Re: Building a Movement That Outlasts the Occupation
At the risk of a round of raspberries I'll tell my Cambodia story. I was a thoroughly cynical campus radical when Nixon did his television number on why he had to invade Cambodia, to protect American lives. I was in my dorm with none-too-radical dorm-mates. After it was over I said ho-hum and went back to my room. Can't remember what I was doing. An hour later I get a phone call from a friend at the Campus Center. The place was in an uproar. Hundreds of people had converged there to discuss what to do. Max, get over here! Oh, okay. Moral: you can get too far ahead of the masses. mbs - Original Message - From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 7:02 PM Subject: Re: Building a Movement That Outlasts the Occupation Joanna writes: What's new is that somebody seems to care. Somehow, this seems to be turning out to be the final straw. It was about time. So, I understand that it is not really new as does most of the left, but this is an inadequate response. If the media is actually willing to report this story, what good does it do for the left to say Ah, that's nothing, think about the prisons in the U.S., and the School of the Americas, etc.? that's right. We have to be clear not only about what we think and know, but about what people outside of the left are thinking and knowing. That helps us bring them over to our side. Jim Devine
RE: RE: Dirksen
No, you have us mixed up with Levy. Our motto is: Tables 'R Us. mbs Max, is it true that a billion here a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money is carved in the marble arch at the main doorway of the Economic Policy Institute's edifice? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: Martha Stewart's cabbage
I don't watch Leno too often, but they had a great bit on this last night, intercutting the Stewart interview with shots of a knife mutilating the cabbage to the tune of Psycho background music. mbs Stewart Gets Sliced Up By Howard Kurtz Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, June 26, 2002; 8:50 AM She kept futzing with the stupid salad!
The Chomsky Documentation Project
hey kids, won't this be fun . . . http://www.maxspeak.org/Hot_Buttons/chomsky.htm mbs * Max B. Sawicky http://www.MaxSpeak.Org BLOG: http://www.MaxSpeak.Org/gm/index.htm
RE: Re: Inheritance tax is Marxist
Let us not neglect the fact that the *Estate* tax (there is no inheritance tax) collects about $30b a year right now, so it isn't doing much in the way of redistributing wealth. What's more, regressive loopholes in the income tax are huge compared to Estate tax revenue. I even surprized myself when I did this: http://www.epinet.org/webfeatures/snapshots/archive/2002/0417/snap04172002.h tml mbs Democratic foes of repeal advocate the redistribution of wealth, ``an old Marxist idea that has been rejected everywhere in the world but still has appeal'' in the United States, Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, said Tuesday as debate began. Good old Gramm, past master in the uses of the Big Lie in political rhetoric. Gramm's comment is, of course, stunningly and redundantly contrary to fact, most obviously because most other developed countries engage in much more redistribution of wealth than the US (though I was distressed to learn that Italy has repealed its inheritance tax). Second, redistribution of wealth is not only not a specifically Marxist idea (much too timid a social change from a Marxist standpoint), but it's one that obviously precedes Marx (e.g., an article in the most recent American Prospect notes that pre-Marxist James Madison wrote in favor of progressive redistribution to combat social stratification). Propagandist Gramm has also been flogging the death tax chestnut, even arguing the immorality of taxing death, oblivious to the fact that although 100% of the U.S. population (eventually) die, only 2% pay the inheritance tax. And yet Democrats largely cede the moral high ground to reactionary ideologues like Gramm by not challenging such absurd claims. Gil
RE: Re: Inheritance tax is Marxist
The former taxes the dead donor. The latter taxes the recipient. The difference could be huge, depending on the details. mbs BTW, what's the difference between the estate tax and the inheritance tax? JD -Original Message- From: Ian Murray To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 6/13/2002 9:52 AM Subject: [PEN-L:26839] Re: Inheritance tax is Marxist - Original Message - From: Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 9:45 AM Subject: [PEN-L:26838] Inheritance tax is Marxist Inheritance tax is Marxist by Ian Murray 12 June 2002 19:09 UTC Manifesto of the Communist Party 1848 http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html#Proletarian Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production. These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. ABOLITION OF ALL RIGHTS OF INHERITANCE ( emphasis added -CB) = The philosophical and legal arguments for abolishing inheritance had been around before KM was even born. CB: You provided the heading - Inheritance tax is _Marxist_. What is the significance of it being Marxist, since, no doubt, the inheritance tax was around before KM was born , too ? Because Phil Gramm, incorrectly, asserted it was a Marxist idea. That Marx was even mentioned by a major US politician in the 21st century is interesting no? Ian Ian
RE: Re: RE: Re: Judi Bari Wins!
