mongering in the U.S. from the left. As to whether the discussions about job losses were "wild" or not, I can only refer interested parties to EPI's numerous releases on this subject. I had complained about the 'border ecology' argument. Shouldn't we favour a "massive increase" in industry in this country underdeveloped by imperialism, including by allowing freer access to the richest market in the world? Are jobs for Mexican workers only OK if the pollution stays Now we seem to be getting closer to your argument, which seems to be a brief for trade liberalization so that Mexico can escape its underdevelopment. Is this how you think Mexico will develop? It sounds like by your criteria, to paraphrase you, "capitalism in Mexico 'with freer access to the richest market in the world' would be just fine." Where's the "good reason" to oppose NAFTA, etc.? away from out border? Or should they all locate in Mexico City? I'm sure we all favour rational, balanced, minimally-polluting economic development in Mexico, but they can't wait for world socialism for us to support it, and to do so without giving up anything on protecting ecology everywhere. Another point to link our interests in the US and Canada with those in Mexico against these trade deals: the ne-nationalization of Mexico's petroleum industry, which is another blow against their right to develop independently of imperialism. This suggests trade deals are fine, it's only the side agreements that are objectionable. You said there were good reasons to oppose Fast Track and NAFTA-type agreements. You say here these should be "in the interests of working people in all countries." Your alternatives seem to consist of: a world without borders capitalism is rotten a "massive increase" in industry in this country underdeveloped by imperialism, including by allowing freer access to the richest market . . . dispossession of Mexican peasants from their land oppose denationalization of Mexican oil I see no critique here of trade liberalization under capitalism, much less of capitalism in general. It even smacks of the contrary position. The allusions to land reform and public control of resources are side issues in this context. If you do think of some good reasons to oppose Fast Track, let us know. We can use them. Cheers, MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:12231] Slurs
I've been scolded by two persons now for my "Buddha can you spare a dime" joke re: Al Gore, which included implications of Asian-stereotyping. I sincerely regret offending any Buddhists or Asians who may have seen this, but I also think it is possible to be over-sensitive about this stuff and I think this is one of those times. I also shudder to think about the political implications of such a posture, since over-sensitivity tends to backfire and legitimate truly bigoted speech and elevate truly conservative critics of such a position. It reinforces the cultural isolation of the left. I hate to lose any friends over this, assuming I have any to begin with, but I'd rather have a few less friends and live in the world I'm trying to change than dissolve into identity-politics ether. Like Al Gore, I want to be receptive to all denominations -- tens, fifties, hundreds, etc. Cheers, MBS =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:12240] Lo lo lo lo Lola . . .
psychotherapy/radical politics run by one Fred Newman. Their presidential candidate last go-round was Lola Fulani who does have some following in the That would be Lenora, BTW, though I much prefer Lola, or for that matter Lola Folana. Must be the borscht in your veins, or maybe some flashback to The Kinks. As testament to Lenora-Lola's erratic nature, she took some of her folks into the Perot's Reform Party and may still be there, for all I know. I agree with the rest of your post. MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:12208] Re: Real social change
In the spirit of hard-headed science, Max, how about quantifying the respective influences of Abbie and Diana? While we're at it, why not throw in some multiple regression analysis? Abbie got people into the streets for explicitly political, mostly constructive purposes. You don't need regression analysis. All you need is arithmetic. Wouldn't it make more sense simply to say "I like Abbie Hoffman and his views/values better than those of Diana? That wasn't the issue. I have nothing against Diana, never have. Her public elevation to sainthood is simply without foundation. I heard a local representative of an organization fighting to have an anti-land mine treaty put in place this morning on CBC radio. Given your statement, I guess there's nothing his contention and that of other folks fighting against the use of anti-personnel mines in places like Angola and Cambodia that the deployment of these armaments changed drastically in the 1980s, that the new deployment was designed to inflict damage and terror on local populations instead of targeting armed combatants. Nothing to their thanks to Diana's efforts for helping to publicize this fact via things like documentaries filmed in Angola with the civilian victims of these mines. I'm firmly against little kids being blown to smithereens, and I commend the efforts of activists in all noble causes, including the suppression of land mines. I simply don't believe it means a god-damned thing. Can't I do that without being associated with "inflicting damage and terror on local populations"? Call me crazy, but I think the working class is going to be the agency for curbing the use of land mines, not the forces that could be attributed to Diana's activities. Since you have declared that any change in the disposition of land mines won't have any effect on the conduct of war, etc. I guess that settles it. No point in trying to raise public awareness or to change public opinion on the subject. In any event, that wouldn't be _real_ social change, would it? I'm not on any crusade against do-gooders about whose projects I have skepticism. But sooner or later we all have to consider the best use of scarce political resources. Don't we? I am struck by the contrast between your indulgence of the Diana cult and your hard- headedness with respect to the extensive labors of trade union and social-democratic forces to move the EU to the left. Cheers, MBS =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:12221] Fast Track: Bill's Knees Buckling?
Latest hot rumor about fast track legislation, previously scheduled to be released Sept 10: The White House is reportedly alarmed by the volume of Democratic opposition to fast track piling up, not least for the presidential prospects of VP Al Gore. They are talking to union leaders about some kind of version which Democrats could support (and which the GOP would thus reject). The likelihood is that such a bill would not pass and we would have no bill. There is a slim possibility that some kind of mongrelized form could get majorities in Congress if all those folks forget about party politics (yeah, right). A re-engineering of the legislation will require a delay in its introduction, which by itself would be a major admission of weakness by Clinton. ANY 'fast track' procedure is inherently anti-democratic. One could imagine a bill that would be strong on labor and environmental standards, but this takes quite a bit of imagination. Support for any such bill would also undercut any claims by the left to favor popular participation in trade legislation. On balance my own bias is to oppose any fast track, its redness or greenness notwithstanding. A failure of the effort would stimulate a national debate about what fair trade ought to mean, a natural setting for promotion of progressive goals. Let the ruckus rise. MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:12210] Re: FAST TRACK ALERT; Heads Up: Son of NAFTA
The object of the previous post's wrath was a single, partial info sheet, part of a sea of material that is being developed and circulated. Blaming Mexicans for bad food and drugs is a reactionary approach. The blame is on unregulated markets, not Mexicans. This choice of translation mirrors the mainstream media's characterization of anti- NAFTA sentiment as xenophobic and racist. Blaming NAFTA for job losses implies capitalism without NAFTA would be just fine. Self-evident rubbish. It implies there would be jobs without NAFTA that are gone as a result of NAFTA. Nobody thinks the left's work is done if NAFTA goes down. Sheesh. Citing 'border ecology' against industry in Mexico is incredible hypocracy. Why? Because there is ecological destruction within the US proper? The greens, which means Public Citizen, the source of the leaflet, are no less committed to that issue as well. You might want to argue that labor's focus on this is self-serving. On the whole, labor in the U.S. is more in favor of environmental regulation than against it. Certainly the consortium fighting NAFTA reflects narrower interests than that of the workers of the world. Doesn't every social struggle, at least at the start? These are yuppie Perot arguments - lets oppose NAFTA for **good** reasons! Such as? The sheet you criticized spoke to legitimate issues, albeit partially and not in technical econo-speak. If you can do better, by all means make your contribution. It will be appreciated, if it proves of any use. Cheers, MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:12112] New EPI Privatization Study
Now available from EPI: "The Privatization of Public Service: Lessons From Case Studies" By Elliott Sclar The case studies' topics are fleet vehicle maintenance in Indianapolis and Albany, and highway maintenance in Massachusetts, but the report is strong on general implications and related principles. Cost of the report is $12. Orders should be directed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky ===
[PEN-L:12090] Re: Borscht Belt Reds
Unfortunately, her talk did not really get into the sort of detail I was looking for. So during the question period I stated that I was researching the left-wing bungalow colonies and hotels of the Catskill Mountains and If you're not already familiar with it, you might be interested in and find useful Paul Buhle's (Radical America) work on Yiddish labor activists, which I understand includes oral history as source and output. He's at Brown Univ. MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:12091] Re: Greenspan on Govt. Intervention in Markets
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Walker) Subject: [PEN-L:12076] Re: Greenspan on Govt. Intervention in Markets Max Sawicky wrote, It's true that policy tools and policy goals go together "to some non-trivial extent". . . . True but too general. That was precisely my point. I'm glad we agree. Or were your arguing with the elipsis? Not then, though I note it had one too many periods. MBS =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:12104] EPI Issue Brief: Minimum Wage
New Issue Brief from EPI: "America's Well-Targeted Raise: Data Show Benefits of Minimum Wage Increase Going to Workers Who Need It Most" By Jared Bernstein This should be of particular interest to those involved in "Living Wage" campaigns. It's free for download from the EPI web site, EPINET.ORG. The principal subject of the brief is the nature of minimum wage workers, exploding the canard that they are mostly teenagers in middle-class families. There are numbers on affected workers by state, and on demographic characteristics of affected workers. Users of EPI material may recall our briefing paper on the lack of disemployment effects, a separate topic. If you don't have access to the web, contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] and they will e-mail or fax it to you. =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky ===
[PEN-L:12065] Re: Greenspan on Govt. Intervention in Markets
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Walker) Subject: [PEN-L:12062] Re: Greenspan on Govt. Intervention in Markets . . . A tool is a tool, Max, and a goal is a goal. One learns to distinguish between the two. I wasn't criticizing monetary reflation for the purpose of maintaining effective demand and full employment. I was criticizing monetary reflation as a supposedly "free market" fix for the consequences of rampant financial speculation. I'd say even under capitalism there's a more The two go together to some non-trivial extent, don't they? It's not as if the Fed drops off a bag of money at ailing financial institutions, by and large, though even then monetary ease would be implied. By my reckoning, looser money at almost any point after WWII, putting aside the energy price spikes and the late 1960's, would have been helpful. When the rising tide lifts the smallest boats, it's going to lift the big ones too. MBS "Who are you going to believe? Me or your own two eyes?" -- G. Marx ============== Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200 202-775-8810 (voice) 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036 Opinions here do not necessarily represent the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:12061] Re: Greenspan on Govt. Intervention in Markets
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Walker) Subject: [PEN-L:12055] Re: Greenspan on Govt. Intervention in Markets Greenspan on Role of Governments in Markets: ``Central banks are led to provide what essentially amounts to catastrophic financial insurance coverage,'' he said, adding, however, that ``such a public subsidy should be reserved for only the rarest of disasters.'' By my accounting, the "rareness" of such intervention works out recently to be about once every two or three years. Then there is the phenomena of creeping monetary looseness in order to avoid a situation in which catastrophic intervention becomes necessary. Kind of like the alcoholic who needs just a *small* drink to steady the nerves. Funny I didn't take you for a gold standard kind of guy. The truth that Greenspan acknowledges is that central bank intervention to "calm" markets is a public subsidy. To be more precise, it is a massive welfare program for the rich. To call it "insurance" is a bit odd -- the insured don't pay a premium for the coverage and the extent of their protection is limited only by the vastness of their holdings. A chain-reaction of bankruptcies might conceivably be of some harm to the working class, notwithstanding the pleasure of watching many of the rich cease to be so. I have some dim recollection of problems of this nature in the past. By my reckoning this puts you roughly to the right of Milton Friedman, but everybody has a bad day now and then. I'm sure you'll rebound, or maybe the right word is reflate. Cheers, "Greenback Max" ============== Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200 202-775-8810 (voice) 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036 Opinions here do not necessarily represent the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:12020] Re: Swedish sterilizations SDs
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 12:29:17 -0700 (PDT) Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:12013] Re: Swedish sterilizations SDs Keynes was a supporter of the Eugenics movement; so was Irving Fisher. -- I understand Margaret Sanger and other early feminists said some pretty hair-raising things about the merits of abortion for the sake of population improvement (sic). === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11999] Re: More on UPS
. . . On a related note, a lot of the privatization stuff is only possible, I think, _because_ of new technologies -- that is, it had not been possible Yes and no. Without doubt technology is important, but the political element should not be underestimated. For instance, before 1900, much of routine municipal services (such as they were in those days) were contracted out. Corruption scandals ended those practices and gave rise to civil service standards. There were also private roads and bridges, and catastrophic bankruptcies in companies that had contracted to build such things. This will be explicated at length in an EPI report, probably out early next year. Cheers, MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky ===
[PEN-L:11997] EPI: Coming Attractions