The larger question is misconduct by a law enforcement agency that is acquiring increasing powers as we speak, not the possible details of a domestic dispute. We should keep our priorities straight. mbs While clearly the verdict in this trial is appropriate, in that the FBI and the Oakland PD failed to properly investigate the bombing and blamed the victims in a political attack against them, it does not address the larger question: Who *did* bomb Judy Bari? That the FBI botched the investigation does not mean the FBI itself bombed her. I've already been accused of being an FBI flunky for not buying into the Ruppert conspiracy nonsense about 9-11. But I don't buy into the FBI-bombed-Bari story, either. From my perspective, the simplest solution is usually the best, and when a woman gets attacked nine times out of ten it's by a man in her life; in this case, the husband. See: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/05/23/judibari/index_np.html tim --- Max B. Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: please expand, with links if possible. max -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Perelman Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 10:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:26732] Re: Judi Bari Wins! This is excellent news, but just think what the trial would have been like if the judge had allowed the COINTELPRO story to be told. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] = Check out the Chico Examiner listserves at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DisorderlyConduct http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChicoLeft Subscribe to the Chico Examiner for only $40 annually or $25 for six months. Mail cash or check payabe to Tim Bousquet to POBox 4627, Chico CA 95927 __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Judi Bari Wins!
I'm more afraid of the FBI than of Earth First. No tree-hugger ever denied me my constitutional rights. mbs The largest question of all is Did any of the Earth First work on the north coast save even one tree from the timber industry? tim --- Max Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The larger question is misconduct by a law enforcement agency that is acquiring increasing powers as we speak, not the possible details of a domestic dispute. We should keep our priorities straight. mbs While clearly the verdict in this trial is appropriate, in that the FBI and the Oakland PD failed to properly investigate the bombing and blamed the victims in a political attack against them, it does not address the larger question: Who *did* bomb Judy Bari? That the FBI botched the investigation does not mean the FBI itself bombed her. I've already been accused of being an FBI flunky for not buying into the Ruppert conspiracy nonsense about 9-11. But I don't buy into the FBI-bombed-Bari story, either. From my perspective, the simplest solution is usually the best, and when a woman gets attacked nine times out of ten it's by a man in her life; in this case, the husband. See: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/05/23/judibari/index_np.html tim --- Max B. Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: please expand, with links if possible. max -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Perelman Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 10:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:26732] Re: Judi Bari Wins! This is excellent news, but just think what the trial would have been like if the judge had allowed the COINTELPRO story to be told. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] = Check out the Chico Examiner listserves at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DisorderlyConduct http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChicoLeft Subscribe to the Chico Examiner for only $40 annually or $25 for six months. Mail cash or check payabe to Tim Bousquet to POBox 4627, Chico CA 95927 __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com = Check out the Chico Examiner listserves at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DisorderlyConduct http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChicoLeft Subscribe to the Chico Examiner for only $40 annually or $25 for six months. Mail cash or check payabe to Tim Bousquet to POBox 4627, Chico CA 95927 __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Judi Bari Wins!
How long was 'right away'? suspiciously, max Tim gives a very hard edge to a serious controversy. I was interviewed by a woman writing a book about the role of the hubby-bomber. He makes it sound as if those who doubt his guilt think that the FBI planted the bomb. I doubt that many people believe that. The only evidence against the FBI is that they were on the site right away.
RE: tompaine.com
LP said: is making a calculated effort to appear leftish. Charles Peters shares Kuttner's Democratic Leadership Council politics. As some here know, Kuttner is on the board of the organization that employs me. So you can make of that whatever you like. All I want to say is that Kuttner, whatever his faults (which you won't hear from me, duh), is not DLC. He and a bunch of cronies founded The American Prospect and EPI to counter the DLC. Some might reason that there's not a dime's worth of difference between the DLC and Kuttner, but that would gloss over a lot. mbs
RE: RE: RE: tompaine.com
Kuttner, tompaine.com, and Moyers are political comrades. How much more 'left' one is than the other is a trivial question. How left they all are compared to your ideal, or to what you think is defensible, is more to the point. By the way, Paul Starr, TAP co-editor, is notably less liberal than Kuttner. mbs -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Devine, James Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 3:44 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [PEN-L:26772] RE: RE: tompaine.com also, is it true that Kuttner is pretending to be leftist by being associated with tompaine.com? or is he a tompaine.com-type leftist who is pretending to be more moderate in THE AMERICAN PROSPECT? or is he trying to build a coalition with the lefists? in any event, I don't think it's useful to attach a label to Kuttner and reject him. He says some interesting things, even though I don't like his focus on the wonderful[*] Democratic Party. The key is he a logical thinker who bases his conclusions on fact and doesn't leave important things (such as class relations) out? or does he provide an incomplete picture that can complement others' incomplete pictures to allow us to develop a more complete understanding and a guide for political practice? [*] irony intended. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Judi Bari Wins!