EPI in collaboration with the Women's Research and Education Institute will be releasing the following reports on Labor Day: "Nonstandard Work, Substandard Jobs: Flexible Work Arrangements in the U.S." The authors are: Arne L. Kalleberg, Edith Rasell, Ken Hudson, David Webster, Barbara F. Reskin, Naomi Cassirer, and Eileen Appelbaum. and "Managing Work and Family: Nonstandard Work Arrangements Among Managers and Professionals" The authors are: Roberta M. Spalter-Roth, Arne L. Kalleberg, Edith Rasell, Naomi Cassirer, Barbara F. Reskin, Ken Hudson, David Webster, Eileen Appelbaum, and Betty L. Dooley. Summaries will be available on the EPI web site (EPINET.ORG). The full reports cost $12 each. PLEASE DO NOT e-mail me to obtain these items. For further information on ordering, send e-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or regular mail to: Economic Policy Institute Publications/Fulfillment Suite 1200 1660 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 MBS =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky ===
[PEN-L:11964] Re: Big mouth
From: Louis N Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11959] Re: Big mouth The biggest problem with "Law and Order" is that poverty as a causal explanation of crime is simply absent from the show. All of the gangsters, . . . You could take that two ways. You could take it to mean poor people are no less moral than anybody else, that crime is a choice, not an environmentally-instilled, irresistible impulse. . . . The homeless man, as it turns out, spent a semester at Bard College, my alma mater. He was a dance major from an impoverished single-mother Harlem family. He was also a schizophrenic whose illness manifested itself for the first time after he came to Bard. After a few hospitalizations, the social safety net began to unravel and this young man found himself on the streets. The cops and DA's on Law and Order are incapable of addressing this reality and the show's writers never present credible characters who can. I know people like this myself and it's not an easy thing for anybody to address. The afflicted have sufficient faculties to refuse care that is good for them and society and the legal rights to enforce such a refusal. Often the only thing they will let you do is give them money to piss away. I don't think there can be a "liberal" cop show. This is a contradiction in terms. American society is in a fairly deep crisis and the police are functioning more and more like occupation troops in communities where injustice cuts deepest. Police brutality simply does not exist on NYPD, Homicide, or Law and Order, etc. When Jerry Orbach grabs a guy by the In the climactic final episode of this past season (maybe the penultimate one, can't remember), a member of the Homicide squad executes a drug dealer after one of the other cops has beaten him to a pulp. The two cops plus an additional one all cover for each other. Another cop on Homicide (Bayliss) who is relatively unstable also frequently loses his temper on suspects. And of course, in "the box" the Homicide detectives routinely subject suspects to all manner of mental/emotional abuse to extract confessions. Finally, the higher-ups in the police bureaucracy in Homicide are some of the most evil shits you can find on tv. collar and tells him, "You better tell me what I'm looking for or else...", this is about as far as the show will ever go. But this will not disturb the liberal yuppie enjoying his or her TV show. What will disturb them is the sight of two cops holding a black man down while a third sticks a toilet plunger up his ass. This is real life and will not appear on "Law and Order". Like I said in my previous post, count on it. It'll be there. I don't know when cop shows started to depart from the squeaky-clean 'Dragnet' or 'FBI' model, but for some time police forces have been portrayed as including a generous share of crooks, murderers, lunatics, and assorted creeps. It's true you don't get much marxist analysis. As Harry said, the fallability of individuals underscores the legitimacy of the system, so it is a form of propaganda, notwithstanding the fact that everybody here seems to have some familiarity with the material that goes beyond social-scientific investigation. MBS =============== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11967] Re: Big mouth
I know people like this myself and it's not an easy thing for anybody to address. The afflicted have sufficient faculties to refuse care that is good for them and society and the legal rights to enforce such a refusal. Often the only thing they will let you do is give them money to piss away. This is a bunch of reactionary crap. My brother was diagnosed chronic schizo when he was 20. Now he's 45. He's been living with his mother, unable to hold a job or take elementary care of himself. In front of a judge, he's as lucid as Socrates. Other times he talks incessantly about the Mafia, the FBI, and the CIA conspiring against him. He writes poetry. He can't be committed. He would only consent to live in a country club-type facility that indulged his every want, which my family can't come close to affording. So he's basically ruined my mother's life. I wouldn't tolerate his behavior and let him ruin mine, in which case he would probably end up on the street. The only fix for this is coercive confinement, which we wish would be generously funded by society, but we know probably would not be. In any case, it's irrelevant because such confinement is illegal. I know what I'm talking about, here if nowhere else. Cheers, MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11988] Re: THE FIGHT IN THE FIELDS (fwd)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11986] Re: THE FIGHT IN THE FIELDS (fwd) . . . founder of Synanon. I can say a lot more about Chavez if anyone is interested, but it looks like his son-in-law who is now union president may be doing a lot better job in building the union than Chavez. One of the problems is that . . . The new president is a very impressive guy. I heard him speak at one of our ADA meetings, and I predict great things from him. MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11976] Re: Big mouth
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: J Cullen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11973] Re: Big mouth Law and Order, like nearly all cop shows, is inherently conservative, but at least it provides some nuances. It is likely to show judges throwing out evidence for what appears to be capricious reasons, but the judges also occasionally tilt toward the prosecution. My major criticism is that the public defenders on Law and Order appear to be capable and smart enough to file exclusionary motions, research cases and stay awake during court proceedings. Here in Texas they are likely to pull in a civil lawyer off the street and give him $500 to prepare and present a capital defense. The New York Public Defender's Office may have more resources but I bet it's squeezed, too. That's a good point. As I think of it, in LO the prosecution always seems to have its hands full with the capabilities of the defense attorneys, whereas in the real world free legal defense is often unequal to the tasks it is given. As I recall, didn't Michael Moriarity, who used to play the chief prosecutor, walk off the show in a dispute with the producers because of the rightward tilt? He did leave in some kind of principled dispute with management. If memory serves, it was in protest against the networks propitiation to forces calling for censorship or self-regulation (e.g., Tipper Gore, etc.) Obviously a show whose protagonists are cops is going to portray them in a sympathetic light. Most of the shows have bad cops too, or even protagonists who do bad things. MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11975] Re: Big mouth
Welcome to the club. I had a brother who hung himself in a mental hospital in 1971. Frankly, anecdotes like this are about as useful as Ronald Reagan's anecdotes about welfare queens driving Cadillacs. . . . The problem we are dealing with is a social problem. The American people were sold a bill of goods when they were told that the solution to inhumane mental hospitals like Boston's infamous Mattewan, subject of Frederic Wiseman's "Titicut Follies", was to empty the mental hospitals while giving each discharged patient medication to help them function. Actually, they (we) were also told that the public sector would provide care in decentralized facilities. We also had the institution of rights for mental patients, even a "Mental Patients Liberation Front," and those rights have proved to be a double-edged sword. The true solution is group homes where the chronically ill can get adequate supervision and medical attention. Even though these group homes are cheaper than the old-time mental hospitals, the ruling class doesn't want to foot the bill. Psychotics, like disabled children and poor people with AIDS, are just not important enough. This is the significance of the balanced budget austerity program of the Democrat-Republican party. Less money for social services so that people like Bill Gates can afford a $30 million house instead of a $20 million house. As my 'anecdote' (unlike yours) pointed out, there isn't any such safety net. The LO story, while falling short of great art or trenchant Marxist analysis, reflects that dilemma. Everybody with a pulse understands that the homeless reflect some kind of failure of policy, or a 'social problem' if you like. Whether the 'solution' is taxing Bill Gates is another matter, but even so, this amounts to the old joke about economists assuming a ladder to get out of a hole. There is no safety net, so shit happens and stories are told to that effect. Even if there were such facilities, there would be people who would refuse to live in them and civil libertarians who would defend their right to do so, with the best intentions in the world. It's not quite the simple morality tale you make it out to be. There are villains enough in other respects, so it ought not to matter. MBS =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11963] Re: The call for new Teamsters election and Michae
reparations for the UPS strike which centered on the work of the leadership and its staff, not on rank-and-file activists. My recommended slogan is: Defend Citizen Action, Mike Ansara, Ron Carey, and the victorious IBT UPS strike leadership from State harrassment and tendentious Internet posts Coming in September: "How to turn into your opposite." In solidarity, MBS ====== Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200 202-775-8810 (voice) 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036 Opinions here do not necessarily represent the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:11958] Re: Big mouth
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 11:08:19 -0700 (PDT) Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "Harry M. Cleaver" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11955] Re: Big mouth On Mon, 25 Aug 1997, Louis Proyect wrote: I'm glad god blessed me with a big mouth. The TV show "Law and Order" is filming on the premises of Columbia Teachers College where I work. The show presents a right-wing version of the crime problem, as would be indicated by the title. It is basically "Dirty Harry" without the vigilantism. The "bad guys" who are usually minorities get their comeuppance in the courts rather than the streets. Louis: I haven't watched LO with any regularity but I have watched it often enough to see that it is NOT "a right-wing version of the crime problem". It is much more of a liberal version --still very much within the system-- but frequently giving a liberal view of various social issues. For instance, I have seen at least two shows in which right-wing, pro-lifers (if you will excuse the term) used violence against abortion clinics. In both cases the treatment was anything but favorable to the usual right wing positions and attitudes. I suspect that if they haven't done a show, or shows, dealing with crooked or sadistic cops, they well might. It would fit nicely into the liberal agenda favoring reform to clean up the dirty corners of society --without of course questioning the basic fabric of "law and order". I haven't done a head count --as I say I haven't watched it systematically-- but I'd also guess that the majority of the "bad guys" are NOT minorities, for all the same reasons. Harry is right on the button. In the same vein, the plots of LO frequently feature scenarios where a working-class or minority suspect is thrown out as bait for the viewer, only to be exonerated later by when some kind of upscale type is revealed to be the culprit. Since the cops are the good guys, naturally they are never shown beating the stuffing out of anybody (or almost never). However, they often seem to violate suspects' civil rights, tho I'm no lawyer, by using a variety of deceptions to get them to come clean. In the context of the stories, this is portrayed sympathetically as resourcefulness in nailing guilty parties. The show's stories follow headline cases very closely, so I am willing to bet anybody here something of value that this year's episodes will include a fictionalization of the Brooklyn case. As tv goes, LO ain't bad, tho I prefer 'Homicide.' Child of television, MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11918] Re: Blackfeet National Bank--Another Struggle
From: "James Michael Craven" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11917] Blackfeet National Bank--Another Struggle I posted this previously with no response. I got a lot of response on the subject of "high-class" prostitutes in Canberra, AU but apparently the subject of genocide against American Indians in a America is not on this weeks "buffet" or of much interest to some of the keyboard revolutionaries. BTW, wouldn't this be a nice story for "Left Business Observer"? I don't remember the prior post, but Nader's people might want to make something out of this. The place to inquire would be Public Citizen in D.C. (202-833-3000), as well as some places on the Hill (e.g., Senators Inouye and Campbell). You could probably get a story on this into the Progressive or In These Times. It's not as much an LBO story. MBS =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11905] Re: Risk and Unequal Opportunity under cap
From: Nathan Newman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11881] Re: Risk and Unequal Opportunity under cap In some ways, the more interesting aspects of risk management are in the Grameen Bank and community banks around the US. . . . This doesn't erase risk but collectivizes it in interesting ways, an important model for any form of market socialism that might have collective entrepreneurship by small enterprises or work groups. Your post pressed some buttons and made me resolve to read Bernstein's book. Incidentally, there are other types of socialized risk pooling in the Third World involving clubs. A friend of mine who is a development economist, John Edwards at Tulane, has written about them. I agree that all this is interesting, for the U.S. as well, not because Grameen is some kind of cure-all, but as a lead-in to thinking about market failure in capital allocation. With some stretching, one could imagine a line from these types of arrangements to traditional populist critiques of finance and proposals for new banking systems. Cheers, MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11897] Re: Risk and Unequal Opportunity under cap
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 16:19:40 -0700 (PDT) Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Walker) Subject: [PEN-L:11893] Re: Risk and Unequal Opportunity under cap ulterior motivation of bureaucrats, politicians or voters. In other words, bureaucrats may sincerely believe it is better *public policy* to fail conventionally, not merely a career expedient. ;-) Obviously the probabilities of success have everything to do with the relative merits of going by convention or otherwise. By definition, convention would connote that which is more reliable, hence bureaucratic rationality follows for the slogan cited. The penalty side is also worth mentioning. The penalty for failing unconventionally would be higher than failing conventionally. (e.g., "You tried WHAT?!?") I worked in the Federal bureaucracy for a few years and the biggest secret I have to impart is that bureaucrats act entirely at the behest of elected officials. Every nook and cranny of the bureaucracy has a patron somewhere; otherwise it wouldn't be there. If you don't obey your patron, you're toast. Your only defense is information you have and they don't, but there is always some traitor among your peers willing to give you up, so information isn't that useful either. Hence *insofar* as voters get the politicians they deserve, they get the bureaucracy they deserve too. All of which doesn't seem without merit from a democratic standpoint. MBS ========== Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200 202-775-8810 (voice) 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036 Opinions here do not necessarily represent the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:11891] Re: Risk and Unequal Opportunity under cap
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Walker) Subject: [PEN-L:11887] Re: Risk and Unequal Opportunity under cap I doubt that public choice right-wingers would have much use for Ellsberg's Paradox. If anything, the paradox presents an indictment against any kind of reductivism. As I understand "public choice", it is founded on one set of reductivist principles, in opposition to another set of reductivist principles. Public choice applies neo-classical welfare theory to the behavior of public officials and collective decision-making processes. The problem is not with the scale on which decisions are made but with the nature of the decisions -- "utility" abstracts from some difficult to define considerations in certain kinds of decision making. Thus Ellsberg contrasts Yeah but every theory abstracts from something. Whether it's important or not is another way of saying whether you dig the theory. (I've started rereading the Beats.) the decision situations in which his paradox prevails to those involved with familiar production processes or well-known random events (such as coin flipping). Aren't the right-wingers arguing -- in contrast to Ellsberg -- that there really is "no difference" between, say, personal consumption choices and public policy choices so that the market is an adequate model for either? No, I don't think that's right. First of all, public goods are different than private goods, and secondly collective decision-making is different from individual decision-making. The real application of the 'market' analogy lies in individual utility maximization, not in fantasizing the existence of organized markets. There is discussion of a market for political ideas or policies, but clearly the variety of electoral and other non-market processes are distinct from markets with buyers and sellers of non-public goods. I would venture to say that "ambiguity" arises often around ethical issues, so that any effort to repackage them in terms of "efficiency" is doomed on grounds of both ethics and efficiency. The solution is not to distribute the ethical choices and hope that millions of atomized, private *utilitarian* decisions will somehow add up to an ethical collective choice (or, at least, a choice "exempt" from criticism on ethical grounds). The privatization of welfare as voluntary charity and the kind of welfare reform that is promoted as "workfare" are two examples of suppressing the public ethical dimensions of issues in the name of a chimerical private ethics. By contrast, the Right, though this last is not necessarily implied by N-C or public choice theory, which allow for collective expressions of empathy or altruism. A virtue of utilitarianism is that in its specificity it is more compelling than utter fuzziness, the edge of which you are skirting here. ethical dimensions of the Vietnam war were suppressed in the name of an overriding (and ultimately venal) "national interest". What is needed instead is the foregrounding of the ethical dimensions of public issues and a spirited, informed public discussion around precisely those dimensions -- what used to be known as "democracy". Sounds good, maybe too good. MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11864] Privatization Conference; Speaker Needed
The Institute for Community Research of Hartford, Connecticut, is holding a one-day conference entitled "Privatization for the Common Good? Implications for Social Health and Welfare." ICR is a feminist-oriented organization. They are looking for a woman economist to address the question, "Can Markets Govern?" with particular reference to possible privatization of social services. The talk would be about 25 minutes, followed by QA as part of a panel lasting 75 minutes, from 9 a.m. to 11:00. The Institute is willing to offer an honorarium and cover the usual expenses. The conference is scheduled for October 21, 1997, in Hartford, starting first thing in the morning. Inquiries should be directed to: Dr. Jean Schensul, whose e-mail address is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please DO NOT direct inquiries to me (Max Sawicky), so get your finger off that reply key. You may also contact Dr. Schensul by phone: 860-278-2044, x227 (voice) 860-278-2141 (fax)
[PEN-L:11867] Re: Risk and Unequal Opportunity under cap
From: Nathan Newman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11865] Re: Risk and Unequal Opportunity under cap Social policy debates have gotten so stupid it is hard to see them as informed by any kind of theory, liberal or conservative, much less anything as high-falutin as risk theory. . . . If risk is seen as a friend and an equal opportunity for entrepreneurship, then inequality becomes just a reward system for those willing to take the risks that drive wealth creation. . . . This is interesting but perhaps a little too ingenious to attribute to popular debate. There is an individualist ideology which holds that people choose their risks and ought then to take the consequences of their choices, just as they are entitled to the rewards of a fortuitous choice. If your point is that the way this is viewed is politically important, I agree. It's a little more mundane than what I would think of as risk theory, however. . . . up the messiest aspects of poverty, but there really is no solid left position on how we would ideally balance risk and security, while making both equitable. In the broadest speculations of socialist theory, have market socialists grappled with that balance? The market socialists devolve to welfare statism in this circumstance, which is perfectly well-taken in the context of that system. I would say you have to be a rather extreme leveller to argue against any scope for voluntary individual risk-taking, with its attendant rewards and losses, but I don't doubt that the more left among us would take exception since in their vision capital is more-or-less completely socialized. Max === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11831] Re: Ellen Dannin in the New Zealand news
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 20:39:22 -0700 (PDT) Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Dollars and Sense [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11820] Re: Ellen Dannin in the New Zealand news Bill, do you know how to reach Ellen Dannin? Marc Breslow, Dollars Sense magazine. Sure: Ellen J. Dannin California Western School of Law 225 Cedar Street San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-525-1449 Fax:619-696- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards, Not Bill == Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200 202-775-8810 (voice) 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036 ===
[PEN-L:11756] (Fwd) Re: Towards a resuscitation of post keynesian thought
kapets vag 60 127 61 SKARHOLMEN SWEDEN Voice/fax +46-(0)8-883065 =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11702] Re: questions about part time jobs
From: Laurence Shute [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11696] Re: questions about part time jobs . . . My understanding was that part-time employment, as a percentage of the labor force, was increasing world-wide, from Europe to Asia. Does anyone have data on this? As I thought I mentioned here a couple of weeks ago, this year's gala EPI Labor Day release will be a study on non-standard work arrangements. Check our web page for details (EPINET.ORG). Cheers, MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11672] Re: Barabara Ehrenreich
From: Terrence Mc Donough [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11669] Re: Barabara Ehrenreich The thesis that beatniks and Playboy magazine had more to do with the breakdown of the patriarchal family than the women's liberation movement and the increasing economic options of women as they were drawn into the capitalist labour force is simply incredible. . . . I don't disagree at all, but by way of clarification of something I said in a previous post in a related vein, Burroughs differed from the rest of the Beats in some important respects. I surfed a few web pages after going through some of the previous posts and was informed and/or reminded of a few things: WSB was one of the few Beats not involved in Buddhism. This comes out, among other ways, in his view of violence (and his personal affection for firearms). He was untypical in other ways as well. The main issue was here was on family, and in this area (and elsewhere) WSB had some truly loopy ideas. In this sense BE's characterization has some faint relevance, but it is faint because WSB's negative view of families was not typical of the Beats. Contrast Ginsberg's landmark poem on the death of his mother, and his joint appearances at poetry readings with his father, notwithstanding the fact that pop was not much of a poetic force, to put it politely. Of course, more incredible than the idea of the Beats fomenting an erosion of family values is the idea of WSB diverting the course of mainstream culture's view of the family. Cheers, MBS "As one judge says to another, 'Be just, and if you can't be just, be arbitrary." WSB (Naked Lunch) ========== Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200 202-775-8810 (voice) 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036 ===
[PEN-L:11656] Re: beating the Beats some more
. . . On the second thought, however, that seems to confirm one of the fundamental points of Marx's critique of capitalism: that the system operates on its own logic that is rather independent of virtues and vices of individual capitalists. It follows that even a devout anti-capitalist is bound to behave like a capitalist when he/she is put in control of the means of production. That, BTW, is a reminder to much of today's Left, not to mention Ben-and-Jerryesque "bleeding hearts" and reformers, who seem to be pretty Dickensian in their desire to improve the system by requesting more virtuous functionaries of the system. Are you there, Max? You must be talking about some other Max. Max =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11636] re: the Beats
From: James Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11632] re: "the Beats" Not to beat this into the ground, but Barbara Ehrenreich wrote a book which I believe is titled HEARTS OF MEN, which argues at length that the Beats criticized family institutions (using both theory and practice) in a way that exempts themselves from responsibility of helping raise children, etc., without criticizing the inequalities of power in the usual family. Barbara's a fine lady but invoking her authority on this topic . . . you might as well ask Hillary Clinton. As for what the Beats didn't talk about, you might as well indict the entire pre-1972 left for male chauvinism. What does that have to do with, say, the merits of William Z. Foster? I don't recall whatever the criticism of family institutions in the Beats. I would say any such implied criticism was founded on a bigger dilemma, namely the moral and spiritual wreckage of society writ large -- the foundation for deformation of family relationships. It's also a little silly to criticize 1950's gays for failure to build nuclear families, since they were barely permitted to exist openly as individuals in the first place. I must admit I only glanced at the book, so if anyone has corrections I'd appreciated them. Only these few. Cheers, Max "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11624] Re: The Beats
From: "James Michael Craven" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:11616] "The Beats"
James,
At the risk of alienating even more people and in response to the
No risk there; if you're beat you're already alienated.
euologies on Burroughs and previously on Ginsburg, my personal
opinion is that the so-called "Beats", revealed themselves through
their writings and lifestyles to be largely: self-indulgent,
pretentious, arrogant, narcissistic, petit-bourgeois, phillistine,
ultra-individualistic, superifcial, elitist...
Self-indulgent: no more than the rest of us.
Pretentious: I don't see that; they were more reclusive than not.
Arrogant: never saw a trace of this; more self-effacing
Narcissistic: in the sense of self-involved, yes, like most artists
Petit-bourgeois: this covers a broad area. The beats were not in
hot pursuit of money, a leading p-b pastime; certainly not p-b
in terms of morality; more communal than individualistic, I
would say. It's hard to imagine a Beat with a house, mortgage,
and kids, much running a business (unless it's a book/record
store or a coffee house).
Philistine: not sure what this means; the Beats were a reaction
against mass culture, and elitist in this sense
Individualistic: not quite; covered this above.
Superficial: not at all to my way of thinking
Elitist: not really. a better accusation could be romanticizing
the lumpen-proletariat, a subtle type of elitism in the sense of
reverse snobbery
Historically, anarchists have done very little for anybody or
any just causes; often they have served repressive powers-that-be as
wreckers obsessed with their own self-centered concepts and states of
"Liberty". Sure some of the poets have used metaphors and symbology
Don't disagree in general, though there are different sorts of
anarchists, as MIKEY notes. The problem here is not so much
beat but art and the whole art is a weapon debate, which can
simply be resolved as, 'sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't.'
to decry various forms of oppression but generally from detached,
self-centered and elitist lofty heights of "culture" detached from
concrete struggles and sacrifices of their subjects--oppressed people
who generally will never read nor "truly understand" their esoteric
poetry and literature.
This sounds like English professors, not at all like the beats.
In Germany many of the anarchists were instrumental in wrecking
united fronts against fascism and easily came over to the side of
the Nazis and cut their own Faustian Bargains; the S.A. in particular
was full of them. More often than not when they called for personal
liberty, they meant for themselves personally rather than a
This is unfair in respect of the beats, whose brand of
anarchism was more communal and especially anti-
violence. Ginsberg and of course Leroi Jones/Amiri
Baraka have been quite active politically. Baraka is
a full-blown M-L but never severed his ties with the
Beats.
generalized condition which must be fought for with organization,
discipline, focus, sacrifice, determination, compromise to build
unity, humility, etc.--all qualities and capabilities that anarchists
and libertarians (one version of anarchism) are not generally known
to exhibit.
Here you're basically knocking them for not being M-L
revolutionaries, which is true but has no bearing on the
value of their art.
Of course there were some exceptions, but generally the Beats wrote
for themselves or narrow circles of the faithful sycophants who fawned
all over them, gave narcissistic/theatrical readings of their crap in
cloistured "coffee houses"...
Beat literature was always been circulated on a relatively low-
cost basis, though more recently it has been commercialized
to some extent. Coffee houses were always open places, in my
experience, and public reading is a communal act not unlike
declaiming from a soap box against the yoke of Capital. Moreover,
poetry readings tend to be democratic -- unlettered, unpublished
authors are typically able to participate.
Jim D. mentioned male chauvinism. Burroughs had a
mysogenistic streak but I recall no animosity towards
women in Ginsberg, Corso, or Ferlinghetti. Bukowski
and Neal Cassidy are another matter, but I would
characterize them more as glorifying the pastime of
promiscuous screwing than objectifying women in
particular. They would not expect women to be any
more faithful than they were.
Bottom line: all of these guys (plus Diane Di Prima, among
others) are still worth reading and will inspire some young
people to incline towards the left.
Cheers,
MBS
"People say I'm arrogant, but I know better."