I guess they could have been following them. If not, it strikes me as pretty good evidence. mbs I think that it was 5 minutes or so. On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 01:47:08PM -0400, Max Sawicky wrote: How long was 'right away'? suspiciously, max The only evidence against the FBI is that they were on the site right away.
RE: Re: Re: Inheritance tax is Marxist
Neither punchy nor accurate. An inheritance tax is not the same as an estate tax. Better would have been, we tax one in a thousand dead people. The rest can rest in peace. mbs And Gramm saying death shouldn't be a taxable event is too. The NYT quoted that, balanced by a liberal saying we don't tax deaths, we tax inheritances, but that's nowhere near as punchy. Doug
RE: RE: Re: PK on race to the bottom (a different one)
Tariffs were an important source of Federal revenue in the olden days. mbs \ Tariffs were, as Schumpeter put it, 'the household remedy' of the Republican Party. -- Charles P. Kindleberger, THE WORLD IN DEPRESSION, 1929-39, University of California Press (1973), p. 133. the footnote is to a book by E.E. Schattschneider, POLITICS, PRESSURES, AND TARIFFS, Prentice-Hall, 1935, pp. 283-4. The point is that in the earlier long period of U.S. rule by the GOPsters (1861-1932, with short periods of DP rule, under Cleveland and Wilson), they regularly raised tariffs. For example, any pro-competitive impact that the anti-trust laws had was undermined by higher import taxes. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: RE: Re: RE: Re: PK on race to the bottom (a different one)
My impression is the AFL-CIO was pro free trade until the early 1980's, when Bluestone/Harrison and others began writing about the vanishing 'middle class.' mbs -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Devine, James Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 3:35 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [PEN-L:26722] RE: Re: RE: Re: PK on race to the bottom (a different one) I wrote: The point is that in the earlier long period of U.S. rule by the GOPsters (1861-1932, with short periods of DP rule, under Cleveland and Wilson), they regularly raised tariffs. For example, any pro-competitive impact that the anti-trust laws had was undermined by higher import taxes. Doug writes: And organized labor was anti-tariff at the time, right? In general, the CIO was anti-tariff until the 1970s. I don't know about the AFL, which was relevant back in the period I mentioned. My impression is that the AFL was more involved in another kind of protectionism, that of being anti-immigrant and anti-Black (and anti-woman-in-the paid workforce). The Knights of Labor, the IWW, and the CP-oriented unions (e.g., the TUUL) were of course better on (some of, all of?) these issues. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Free José Padilla! or at least put him under civilian law rules! JD
RE: RE: Anti-globalization babe
Thank you from the bottom of my heart for this one, Louis. Whoever created the Noreena Hertz character is clearly a satirist of the calibre of Mark Twain. dd She's kinda-young, kinda-wow, she's anti-globalization, she's Jewish, she goes to demo's, she writes economics tracts . . . what's not to like? Some people are never satisfied. NH Groupie
RE: Re: 1,000 firms run the economy
Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the U.S. Government -- FY2003, page 48, Table 3-4, National Wealth mbs Almost all Intro texts include a section on types of business, sales, etc., they they all show that propritors are numerous, but essentially irrelevant when it comes to sales and employment. The one text that used to go beyond this basic point was Heilbroner. He noted that ownership of assets, and thus control of decision making, is more important than sales or employment. The last edition of his text indicated that 3600 firms with assets in excess of $250M (0.018% of all firms) owned 80% of all business assets in 1990. I have tried to update these numbers several times, but I haven't been able to get all the info necessary. Maybe Eric can help. It is easy to get the number of firms by type. It is easy to get firms with assets in excess of $250M. What I have not been able to nail down is total business assets in the US. I have found total Corp. assets, but I have not found proprietor and partnership assets. Any ideas Eric? Doug Orr --- Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 11:57:58 -0700 From: Eric Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:26609] 1,000 firms run the economy Well not quite... But data I just put in my spiffy text is: Number of firms with 1-99 employees in the US: 4,800,582 (or 98% of all firms with employees) Number of firms with 10,000 or more employees: 936 (or 0.002% of all firms with employees) Number of employees working in firms with 1-99 employees: 40,091,449 (or 36% of employees) Number of employees working in firms with 10,000 or more employees: 29,715,945 (or 27% of employees) That is, fewer than 1,000 firms control the labor of more than 25% of all employees in the US economy. These same firms, of course, control a large part of the surplus generated within the US economy also. A large proportion of workers, however, work for very small firms (less than 100 employees) but none of these firms is really very important (economically, politically, culturally, etc). I would never argue a political strategy of pitting small firms again the giant firms. Rather, I point out the role of these giant firms to underline that way that the decisions of a relatively small number of firms (over what to make, what sort of jobs to provide, what ad campaigns to run, etc) has a really big impact on the whole economy. Source http://www.census.gov/csd/susb/susb2.htm. US Census Bureau, Statistics of US Businesses, 1999 data Eric
RE: Estimating Surplus
Part of properietors' income is really a quasi-wage, and part of wage salary at the top is really a quasi-capital payment. I would say net interest paid (not personal interest received) and rent belong too. mbs For the NIPA aware. If you want to come up with a crude estimate for the total surplus generated by capitalist firms within the US economy, is there anything particularly wrong with simply summing up various data taken from the National Income data in NIPA (table 1.14)?