-- John Sununu
===
Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Str
[PEN-L:11613] Re: William S. Burroughs
From: Louis N Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11610] William S. Burroughs Oddly enough, there is a certain affinity between Naked Lunch and the gothic novels of Stephen King. . . . Haven't read King, only seen a couple of movies based on. I don't take exception as far as you go, except to say King's stories don't seem to be about anything, whereas WSB's story is about everything. Burroughs' relationship to the left was non-existent. As the ultimate misanthrope, it is difficult to imagine him speaking from the platform of I believe he did interviews with anarchist mags, though we might not want to think of them as left. He did do readings at events that might have had a quasi-left character. What Burroughs did articulate was a savage hatred for the destruction industrial society wrought on the United States. . . . But don't forget his stories about oppression and rebellion in the time of the Incas (or Mayans, forget which). My impression is that for him every age had a particular horrific way about it, but that oppression and its opposite -- some kind of pastoral or urban/lumpen zone of freedom -- were timeless. His books juxtapose episodes from a variety of historical periods, including the future, suggesting the game is always more-or- less the same and only the players are different. MBS "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11608] Re: Teamsters strike double jeopardy
From: James Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11606] "Teamsters" strike double jeopardy It's really clear how biased the media is in favor of UPS: I've never heard of a strike that's been trumpeted as "a Teamsters' strike" unless it is literal truckdrivers on strike (and many UPS workers are not). The word On the other hand, though it isn't worth much, Jay Leno announced last night that he favored the Teamsters' side in the dispute and he reflected an understanding of the main labor issue at stake. Sleepless in D.C., MBS "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu =============== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11586] Re: New strike deadline at UPS
The following is from the Teamster Website Teamsters News Release June 26, 1997 New Research Shows Sky-High Turnover as Full-Time Opportunities Vanish; Throwaway Jobs Linked to Productivity Decline By sheer coincidence, the Economic Policy Institute will be releasing a new study on this subject on Labor Day. Check our web site (EPINET.ORG) for details. MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky ===
[PEN-L:11588] Work Time
Bro. Walker, We're going to have a discussion at EPI on work time. I can tell you our labor econ mavens are open-minded but skeptical. We are going to read an article by Gerhard Bosch and Steffen Lehndorff presented at a conference, "Globalisation of Economic Activity and the Labour Market" in Portugal. The paper is entitled "The Reduction of Working Time and Employment." I will circulate the stuff you sent me. If you have anything else we should read, short of massive treatises, let me know. Other suggested reading is welcome. MBS "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu =============== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11596] Re: commodification
Question: Who was the first Jew to receive the Heisman? Answer: Fred Goldman. I'm afraid this would offend some Jews who don't share my black sense of humor. It doesn't bother me, though I will be careful about to whom I repeat it. It seems that Fred Goldman has received a bona fide offer to torch Simpson's Heisman on Pay-per-view for $1,000,000 guaranteed. I love it! It seems that there is absolutely nothing that can't be commodified under capitalism . . . You will be right if Fred keeps the money, but I would argue that if he gives it all away (net of welding expenses, natch) the 'commodification' is really inflicted on O.J. by Fred. If I was Fred I would be thinking of ways to hurt OJ every day, in every possible way. They say the Jewish Old Testament is unforgiving. I wouldn't know, but I know the feeling. Cheers, MBS "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11598] Re: Work Time
From: "James Michael Craven" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11597] Re: Work Time Response (Jim C): In a message to Congress on the Fair Labor Standards Act, FDR wrote: "Goods produced under conditions which do not meet a rudimentary standard of decency should be regarded as contraband and ought not to be able to pollute the channels of interstate commerce." Thank you so much for this quote. I can almost guarantee it will be in politicians' speeches this fall, though obviously not with the revolutionary implications you impute to it. Max "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu =============== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11585] William S. Burroughs
A few notes on one of my college literary heroes, William S. Burroughs, who died yesterday, partly to correct the predictably sappy NPR piece this a.m. The only book of his really worth reading is Naked Lunch. The ones that came after are somewhat repetitive, not as funny, and even more disconnected internally. Like Kerouac (another one-book author in my opinion) his life is more interesting than most of his books. Enthusiasts of NL may go on to read the other books to pick up some very good bits of writing amidst a mass of incoherence. NL and WSB were not about drugs or being a drug addict, but about the more general topic of control of the self by external forces (including but not nearly limited to drugs). Thus much of NL is about totalitarianism, oppression, and rebellion. The politics are revolutionary-anarchist -- e.g., "Fifty million juvenile delinquents hit the streets with bicycle chains and baseball bats . . . " The phrase "heavy metal" does come from WSB's writing but 'heavy-metal' music bears no resemblance to anything he wrote, said, or did. Contrary to NPR, the "cut-up" method of Burroughs and his friend Brion Gysin (the latter a mentor of sorts to the Talking Heads) was not to write pages and scramble them, but to cut up pages and scramble the pieces. This is not, however, what was sent to the publisher. Burroughs would work over the results. He used the scrambling to get new ideas. NPR's description is self-evidently wrong. I defy anybody to 'unscramble' the pages of any WSB book and get anything more coherent. Obviously if you wanted to create new juxtapositions, you wouldn't scramble pages, but passages, even phrases. Though dwelling on drug use, all of the writing is an utter turn-off from drugs, and thus on that account therapeutic fare for our youth, if you're willing to set aside all the frightfully obscene, highly entertaining sexual material. If you read NL, read the preface and afterword too. Norman Mailer's testimony at the obscenity trial described NL as a "profoundly religious work" about "the destruction of the soul." The NL movie was a commendable effort but sentimentalized the book and its author. As I believe the director said, paraphrasing, to make an accurate movie would have cost $50 million and it would have been banned in every country in the world. Now that I think of it, "Drugstore Cowboy" (in which WSB appears) captures the spirit of the writing somewhat better in its own way. So do The Sheltering Sky and Barfly (by and about Paul Bowles and another beat whose name I'm blanking on). I could go on, and probably will. To think I could have spent the past thirty years at this instead of economics. Shut up. "Only the dead are neutral." -- WSB MBS (e.g., WSB unscrambled) Interzone
[PEN-L:11564] Re: That's What.
Response (Jim C): I have read some interesting and informative missives from the above author and really this level and type of response is saddening as he is obviously capable of a higher level of discourse. The tone and level of sophistication of this response is more in line with the type of response given by Sununu quoted above. Anyone who follows the thread should appreciate the response, if not agree with this writer's position on the underlying issues. MBS "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11555] That's What.
From: "James Michael Craven" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11549] Re: Home Mortgage Deduction an enormous legacy of theft and violence that didn't come to pass in some dusty antiquity. Did you think that railroads, telecommunications, oil companies, ATT, Nike, etc. just grew from the wholesome sweat of a few provident workers who tucked their savings away to one day fund these immense projects? Does Taylorism No, but so what? Response (Jim C): "So What?"; the Nazi and other Holocausts--"so what?"; Slavery--"so what?" . . . Mr. A: No relief is conceivable under the Rule of Capital. Mr. B: Well, actually I believe some relief is possible and eliminating Capital altogether is unlikely and possibly inappropriate. Mr. A: The blood of the martyrs of millenia of oppression under the yoke of Capital gathers at your feet. Slavery! Enclosure! Peonage! Wage-gouging! Surplus value! Segregation! Lots of bad stuff! Mr. B: SO WHAT? Mr. A: Why, you no-good #@$%^*+= so-and-so!!! Mr. B: I would say that about sums us this "debate." Now if you'll excuse me I have to go worry my hang-nail. "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11527] Re: Child tax credit
From: Robert Cherry [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11518] Re: Child tax credit Everyone agrees that the eitc will increase the labor supply of welfare recipients. Max was simply trying to indicate that unless the demand curve for labor is perfectly inelastic some of the benefits will remain with the eitc recipient. Whether or not the demand curve shifts outward due to an income effect is a bit tricky. Remember that since the cost of the eitc is factored into the balanced budget one cannot simply assume that this will be a net increase in disposable income. Moreover, since economic growth . . . The biggest factor is the likely increase in tobacco taxes. I doubt the increase in the tax on airline tickets will have much impact on the working poor. What is at issue, however, is not simply the impact of the eitc on welfare recipients but also the working poor. As I mentioned in an earlier post, with this group the concern is how serious is the work disincentive given the high implicit tax rate they face. The just agreed upon provision that families with incomes of at least $18,000 will receive the child credit allowance (is it phased in??) will mitigate this somewhat. The implicit marginal rates are indeed extremely high in certain cases. On the other hand, a fair amount of research suggests the marginal rates don't matter that much. The answer that appeals to me is that people basically would rather be working than on welfare, even if the financial benefits are not that great, so they don't care too much about marginal tax rates. An exception is the concern about loss of Medicaid benefits for their children. One of the few and fairly significant bright spots in the budget deal is an expanded access to such benefits. Finally, I too am for the eitc -- who could be against it -- and in particular believe that the work disincentive is a GOOD thing. What is wrong with the government modestly subsidizing wives who are only able to obtain low-wage employment with choosing to spend less time in the labor market so that they can spend more time with their children? I'm for it but (not because) I think it has the opposite effect (e.g., encouraging work). I guess this is called 'operational unity.' Cheers, MBS "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11544] Re: Info request re new tax accord
From: Gil Skillman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11530] Info request re new tax accord 2) Is there a segment of such investment--e.g. "venture capital"--that is particularly dependent on private purchases of financial instruments? How much so? American Enterprise Institute put out a little book on venture capital. It was mostly oriented to attacking proposals for the Federal government to undertake industrial policy interventions into private investment. About one percent of business start-ups owe their financing to "venture capital," strictly speaking. Most of the financing comes from corporations, rich folks who take a fancy to an idea, and personal/family sources (e.g., credit cards). Venture capital funds per se are a very minor player. 3) What percentage of realized capital gains come from assets which do not represent new investments in productive capacity, e.g. previously issued equity? Depends on how new is new. I would speculate that most gains derive from speculative activity or assets which have been held a while, so little of it has to do with 'new' investments. This isn't a very good argument, however, since the inducement of a preferred cap gains rate is held to stimulate the new investment. Tax economists don't buy that. Surveys of tax professionals (economists, accountants, attorneys working for academia, govt, and business) show strong majorities favoring the same rates for capital gains as for other types of income. 4) Is there any significant (new) evidence on the beneficial economic effects of cutting the capital gains tax? Paul Craig Roberts seems to think there is, but, well, consider the source. Nope. This 'source' doesn't even do tax research, let alone any credible research. Don't forget a CG cut obliges some additional Federal borrowing, so the 'price effect' (e.g., the higher after-tax rate of return) has to be juicy enough to overcome whatever marginal propensity to consume out of the tax cut exists. As you know, it's not even clear that higher ROR's induce more saving, rather than less. Citizens for Tax Justice has a distributional table on the impact of the capital gains cut on their web site (www.ctj.org). On average the bottom 95 percent of the population gets at most $115 tax savings per tax filing unit annually from the cut, whereas the top one percent get more than $6,000. Another effective argument is the contrast horizontally. Think of grandma and her interest-bearing CD or savings account getting socked every year with the full income tax rates, while somebody else with an equal amount of capital gains income enjoys multiple preferences: the lower rates, deferral of the tax liability, the elimination of liability for assets held until death, and now reduced estate taxation of the latter. Rather than writing your Member of Congress, I would suggest you write an op-ed or letter to the editor and send a copy to the Rep. We can help you with placing such an item. This goes for the rest of you blokes too. Let me know if you're interested in further assistance or have further questions. Cheers, Max "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu =============== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11545] Re: Home Mortgage Deduction
From: "William S. Lear" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:11514] Re: Home Mortgage Deduction
On Tue, July 29, 1997 at 16:28:27 (-0700) Max B. Sawicky writes:
All you are doing is asserting that private ownership
of any substantial body of capital inexorably implies
all the evil deeds to which you refer, then you're trying
to cast moral implications on my expected (and accurately
so) refusal to swallow this assertion.
Assertion with the benefit of history, yes. You have a nice way of
waving away the past: "All you are doing is asserting that segregation
of any substantial body of blacks inexorably implies all the evil
deeds...". Yes, today's capitalism---not yesterday's---is based upon
I said "capital," and you translated my words, with quotes,
as "segregation," as if to imply I regarded the latter as not
necessarily evil. Really!
an enormous legacy of theft and violence that didn't come to pass in
some dusty antiquity. Did you think that railroads,
telecommunications, oil companies, ATT, Nike, etc. just grew from the
wholesome sweat of a few provident workers who tucked their savings
away to one day fund these immense projects? Does Taylorism
No, but so what?
("scientific" management) and the associated transformation of the
education system to serve up "properly" skilled and obedient workers,
as David Noble outlines, not figure into this in the least?
Did you have a real question?
My, how impressive, and gosh, unexpected---another ad hominem blast
from Max.
For the crime of not being your kind of socialist,
you paint me with indifference to historic oppression,
tyranny, slavery, segregation, etc., and than as the inevitable
source of "ad hominem" remarks. You are a piece of work.
Bye.
[PEN-L:11541] Re: Child tax credit
From: Robert Cherry [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11531] Re: Child tax credit YouR response seems to conflate two distinctly different aspects of the labor supply response: The welfare versus work decisions of female heads of households and the labor supply of mothers with working husbands that are in the phase-out range of the eitc schedule. I am focusing solely on the latter group and arguing that for a substantial portion, it is quite rational under the current system for them to cutback on their work effort even if it means that the household income declines from say $20,000 to $16,000. There actual disposable income will not decline by $4000 since they will obtain an additional $884 of eitc; they will save $600 in federal income taxes and $310 in SocSecTax, as well as hundreds of dollars in commuting-related and childcare-related expenses. With a quite small net income decline, I would expect many of these mothers would choose the $16,000 by cutting back their market labor. I think that's entirely well-taken. For this group your comment --"The answer that appeals to me is that people basically would rather be working than on welfare, even if the financial benefits are not that great, so they don't care too much about marginal tax rates" -- is beside the point. I would expect that the reason why they often continue to work the same hours is that these mothers are not completely clear on how large their implicit tax rate is. Right. I was thinking of either the male adult in the household, or a female head of household. My hypothesis is that for cultural reasons, either type of person would put an important non- pecuniary value on working. Similarly, my view that we should look positively on this disincentive aspect of the eitc, has little to do with your judgment that the *aggregate* effect of the eitc on labor supply may be positive. It may well be the case that the positive effect on female-headed households outweighs the negative effect on mothers with employed husbands. However, what if it is found that the eitc does have the substantial negative impact on the market supply decision of mothers with working husbands. I am simply arguing that we should be able to defend this aspect of the eitc. I don't disagree. Making such a case is feasible if one adult in the household is working. Cheers, Max "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11526] Re: Child tax credit
From: Tavis Barr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11519] Re: Child tax credit The package can only be helpful. But unfortuanately, in NYC, minimum wage for workfare workers _is_ far less than minimum. The average Although I've opposed the budget deal, by all appearances it will include a requirement that workfare/welfare people be paid the minimum wage in cash (e.g., no offsets for Medicaid and whatnot). That is probably the most important, neglected aspect of what is otherwise mostly a bad deal. Cheers, MBS "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11495] Re: Child tax credit
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11482] Re: Child tax credit Maggie, Max (or anyone else), I have a question on how the eitc debate is being formulated. The standard conservative/ mainstream economic response to minimum wage, and rises in minimum wage, is that there will be higher unemployment because employers are now forced to pay unskilled labor at a rate higher than their marginal product. In reality, the last raise in minimum wage preceeded a significant decrease in unemployment, and, stood in some sense (IMHO) for a real world 'proof' of Keynesian economics--that higher wages mean more spendable income and drive the economy toward real growth. Now, assuming eitc would have much the same effect of increasing Right. The lack of disemployment effects from the recent minimum wage rise is is further documented in a new EPI report. income by reducing the tax bite on dollars for low income working families, a Keynesian argument would be that this would take more families off welfare and put them into the workforce because there would be more jobs at some point. The question (finally): Is any of this argument being waged by the Yes, but you can also get that result just from NC micro-reasoning, as I pointed out in my previous post. proponents of the eitc or other tax breaks to working families? Supporting the EITC is good politics because the only thing the public sees is more after-tax income for people who work. The fact that many families end up with a negative tax liability, from the standpoint of the income tax, doesn't bother people. When the Right calls it welfare, we scream this is for people who WORK, you moron. By associating 'welfare' with 'nonwork,' the Right has opened itself to an assault on behalf of people who work in the form of demands for bigger and better refundable tax credits, FLSA protection, free health care, etc. When the welfare rights movement makes its final transformation into a movement on behalf of poor people who are working, as opposed to people who would like to work but don't for an assortment of reasons, some of them not credible, I think it will be a major tonic for progressive politics. Cheers, Max "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11504] Re: Home Mortgage Deduction
From: "William S. Lear" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11498] Re: Home Mortgage Deduction On Tue, July 29, 1997 at 10:00:33 (-0700) Max B. Sawicky writes: Do we want the working class to accumulate wealth held individually (e.g., homes, stock, bonds, etc.), or must all wealth beyond personal items be held socially? I would say the latter is the correct socialist view but not the correct view. What is your criteria for correctness? I assume you include productive property in the class of items beyond the personal. If so, and if you think that it is "incorrect" that No clearly some capital should be in the public domain. Besides the obvious stuff like infrastructure, RD, and maybe patents, I would consider electric power, water, natural gas, communications, and some other things, but not manufacturing or a good deal what is now privately-owned. I would agree that this means I'm not much of a socialist. this be held socially, how do you square that view with the historical fact that productive property was originally stolen from workers through enclosures and other means backed by state violence, and is now maintained in the hands of the few by threat or outright violence? I ignore that view. I don't know what we're supposed to do about land expropriation that occurred x-hundred years ago. The remainder of your description is a fevered characterization of the routine enforcement of laws concerning private property. As I indicated above, I don't think socializing some property is as important as other goals, nor that it is well-founded in many cases. Do you distinguish between family owned and operated enterprises and those which employ labor outside the family, including huge (multi-) national firms? I wouldn't cut it according to size, though I would think that taking over almost any little firm (in terms of income as well as size) would not be a priority even for a socialist regime. I would cut it mainly according to what industries had more 'public' attributes, in line with the neo-classical theory of public goods (applied in this case to intermediate goods). I would also have a much looser, more expansive definition in this dimension. Also, what about the fact that workers must surrender basic human rights, including the right to self-determination, upon entrance to privately-held firms because (productive) propertyless workers have no choice but to rent themselves to those who own productive capital? I'd say they need not surrender rights under a progressive regime. I'm not sure what you mean by self-determination. I would also strive for a system where workers had alternatives to renting themselves to others, but this requires an attention to an open system of enterprise, not traditionally one of socialism's stronger points. Cheers, MBS "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu =============== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11505] Re: mortgage interest deduction
From: James Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11500] mortgage interest deduction According to Joseph Pechman's FEDERAL TAX POLICY (1977: 289), the US Federal Income Tax exempted _all_ personal interest payments from taxation from the start of the modern income tax (1913). I guess the major interest group in favor of this would be the banking capitalists and kindred spirits. (BTW, there are more recent editions of Pechman.) The interest deduction under the personal tax is distinct from a similar provision on the corporate side. It's not clear how important this was for persons since as I noted the personal income tax did not become a mass tax until WWII. Rather than being a policy that was instituted all at once, therefore, the mortgage tax deduction is a break that survived a series of tax hikes. I'm Don't forget a rate hike can make the MI deduction more valuable since it 'clears' taxable income subject to a higher marginal rate. pretty sure that it was in the 1980s that we stopped being able to deduct interest on car loans, etc. The upper middle and upper classes were able to resist the extension of this to mortgage interest. It was the 1986 reform. I think it is imprecise (not the worst sin in the world) to depict this as an upper-middle class thing since it affects the well-being of anyone who owns a home. I still don't think that this tax break was any kind of deliberate effort to co-opt the working class. The bosses lucked into getting that result, to the extent that it actually happens. A more interesting and grosser abuse flowing from the MI deduction is tax arbitrage. Investors are able to deduct interest expenses under the personal income tax. This means you could borrow money (say, by taking a home equity loan, or just getting a loan on some other collateral) to buy stock, enjoy capital gains that is taxed at preferred rates (soon to be 20%), but deduct your interest costs against income subject to the top marginal rate (39.6) on "ordinary" income. This would be even more lucrative if we had gotten indexation of capital gains. If we had better tax enforcement such practices could be monitored and prevented, but at present there are no appreciable obstacles. Is this a great country or what? Cheers, Max "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11507] Re: welfare and work
From: James Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11503] welfare and work Max wrote: By associating 'welfare' with 'nonwork,' the Right has opened itself to an assault on behalf of people who work in the form of demands for bigger and better refundable tax credits, FLSA protection, free health care, etc. When the welfare rights movement makes its final transformation into a movement on behalf of poor people who are working, as opposed to people who would like to work but don't for an assortment of reasons, some of them not credible, I think it will be a major tonic for progressive politic... One way of transforming the "welfare rights movement" (is there such a thing these days?) "into a movement on behalf of poor people who are working" is to remember that taking care one's own children is _a form of work_, even though our capitalist and patriarchal society refuses to pay wages for that kind of work. Even though it's quite an important kind of work, children being our future and all. Unfortunately, I would say the last thirty years demonstrate that 'remembering that child care is work' is NOT politically effective, though it has the secondary virtue of being true. Welfare rights politics has always upheld that child care is work, and socially important work to boot. People don't buy it, including working-class people. They know it's work but too many people do such work without pay, including many with low income, for us to effectively make the argument to pay people who don't work outside the home. The old AFDC system (abolished by the Gingrich/Clinton welfare deform) was a sort of minimum wages for housework system. Now many of the ex-AFDC earners will have to take care of others' children in order to earn the (minimum) wages that allow them to feed their own children. There's no direct help to their own children at all, beyond some transitional sops. True in one sense, but if we are willing to get picky, the rationale for AFDC by those who supported it was that it was aid to children, not compensation for the care of children. The difference is important in this context. Of course, cash aid to children per se has not been politically sustainable either. Now I think we'll have a test of a different proposition: that aid by means of fiscal redistribution is acceptable if it goes to families whose able-bodied adults work outside the home. Ideally we wouldn't have to go this route, but that's where we are now. There are a smattering of organizing campaigns for 'living wages' around the country that have been quite encouraging in this vein, though they are still in rudimentary form. There is the battle over how to pay welfare recipients for the work they will be forced to do, and under what legal systems of protection, if any. This is going to heat up big time, as states are forced to implement the new welfare deform. I am hoping it is a major opportunity to recast the cause of the poor into a working class framework and set the stage for re-Federalizing the support programs low- wage workers need to maintain economically-viable families, along with guarantees of employment. Cheers, MBS "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu =============== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11512] Re: Home Mortgage Deduction
From: "William S. Lear" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11509] Re: Home Mortgage Deduction On Tue, July 29, 1997 at 13:50:38 (-0700) Max B. Sawicky writes: this be held socially, how do you square that view with the historical fact that productive property was originally stolen from workers through enclosures and other means backed by state violence, and is now maintained in the hands of the few by threat or outright violence? I ignore that view. I don't know what we're supposed to do about land expropriation that occurred x-hundred years ago. The remainder of your description is a fevered characterization of the routine enforcement of laws concerning private property. As I indicated above, I don't think socializing some property is as important as other goals, nor that it is well-founded in many cases. Thanks for the lecture, but we're not only talking about expropriation of land that occurred "x-hundred years ago" or this year for that Well if we're talking about agrarian reform via land redistribution in the less-developed countries right now that's cool with me. You said enclosure and I thought you were talking about Merrye Olde England. matter, since that still occurs around the world under the aegis of the World Bank and its buddies. I suppose, following this logic, one might as well pretend that slavery never existed when arguing about current problems with racism. I suppose, further, that you have never . . . All you are doing is asserting that private ownership of any substantial body of capital inexorably implies all the evil deeds to which you refer, then you're trying to cast moral implications on my expected (and accurately so) refusal to swallow this assertion. Did you have a real question? Cheers, MBS "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu =============== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11496] Re: home mortgage deduction
Please correct me if my guesses are wrong. It's possible that the tax break preceded this period. Since then, it's been a sacred cow. Not many people paid the Federal personal income tax before WWII, so if it existed (I don't know if it did or not) the deduction would have been a minor matter on that account alone. Clearly as you say major political factors included returning veterans coming home and rapidly growing economy and living standards. MBS "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11494] Re: Home Mortgage Deduction
not the correct view. On the urban/transit stuff, readers are referred to a few EPI reports: "Does America Need Cities?" and Elliott Sclar's report on transit. There is also an anthology edited by Henry Cisneros. Elliott, now at Columbia Dept of Urban Planning, was one of the prehistoric URPE members. Currently he's finishing a book on privatization, but he will doubtless get back to his first love: cities without cars where you can go anywhere by bus/subway/cable car for free. Cheers, MBS "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11479] Re: Child tax credit
From: Robert Cherry [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11464] Re: Child tax credit My own assessment is that the EIC was thought by small businesses (chambers of commerce) as an ALTERNATIVE to minimum wage increases and probably had some expectation that it would increase labor supplies and, thereby lower pressures on wages in less skilled service occupations. Certainly a business would prefer an EIC to a minimum wage, but this doesn't mean there is anything wrong with an EITC, nor that its existence owes anything to business support. Second, probably a majority of two-children families which receive the EIC are in the $19,000-$25,000 range. Indeed, a family with two dependent children and adjusted gross income equal to $20,000 is still receiving an EIC equal to about $2000. Thus, the argument that the EIC should distinguish between those who receive the child credit and those who should not is problematic. Right, but only the Repubs say this. Third, this could interestingly offset some of the work disincentives inherent in the EIC. For families above $16,000 there is a quite high implicit tax rate: 21% loss of EIC, 7.65% social security, and 15 percent federal. Thus, without state or local taxes, these households face a 44 percent marginal tax rate on each dollar earned. It is even higher if they are also qualifying for other means tested programs like foodstamps, health care, and/or housing subsidies. This is quite high considering that work involves commuting expenses and for most of these families day care issues. I would expect that for households in this income range with two wage earners, it becomes quite rational for one (the wife?) to reduce paid employment. Therefore, I would expect that if these families in the $16,000 to $19,000 range know they would receive an additional $1000 for the two children they have if they could raise their adjusted gross income above $19,000 that they would seek more paid employment. (Isn't neoclassical analysis wonderful!) You don't need NC analysis to justify the EIC if you are able to conclude it simply raises low incomes. The Marxist notion of the labor market would seem to argue in favor of an EITC, as far as the latter goes, in the following sense: If you think capital can get all the low-wage labor it wants for a given wage, and if you think firms compete for such labor, then there is a supply curve for such labor which is horizontal and a downward-sloping demand curve. An EITC or wage supplement or kiddie-tax credit shifts it down. The flatter the supply curve, the less the wage effect, but the greater the positive employment effect, while the steeper the supply curve, the converse holds (more wage increase, less employment gain). Either outcome would seem beneficial for low-wage workers. Only if the demand schedule is vertical (e.g., demand is unresponsive to labor costs) is the EITC 'eaten' by the employer. If you think employers will simply reduce their wages by the amount of the wage subsidy, you have to explain why they didn't do so in the first place. If you say they want to "reproduce labor power," you have to say why an individual employer would be public-spirited in this class-defined way when his individual incentives dictate otherwise. All efforts in Marxist education will be received with interest, if not without skepticism. Cheers, MBS "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11461] Re: Child tax credit
From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11455] Re: Child tax credit C'mon Max, didn't you read the DLC welfare literature? Time limits are the No because it is nothing but glosses of the tough guys (e.g., James Q. Wilson, Lawrence Mead) who are worth reading if not supporting. stick, and the EITC was the stick. And you're not going to deny that the Calling a wage supplement a "stick" is bewildering. I guess that mandatory health insurance would be a club, and higher wages the kiss of death. EITC is a public subsidy to low-wage employment, or more accurately, low-wage employers. I won't deny that like a tax (but in reverse), part of the EITC is shifted to employers, but I will deny that none of it is received by workers. Beyond that you're into arguments about elasticities. Your point about policies towards the low-wage sector can get dicey. I hear the same thing at EPI. The problem is that we know very well how to destroy jobs by regulating and taxing them to perdition, but it is not so easy to create the jobs we would like to see, so I am leery of experiments in job creation that begin with job destruction. If we had a better safety net it would be as much of a concern, but we don't, as you know. "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu Are you making fun of Sununu, or adopting this as your motto? Both, albeit temporarily. Cheers, MBS ============== Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200 202-775-8810 (voice) 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036 Opinions here do not necessarily represent the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:11462] Re: Child tax credit
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 07:57:14 -0700 (PDT) Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:Multiple recipients of list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11459] Re: Child tax credit Doug Henwood wrote: C'mon Max, didn't you read the DLC welfare literature? Time limits are the stick, and the EITC was the stick. Two sticks, hmm, maybe my unconscious is speaking. Anyway, the EITC is the carrot, obviously. I thought you were attempting some esoteric form of wit. In this case the stick and carrot are independent (in law, policy, and politics, I would argue), so the carrot ain't responsible for the stick. MBS == Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200 202-775-8810 (voice) 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036 Opinions here do not necessarily represent the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:11447] Re: Child tax credit
Subject: [PEN-L:11442] Child tax credit If I read yesterday's WSJ correctly, it seems that Clinton has agreed that whatever the upper limit on income for qualification for this $500 per child tax credit, so-called "very poor" families ($19,000yr) will not be able to receive it putatively because they already receive other offsets. The tax bill remains entirely in flux. The Administration and the GOP could compromise on the extent of refundability of the tax credit. There will be no deal without at least some gains for the working poor. The Administration has been pretty strong on this particular point so far. The real problem with the tax bill for the Administration is the proposed indexation of capital gains. That's the only feature that they've indicated would trigger a veto. That's unfortunate because there is lots of other garbage in the bill which Clinton would let pass in order to get his budget. I have two journalistic pieces on this topic on my web page, if anyone is interested (URL is below). The Republicans have been passing appropriations bills rapidly. This means the President is gaining enormous leverage in the negotiations because every bill that is passed is another chunk of the government that can't be shut down. With no deal, the so-called entitlement programs (e.g., social insurance, welfare) go on as under current law. It's getting to the point where the White House could walk away if they don't get what they want and suffer no ill consequences at all. Even the deficit is projected to go into surplus in two years under the status quo. A great opportunity for a Democrat in the WH, if only we had one. As if those who will qualify for this credit don't receive other kinds of offsets! This is just a war on the poor, a violent eugenics of the type sanctioned by The Bell Curve. And Clinton has agreed to it. Clinton stands Not exactly, see above. here to the right of some Democrats in the House and the Senate who have Did you just sail in? Clinton is to the right of the median Democratic Member of Congress. . . . Of course the headline should have read "Bipartisan Support for Negative Eugenics Prompts Less Outrage Than In Nazi Germany" I would say that whether or not low-income families with children get a few hundred dollars per kid in tax credit refunds is not quite on a par with 'Eugenics.' Save your energy for when we really need it. Cheers, Max "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu =============== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11451] Re: Child tax credit
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (rakesh bhandari)
Subject: [PEN-L:11449] Re: Child tax credit
As it has been suggested to me privately that I have misunderstood this
child tax credit, I reproduce what I read in the WSJ:
"Neither Mr. Clinton nor Congressional Republicans are interested in
subsidizing the very poor. Families who make less than $19,000 or so
wouldn't benefit from White House, Senate or House plans, although they
would under alternatives offered by Democratic leaders of the House and
Senate. And all three bills would give the $500-a-child credit to families
with children smack in the middle of the middle class whose income,
according to the latest Census Bureau data is about $40,000 a year. (About
one sixth of the 37 families with children have incomes below $15,000 and
one sixth above $75,000.)
"The big issue is whether to give any money to working families with
incomes bewtween roughly $19,000 and $28,000. Mr Clinton would, the House
wouldn't and the Senate is in between. In a recent interview, Mr Gingrich
acknowledged the president "may well get something" in the end 'because we
want the bill signed.'"WSJ, 23 July, 1997, A20
Now if there is going to be a child tax credit, why should the really poor
not get it? Because they already enjoy the EITC?
Of course all children of low-income *should* benefit
from a credit. That isn't what's at issue.
The credit only applies logically in the first place to
children in families who file under the income tax.
If it applied to all, it wouldn't be a tax credit. It would
be a childrens' allowance, a great thing but not what
is in play right now.
A tax credit in simplest terms offsets a tax liability.
The EITC blurs that definition by being "refundable,"
meaning if the credit exceeds your tax liability
the govt mails you a check for the difference. The
struggle in this tax bill was for the kiddie-credit to
have a similar feature. Clinton was better on this
than the G.O.P., as the article points out, though
not as good as the House Democrats. So your
implicit complaint that the tax credit is not a
childrens' allowance is analogous to criticizing
a bridge because it is not a school bus.
Moreover, your equation of Clinton and the G.O.P.
on this issue was overdrawn. There's enough
other points of similarity to slam Clinton (e.g.,
see "The Good for Nothing Budget," an EPI
Issue Brief), but this wasn't one of them. The danger
of glossing over the difference is indifference to the choice
between Clinton's tax bill and the Republicans. Neither is great,
to say the least, but they aren't the same.
Is it too much to strive for a little precision in our
criticism?
Well, others who will enjoy this kiddie tax credit also enjoy tax breaks as
well (eg, mortgage deductions). It cannot be because the really poor
True but irrelevant.
already enjoy a tax break (the EITC necessary for their reproduction as
wage slaves after all) that the "really poor" are being punished by
disqualification for this child tax credit. Clinton is just using tax
policy against those whom he doesn't have the guts to call openly "the
unfit". As a further example, why is he giving a tax break to families for
kids in college for which this tax break poor families will *not* qualify
*even* if family members are in college, much less if they are not.
What Clinton really wants is his lousy budget deal. He isn't
thinking about the "reproduction of labor," for which the tax credit
or its lack are irrelevant. He's doing the education credit in a
misguided but more-or-less honest effort to get something
that can be classified as "public investment" accomplished.
The right time to be screaming about this was last year during
the debate on welfare reform. It's a little late for that now,
though I'm sure the opportunity will return.
Cheers,
MBS
"People say I'm arrogant, but I know better."
-- John Sununu
===
Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW
202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200
202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036
http://epn.org/sawicky
Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views
of anyone associated with the Economic Policy
Institute other than this writer.
===
[PEN-L:11452] Re: Child tax credit
What you have here, Rakesh, is dueling forms of meanness. The EITC is intended to drive a wedge between the "working" and "nonworking" poor, between the worthy and unworthy, the fit and unfit, the deserving and undeserving. That's why Clinton and the DLC love it. Dick Armey and his comrades think that since the EITC is refundable - i.e. you get it even if you don't pay any income tax - it's not fair to give folks a credit if they're already paying no taxes. So to Armey Co. all the poor are undeserving. Or as fellow Texan Sen. Phil Gramm says, society is divided into those who pull the wagon (his rich consituents) and those who ride in it (the poor, all of whom are undeserving). (Sigh.) There was already a wedge between those classified as working or nonworking. Putting this on the EITC and its boosters verges on the 'social fascism' rap. The EITC was a resort to get some money to some poor folks. By your logic, we might as well dispense with the standard deduction and exemptions, since they are mere sops to the low-income among us and emphasize the malicious distinction between the deserving and the un-. MBS "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu =============== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11410] Re: Sustainable Development, Complexity theory
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 11:08:42 -0700 (PDT) Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Robin Hahnel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11405] Re: Sustainable Development, Complexity theory, What time is Costanza's brown bag at EPI? I'd like to come. 12:30 till about 2 pm, and please do come. Max "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11400] Re: Sustainable Development, Complexity theory, an
From: Anders Schneiderman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11397] Sustainable Development, Complexity theory, and Economics I'm starting a new research project, and I need to get up to speed on the latest thinking about sustainable development. Anybody have any reading suggestions (particularly things I can find on-line, since the libraries in Syracuse are fairly limited)? I'm trying to use ecology / sustainable development as a metaphor. Also, has anyone in economics done research using complexity theory that's reasonably accessible? I know Kenneth Arrow was doing some work, but I was curious who else has done interesting research. Talk to Dean Baker, Frank Muller, or Andy Hoerner at EPI ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). Obviously check out Herman Daly and Robert Costanza (latter is at U of Md.). If you're in DC tomorrow (the 24th, Thursday), come to a brown-bag at EPI given by Costanza. There was a president's Commission on Sustainable Development (Dean was on it) which did reports or statements of some kind. Cheers, Max === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11388] Re: Re: NC economics
From: James Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11385] Re: Re: NC economics Hi Jim, I heard someone calling my name . . . . . . Also, it's important to remember that policy economics can be useful even within the system. A lot of labor economists used their theory and empirical work to oppose the recent Gingrich/Clinton welfare "reform." This is the kind of thing that EPI does, as Max would no doubt point out. Most of our work is not directed at debunking or promoting specific legislation. An exception was the NAFTA debate, when we were in full-mobilization. Our most important and cited work has been simply documenting trends in wages and income distribution, working from raw, primary sources. We usually have a word to say about the budget and tax proposals, but it's usually a brief one. A check of our catalog (available on our web site) attests to all this. On the other hand, our treatment of economic topics invariably has policy implications, a different matter. For instance, if we find that interest rates don't affect business investment (as Steve Fazzari did), there is an implication for tax policy (e.g., drop the fixation with the cost of capital and marginal tax rates) but the topic itself is of interest in its own right as well. Because the entire system does not simply respond to the needs of capital, patriarchy, and white hegemony, there are some pockets of resistance, so that there is some material basis for the use of some NC tools for counter-hegemonic purposes. (The AFL-CIO, for example, isn't 100% corrupt, I would have thought the issue was politics, not corruption. If Sweeney takes AFL-CIO revenue and buys himself a boat, that's corruption. If he makes a campaign donation to a Democrat in expectation of sympathetic treatment of some issue, that's politics and obviously debatable. since it has to maintain _some_ basis in the working class outside of craft unions. It, I am sure, provides some of EPI's funding.) It's true that much of this research is ideologically limited (e.g., trying to talk to capital about its long-term interests being poorly served by Gingrichite madness, as if the capitalist elite cares). But the fact that the system does not fit the Frankfurt-school image of totalitarian capitalism means that there can be some validity to some NC research. I'm glad you reject the image of 'totalitarian capitalism.' For some people it gives them a way to cop out of politics, though we obviously have disagreed on what that means. The overwhelming bulk of what the AFL-CIO and EPI do has nothing to do with "trying to talk to capital." Rather, it is about trying to talk to workers and citizens about what is best for the nation. We have to pick and choose, treating each item of research critically. (Actually, the same should be said for Marxian research, since some of _that_ is total dreck.) What?!?! No!!! I'm grief-stricken. There. I'm better now. Cheers, MBS =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11392] Re: models
Doug asks Hey, what's wrong with sex and Freud? Nothing's wrong with sex (as long as it's safe and healthy). In addition to his sexism, Freud lacked a sense of what was meant by psychological health. "Sex, when it's right it's wonderful, but when it's wrong, it can be wonderful too." -- Jessica Tandy, in a Burt Reynolds move whose name escapes me (actually a pretty good movie) MBS =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11390] Re: National Public Radio funding (endorsement
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 18:36:45 -0700 (PDT) Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11366] Re: National Public Radio funding (endorsement letter) I think that NPR is terrible now. I wish we could threaten them. The people at FAIR have been documenting how public radio and tv stations, seeing inadquate funding are selling off their stations to commercial or religious broadcasters. I hate to see any public assets slip away. For what's worth, we have much more trouble getting airtime on NPR than on commercial media and the Pacifica network. I don't think it's because we are too conservative for NPR. MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11309] New from EPI
New and free from EPI at web address epinet.org: (for information about purchases of reports and briefing papers, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Response to President's Report on NAFTA Press Releases on: NAFTA, minimum wage, EPI conference on "broadly-shared prosperity," The Failed Experiment: NAFTA at Three Years (executive summary) Jointly authored with Institute for Policy Studies, International Labor Rights Fund, Public Citizen, Sierra Club, and U.S. Business and Industrial Council Educational Foundation Issue Brief: "The Good for Nothing Budget" Briefing Paper: NAFTA and the Peso Collapse: Not Just a Coincidence," by Robert A. Blecker One-pager bulletins on latest figures on profits, prices, trade Press release on new EPI study: "Family Friend or Foe? Working Time, Flexibility, and the Fair Labor Standards Act," by Lonnie Golden =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky ===
[PEN-L:11290] Re: China's Overcapacity
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11284] Re: China's Overcapacity This is one of the main thesis of Greider, William. 1997. One World, Ready or Not: The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism (NY: Simon Schuster). By the way, I find some good stuff in Greider's book, but he seems to be so long winded and disorganized [this book to a lesser extent] that I find it hard to maintain my attention. Do others have a similar opinion of his work? Among the non-academic intelligentsia my perception is that he is quite well-regarded, but he may be more liked than actually read. He did a talk at EPI and basically espoused an over-production or over-capacity theory (e.g., the 'buy-back problem') which had the virtue of being simple but I fear not very sophisticated for contemporary political economists, which may be good or bad. MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11237] Re: critique and politics (was re: Tax bill may...
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (S. Charusheela) Subject: [PEN-L:11233] critique and politics (was re: Tax bill may...) Max Sawicky notes his dismay at how academic quibbling becomes a shield for political inaction. I am sympathetic, and agree that this is often the case. One correction, however, about microcredit. I wish to note that while some, perhaps even much of the critique does follow the type of 'shield for politics' Max is quite rightly critiquing, that is not the whole story. There are very concrete reasons that many folks, including me, are critical of the euphoria around micro-credit. This is not because one is against I hold no brief for or against micro-credit (I'm mildly sympathetic, but I claim no knowledge of the subject). I'm just not going to be as interested in a critique when the general patter of criticism is to reject most anything. . . . to work, and that is a political intervention, no? For the record, I will reassure Max that many of us 'nasty critics' work with and . . . Please don't attribute words to me that I never used! I DID NOT use the term "nasty critics" in my post. I wasn't even talking about critics of micro-credit per se. My post was not about micro-credit at all. Cheers, MBS =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11229] Re: tenure attention
ing gross expansion of Federal deficits. I think there is more here than "parliamentary maneuverings." Or maybe it's all just too obvious for words. Cheers, MBS =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11042] Self-Promotion
If Henwood's going to advertise I won't fail to either. My journalistic diatribes can be found at: http://epn.org/sawicky All civil or humorous comments appreciated. === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky ===
[PEN-L:11003] Re: The PEN/PKT Challenge
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 14:44:49 -0700 (PDT) Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: D Shniad [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:Multiple recipients of list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:10999] Re: The PEN/PKT Challenge Max, Who has called you to Paris? I'm debating Mme. Brigitte Bardot on the question of human vs. animal rights. MBS == Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200 202-775-8810 (voice) 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036 Opinions here do not necessarily represent the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:10991] The PEN/PKT Challenge
Dear Colleagues, You have been called to Paris to advise the new socialist/communist parliamentary coalition. It now falls to you to propose how to implement your untested ideas. Obvious constraints include: the deficiencies of working class political organization, the uncooperativeness of other European governments (in varying degrees), and "Globalization." My question is, what are your policy priorities, particularly with regard to employment, wages, taxes, public spending, trade, and fiscal policy? Which way do you steer France, given the current context of debate on unification, neo-liberalism, etc.? You may assume any optimistic scenario of associated political mobilization you wish, though it would help to make such assumptions explicit. But I'm really interested in your policy advice, starting from square one (today). I will be sole judge, subject to advice from hand- picked cronies and unsolicited kibbitzing. All offers of bribery will be given sincere consideration. Best answer gets a free beer with me at the Ha' Penny Lion (across the street from EPI). Second prize is two free beers. Put up or shut up, and have a nice day. Waiting for leadership, MBS =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:10943] re: Juneteenth
On the persistence of slavery, what about the use of prison labor to produce commodities, both in the US and, under the aegis of the multinationals, in market-stalinist China? There are also the reports of slavery in some African nations, and some prison is clearly coerced, so I agree the slavery issue is a viable one, but I wanted to bring up something else. Clearly prisoners are being exploited as workers and this diminishes the well-being of workers who aren't incarcerated. At the same time, for some convicts the chance to work at some jobs, even for a pittance, is probably seen as very valuable. Moreover, the state benefits financially from their work and this adds to scarce public revenues. So there is some issue about weighing the welfare of the two against each other, unless you think convicts should be entitled to no relief whatsoever. If you say they should both be able to work, that's evading the actual practical choice available at the moment. MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:10916] Re: juneteenth?
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 13:26:13 -0700 (PDT) Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: James Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:Multiple recipients of list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:10909] juneteenth? My "Cat Lovers Against the Bomb" calendar (published by the Nebraskans for Peace and Canada's New Society Publishers) mentions that this coming Thursday is something called "Juneteenth." What is this holiday? How do we celebrate? Slaves in Texas didn't hear of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation for about two years. When they did, the day of official liberation was June 19th (I think), which hereafter became known as the 'Juneteenth.' MBS =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:10811] Re: D'Souza Can Kiss My Brown Ass
The best answer to D'S and Murray stems from one of their own findings, the implications of which have not been sufficiently explored. In their research it turns out that Askenazi Jews have higher average intelligence than Caucasians. . . . Of course, we're talking central tendencies here, Max. We don't know anything about your personal IQ or genetic code. My notice was purely in the spirit of commonweal and was sullied by no lecherous personal interest. In any case you're wrong because for those fated to lower IQ in the "target population," as it were, your insight would not be generally appreciated. Sigmas above, MBS =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:10806] Re: D'Souza Can Kiss My Brown Ass
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (rakesh bhandari) Subject: [PEN-L:10801] D'Souza Can Kiss My Brown Ass I am sure that this is common knowledge to progressive economists, but having looked at many of the reviews of the Bell Curve, I am surprised that the following simple point seems not to have been made. . . . The best answer to D'S and Murray stems from one of their own findings, the implications of which have not been sufficiently explored. In their research it turns out that Askenazi Jews have higher average intelligence than Caucasians. It would follow that to improve the gene pool, when the nubile daughters of gentiles come of age they should be impregnated by Jews of Eastern European descent with Ph.D's. Actual marriage, of course, would not be necessary because nature overrules nurture. [Call now, appointments still available.] In the spirit of idealism, MBS (Ph.D.) === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:10703] Re: French elections
From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Most unions were formed when people were working six
days a week, 10-12 hours a day.
This is an interesting point. Joel Rogers explains the marketing-inspired
nature of the New Party's platform and organizational stragegy ("pick a few
simple points, four or five, stay on message, etc.") as a response to the
fact that people today work too much and don't have the time for
"traditional" politics. But I'd guess that it'd be hard to find too many
people working 60-72 hour weeks in 1997.
Whether people are working long hours or not, there's a lot to be
said for focus and economy of expression in politics, especially
given the state of fragmentation on the left, something you alluded
to yourself. You don't have to make reference to marketing theory.
Tersely,
MBS
===========
Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW
202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200
202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036
Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views
of anyone associated with the Economic Policy
Institute.
===
[PEN-L:10569] Re: Vive la France
Tavis has ferreted out my secret ambition -- to rule France . . . Now we know why Max struts around with his palm primly inserted under his jacket lapel! As I was telling Josephine, you should be grateful my army is rolling east rather than north. If reforms which take place within the general constitutional parameters of existing bourgeois society -- in other words, good things that might actually happen -- are defined as parliamentary cretinism, sign me up! It is then quite right that I diverge from Louis P and set forth on the road of parliamentary cretinism. If anybody is interested, I would be happy to critique that overloaded 'honey-wagon,' as we say en France, he uploaded by Alan Woods. I would describe and reject parliamentary cretinism as legislative diddling on the margins, absent any efforts to mobilize the working class, not unlike the Clinto-crats. Alternatively, there is the dreamland of ultimatist fantasy, which exercises its own modes of self-justification (where's a post-modernist when you need one). There are varieties of pessimism. One variety registers despair no matter what happens, another embraces the "possible" as the best that can be expected under the circumstances. "Progress" appears as an innocuous cloak for the latter variety of pessimism. But what if we say for the sake of So now I'm an irrepressibly optimistic pessimist, whereas I would argue that I'm a pessimistic optimist. Lost here is just what might really be possible . . . There is still that Langer quote: it's not a moral choice. argument that the idea of progress originated in the context of an 18th century enlightenment polemic against the Christian belief in providence? We would say you have gone off the deep end into metaphysical irrelevancy, albeit familiar territory. (Or, to say the same thing from a materialist standpoint, that it arose as a reflection of the economic and political advance of the bourgeousie vis-a-vis the aristocracy). That doesn't sound too bad. Do we, then, have the slightest clue as to what progress means outside of that polemical context? Does it simply become a laudatory term for Yes we do. It means the social-democratic laundry list. Maybe even including the shorter work week, though I'm still skeptical myself. You know the litany as well as I. justifying whatever happens in history from the perspective of the victor? Or does the word mean precisely what _we_ variously intend it to mean -- the cunning of reason, the consummation of the class struggle or a consolation for realpolitik? Progress? Try door number three. Cheers, MBS =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:10583] Re: Cuba
From: BAIMAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:10581] Re: Cuba Louis Max and Jim, Perhaps you'll ought to join us on at summer conference in Cuba - plane leaves tommorow! My impression is that Louis is correct on this one though I'm going to try to find out for my self. I will await your return and report with interest. I'm soon off to Europe to lead the Proletarian Crusade for Parliamentary Cretinism (PC-PC). Hurry back so you don't miss the Marxist Leninist upsurge in progress to our north, where by latest reports (borrowing from Claud Cockburn), "the leading organs of the revolutionary vanguard are penetrating the backward regions of the proletariat." Tom Walker will fill you in, so to speak. Bon voyage, MBS ========== Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200 202-775-8810 (voice) 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036 Opinions here do not necessarily represent the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:10548] Vive la France
Tavis asks Mike a useful question. Mike P is installed as maximum leader of France, albeit to everyone's surprise. He must address the masses, who eagerly await his plans for their salvation. He appears in full regalia and says, "Comrades, we must reinvigorate our roots!" Those in attendance could not agree more but wonder how. I think the vote indicates the roots have been messaged pretty well. Tavis has ferreted out my secret ambition -- to rule France -- so I may as well reveal what I would do. The new government has the opportunity to get up and say, let us now construct Social Europe, and present a picture of an EU painted in progressive colors (e.g., no debt limitation, gradual reductions in deficits relative to GDP to a fiscally-sustainable non-zero level, a European-wide progressive tax system, fiscal equalization, etc. etc. etc.) Alternatively, the left could move France decisively out of the EU and blow up the unification process. Where exactly does that leave them? What are their economic options? Haven't they been there before? I wrote: Maybe the electoral result gives the requisite kick in the ass to the European unification process to hasten the rise of "Social Europe." In response to which, Sid from Saskatchawan writes: Your irrepressible optimism vis-a-vis "social Europe" and unification reminds me of the kid who's whistling away as he's shoveling tons of horse shit out of the stall. When aske why he's so happy, he answers: "With all this horse shit, there's got to be a horse in here somewhere!" How the hell can you translate all of the recent events that have transpired in Europe into renewed evidence/pressure for a "social" Europe in the context of the EU? If my use of the term "maybe" qualifies as irrepressible optimism, then I must plead guilty. Funny that everyone who meets me thinks I'm the gloomiest person they've ever seen. Tom groups me with Shawgi and Mike, but he forgets my other co-thinker Louis, who said what I was thinking, namely that the 'quasi-mandate' implied by the vote can propel France towards bigger and better things. You could say the mandate is largely negative -- contra Chirac -- and inherently vague, and I would agree but add that it is for this reason a blank check to test new initiatives of all types, including transformation of the EU. As I've said before, the EU is a GOVERNMENT of Europe. (NAFTA was a mere regional trade agreement between governments.) It starts with certain features and biases, but its potential, for good or for ill, is vast. Politics on the ground informs the development of this potential. The new government in France has a pretty good case now for radical modification of Maastricht. Following up Sid's comments more directly brings me to the story of the man who made his living at the circus performing manual enemas on elephants. After some time in this occupation his arm became prey to infection. A well-wisher asked why, for the sake of his health, he didn't seek an alternative occupation, to which he replied, "What, and leave Show Business!?" Despite our understanding that an actual political process of progressive advance will be replete with reversals, betrayals, inadequacies, etc., we persist in a search for a 'clean' vehicle. Jesse has this problem and Jerry Brown had that problem, and the new AFL-CIO ain't doing such and such, etc. etc. etc. The right frame of reference to evaluate present circumstances is to ask how progress --if you think there has been any -- was made possible in the past. For any convinced that Social Europe is nothing more than an exercise in 'parliamentary cretinism', the question of practical alternatives looms. Calls for a socialist Europe, however elegantly couched, beg the question of the political process which gets us there. Long ago, Elinor Langer wrote of the New Left something to the effect that "we mistook revolution, a rare historical event, for a moral imperative." Jumbo beckons, so roll up your sleeves. MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:10519] Re: The latest high tech merger
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 11:22:10 -0700 (PDT) Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: D Shniad [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:10512] The latest high tech merger World Wide Web giants Netscape and Yahoo have announced their plans to merge to become the world's largest internet provider. The new firm will be located in Israel and will be known as: Net'n'yahoo. This coincidentally coincides with the merger of El Al Airlines and Al- Italia Air Lines to be based in Rome and will be known as "Vell I'll tell ya." Will they be flying Hairier jets? MBS
[PEN-L:10522] Re: yet more planning democracy
From: James Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:10515] yet more planning democracy Sorry to put you out of sorts, Jim. I know that snipping your posts annoys you so I tried to inhibit myself. I'm doing the best I can. For me at least, it gets hard once you're past four or five levels of back-and-forth to maintain a coherent exchange. I'll state how I see our differences and leave you the last word. Given the capacities and inclinations of persons in an economy where capital is held in common, there are one or more allocations of resources which are feasible and which do 'pretty well' for social welfare and efficiency. Maybe there is even one best one, but that is not material to my argument. Democracy in its myriad forms gives play to individual and group interests, the aggregation of which would not be consistent with any of those 'pretty good plans.' More and better democracy for this reason does not move a society closer to a good plan, though it has appeal for other reasons. The free play of self-interest does not make chaos inevitable. Political harmony can indeed result. I see no normative economic value to such a harmony, though I can see other values pertaining to justice, among other things. By contrast, you seem to define a good plan as the one which a democratic process throws up. I think this is a circular argument. In this vein, I see political rights (including the procedures for making collective decisions) as much more elastic than property rights, your vehemence notwithstanding. All things considered, the implied economic outcome of a democratic process appears to be bereft of normative economic content, such as social efficiency. That's why, in my view, you haven't answered how something as basic, albeit profound, as a relative price consistent with a pretty good plan would be determined. In this light, I suggest that "social efficiency" means quite a bit more than achieving an arbitrary set of goals at least cost. Bringing up 'Nazi death camps' in this context is a little over-heated. Having said all that, like you I'd be for "giving it a try" if there was a snowball's chance in hell of such experimentation. I will risk incurring your further wrath with one snip, your final paragraph, in toto: Equity and efficiency and democracy have to work together; they should be seen as complements, not substitutes. These are the normative principles. Ultimately, the economist's abstract conceptions of equity and efficiency must be subordinated to what people want, i.e., democratic decision-making. Planning is one part of making this work. That we would like equity and efficiency and democracy to be complements does not mean that they are or that they can be. That they 'must' is not a normative principle to me, since it begs the question of whether or not a circle can be a square. If, "ultimately," our own notions of these things must give way to "what people want" -- granting the problematic premise that they will get what they want by some kind of democratic process -- then I would say that you have extracted economic science, radical or otherwise, from the process. You are left with plans to make plans, rather than economic progress. Cheers, Max =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:10523] Re: French elections
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Walker) Subject: [PEN-L:10505] French elections The significance of the French elections is magnified by the fact that it follows on the heels of last year's general strike and mobilization against Juppe's neo-liberal policies. Seventy-five percent of French voters polled said that the main issue for them was jobs and unemployment. Might we even presume that Jospin is aware of the unique popular dimension of his party's electoral victory? Magnified but not necessarily clarified. Maybe the electoral result gives the requisite kick in the ass to the European unification process to hasten the rise of "Social Europe." A bientot, MBS =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:10471] Re: Cuba
. . . If you have nothing to offer about Cuba except conjecture based on tidbits you heard at a cocktail party, then I'd say let's not waste bandwidth. What you are doing by speculating on post-Castro Cuba is identical to the sort of nonsense you hear on any Sunday morning . . . To me this is a cocktail party, so now I'll head for the onion dip. MBS == Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200 202-775-8810 (voice) 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036 Opinions here do not necessarily represent the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:10470] Re: Labor films
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:10465] Labor films I am teaching a course this summer based on movies. I am curious if anyone has any suggestions for movies with a strong message concerning labor issues or unions. Suggest you hunt down Paul Buhle at Brown Univ. My favorite is "Matewan." "Germinal" (French) is pretty good too. I won't mention the three or four sappy ones I can remember off the top of my head. MBS ============== Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200 202-775-8810 (voice) 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036 Opinions here do not necessarily represent the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:10454] Re: more planning and democracy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Walker) Subject: [PEN-L:10423] Re: more planning and democracy The snare's there, but not in the post. Just because there's a radical separation between language and reality doesn't mean there's no reality or even that reality is "unknowable". The snare is in the presumed dichotomy that *either* our ideas and language can perfectly correspond with reality or the relationship must be entirely arbitrary. But there's a third possibility, which just happens to be a fairly classical position -- in any *meaningful* information, there is an irreducible residue of ambiguity. If anything, I'd call that Cartesian rather than POMO-tista. A "residue of ambiguity" would not qualify in my book as an Achilles heel for planning. Such problems proliferate under capitalism with no apparent disabling results. This issue turns up in discussions of privatization and contracting. As often as not, contracts do not specify every jot and tittle of a transaction, yet such transactions go on nevertheless. At the same time, the alternative to contracting, namely bureaucracies whose operations are based on rules and monitoring, have plenty of faults of their own. There is no easy dichotomy between ambiguous organizational connections and clear-eyed contracting, or vice versa. Not at all. No organization could function with an imperative for completely accurate information. I taught a course in project management in which the Isn't this a straw man? greatest anxiety among students is about having to "make up" some of the information they report. Same thing when I was collecting statistics from school principals: "How do I fill this in?" You just have to guess. "How do I know what to guess?" You just have to guess and so on. I'll grant that if what I said made any sense, no organization could function "all by itself" that is *without people to mediate the ambiguity*. So, yes, "artificial intelligence" is a crock. People could mediate in a planning structure. You're driving me to the other side of this argument. I come back to the premise that the problem is not precision in information but the diverse individual motives underlying the transmission, processing of information, as well as the construction and implementation of instructions from third parties (e.g., the planners). As well there remains the complex task of calculation, computer-assisted or not. MBS == Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200 202-775-8810 (voice) 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036 Opinions here do not necessarily represent the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:10452] Re: EU crisis (2)
From: D Shniad [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:10445] EU crisis (2) The Daily Telegraph Thursday 29 May 1997 Crisis over euro after Bundesbank blocks Kohl To Brother Sid and the Bundesbank Buddies, You're wrong and Kohl is right. . . . The Bundesbank is probably the most respected institution in Germany and the idea that it should be humiliated to allow the Respected for what and by whom, exactly? (A rhetorical question pregnant with meaning.) Deutschemark to be exchanged for the euro would probably prove unacceptable. To whom, exactly? A new thought (new to me, anyway): Because the convergence criteria for Maastricht are simply impossible, their inevitably ineffectual enforcement in the breach eliminates one major argument against the EU. Yours treuly, MBS == Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200 202-775-8810 (voice) 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036 Opinions here do not necessarily represent the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:10421] (Fwd) Re: Re[2]: dsanet: Unity Proceedures
The msg below suggests to me that when Fidel goes to his reward, the shit hits the fan in Cuba, even without a US invasion. Has anybody ever considered what the US left ought to be saying and doing with regard to such circumstances? MBS --- Forwarded Message Follows --- Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 16:27:07 -0500 (EST) From: Jim Hurd [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:Jason A Schulman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re[2]: dsanet: Unity Proceedures Reply-to: Jim Hurd [EMAIL PROTECTED] A member of the Cuban Communist Party was at a party I had the other night. This CP member has a more negative analysis of the Cuban Revolution than do you! Isn't a bit strange that Castro, has never once in all his years in power be overruled on a decision (internally)? Even in a very deformed "workers state" wouldn't there be some breaks on one man's will? That he isn't as quirky as Pol Pot, The Talibans, Kim il Sung, Ceaucescu etc, is testimony to a certain mental stability-- but the guy is an absolute dictator. I would prefer him as a Communist to say Stalin, in the same sense that I would prefer Harold Washington to Jane Byrne as a Democrat, but the workers in Cuba have no real power. =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:10418] Re: more planning and democracy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Walker) Subject: [PEN-L:10415] Re: more planning and democracy Max wrote, The problem is getting accurate information and having the plan's instructions carried out without the eye and hand of God behind every economic agent. May I add that this is a problem for which there _cannot_ be a solution because it is rooted in the contingent relationship between language and reality. In order to be of any use whatsoever, language has to abstract, . . . No, you may not. Really, is this post some kind of Sokal-type snare for POMO-tistas? They should thank me for alerting them. If what you said made any sense, no organization could function. Clearly they do, so you didn't. Regards, Max === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:10407] Re: The Farmer in the Dell
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Walker) Subject: [PEN-L:10395] Re: The Farmer in the Dell 1. This is an urban legend; 2. This is a parody of homophobic hysteria; or 3. The parents *real* objection is that the farmer takes *only one* wife. The issue arose after scores of parents complained that children in the kindergarten class at Brigham Elementary were being led in a game which mimicked same-sex marriages. At issue was the game "The Farmer in the Dell." It has been exposed as a hoax. I must admit I didn't doubt it at first, even though some of the names should have been a tip-off (e.g., Janabell Millett, Filene Dunnbody, and especially "C. K. Woodworth, A.P. remote correspondent." There was also the bit with 'the cheese stands alone.') One could also say it is a parody of liberal views of religious people. MBS =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:10401] Re: more planning and democracy
led democracy is a good, in and of itself or for its own sake. To me such a premise is moralistic and ideological, rather than analytical. If you don't think democracy is good in and of itself, you're not much of a socialist. As for "unbridled," I believe that it's for the people to decide I may not be much of a socialist, except to the 99 percent of the population to my right, but the point was that a moral precept which I don't disagree with (e.g., democracy is good etc.) is not an explanation of how economic outcomes are facilitated by planning are facilitated by democracy. how to bridle their democracy (and I already explained how they are likely to decide to limit it). We can't rely on some elite to do it for them, since the elite could (and likely will) set themselves up as a privileged class. The point of planning is to allow more complete democracy. I think the point of planning is to improve economic outcomes (social efficiency), whereas the point of democracy is to ensure justice. Fair-minded people can commit economic blunders, while planners can be unjust. You seem to be close to the following formulation: we need to destroy the political power of the capitalist class (e.g., the d of p) because it is impossible to domesticate this power under bourgeois democracy to the point where justice is secured. Planning is not, then, about economics (social efficiency); it's really about equity. This dovetails with your concentration in all your posts on political arrangements pertaining to democratic participation and your neglect of the normative economic principles supported by a planning process, democratic or otherwise. Cheers, MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:10362] re: more planning and democracy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Walker) Subject: [PEN-L:10356] re: more planning and democracy First, I want to confirm that I'm every bit as TV-deprived as Jim Devine. My last TV went on the fritz during the 1973 coup in Chile and I decided not to get it fixed to spare myself apoplexy. My knowledge of the Partridge Family is strictly from hearsay and supermarket tabloids. . . . The only thing you missed was Max Headroom. MBS
[PEN-L:10324] Re: planning and democracy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Walker) Subject: [PEN-L:10323] Re: planning and democracy . . . Max is right (except for the last line). To add definition to Max's "public ownership of capital and public control of its allocation", I'd mention the concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat". . . . Enjoyed this, and I'm also going to enjoy watching someone else catch javelins for a while. . . . The problem with such a smooth transition is that it begs the question of the need for any transition at all. If the cure for bourgeois democracy is simply "more democracy", then we might as well get on with the practical work on taxes and transfers rather than speculating about alternative systems. . . . Hear hear. Not just taxes and transfers but regulation, public investment, etc. etc. . . . something that doesn't yet exist? Have socialists forgotten how to dream in colour (or are they just ashamed to try)? One explanation is that time dreaming is time that might be spent more profitably. You have your choice of foregone paths about which to feel guilty. . . . And there's the social democratic dilemma in a nutshell: it's not simply that social-democratic policy prescriptions are objectionable, it's that in order to be palatable to the "mainstream" they always have to be repackaged as even more innocuous then they are. Social democratic policies can never be innocuous enough, at least until they are completely vapid -- at which point, they are readily dismissed by "the mainstream" as vapid. I think the issue here is the admittedly mysterious one of how the working class mobilizes. My hope is that when it does the social-democratic parties will be much less vapid or they will be supplanted by better social-democrats not unlike my humble self. Cheers, MBS ============== Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200 202-775-8810 (voice) 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036 Opinions here do not necessarily represent the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