RE: RE: RE: Estimating Surplus
what about a corporation whose business is rental real estate that includes improvements to the land? max -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eric Nilsson Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 5:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:26570] RE: RE: Estimating Surplus Max wrote, I would say net interest paid (not personal interest received) and rent belong too. I'm not sure about rent as my concern is with surplus generated within an economic relationship involving wage labor (i.e. capitalism). The rental income in NIPA is for PERSONS (except for those who are part of the real estate industry) and a large part of it is imputed rental income that homeowners (pay themselves?) for living in their own houses. Some of it is payments for copyrights, patents, etc, but not too much I think. If you rent out your house to someone else this is unlikely to involve capitalist wage labor. You might earn income from ownership of capital (a house) but this isn't capitalist profit. Of course, I'm not entirely sure whether net interest payments should be included as profit from lending something scarce (money) need not be profit from capitalist activities. But I haven't quite figured this out yet. Eric .
RE: RE: Re: RE: RE: Estimating Surplus
Part of profits are paid to households too. I don't see how you can include profits but not net interest paid. mbs Doug wrote, Net interest is figured as what biz pays to households, right? It's an expense for business and an income for households. Yes indeed that is the case. I guess such a number doesn't add to capitalist surplus. For what it is worth: Corporate profits + Estimated profit part of proprietors' income = $767 billion + $84 billion = $851 billion. This is a crude estimate of the amount of capitalist surplus, but it is likely in the ballpark. Eric .
ilan pappe
Exerpt from petition in support of . . . Dr. Ilan Pappe, who holds a rank roughly equivalent to a tenured Associate Professor, criticized the institution (University of Haifa) and its procedures following the nullification of a highly controversial Master's thesis that documented the fates of 5 Arab villages in northern Israel during the 1948 war. The thesis, which was originally approved with an excellent grade, was later nullified following pressure from veterans groups. These groups threatened a libel suit because the thesis portrayed them as possibly being responsible for a massacre. Dr Pappe unequivocally asserted in his e-mail postings that the thesis was nullified not on professional or scholarly grounds, but for personal and political reasons. . . . TO SIGN, GO HERE: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/pappe/petition.html
RE: RE: Hetero Depts
duly noted, but they link to the White House, the Fed, NBER, and Brookings. and they don't link to EPI or any other left thing. not good. mbs s rollins college/winter park florida, six member dept includes: charles rock eric schutz (who was - and may still be - on pen-l, check out his 2001 book 'markets and power: 21st century command economy') kenna taylor michael hoover
Truthout
Saw LP's note and took a look at this. Screamingly obviously a Dem Party site, but not your ordinary DP thingy. They post stuff from Cynthia McKinney, including her comments on Mumia. Cynthia's looking pretty good these days, what with the brouhaha now about 'what Bush knew.' Note -- many of the booshwah funders LP notes also fund my employer. God love 'em. mbs * http://www.MaxSpeak.Org BLOG: http://www.MaxSpeak.Org/gm/index.htm
RE: Re: Doug tells the truth..........................
MJ: The truthabout Doug 'I'm no pacifist' Henwood is that he, too, is in favour of US policy, that is, Henwood favours the policy of bombing Afghan towns and cities, he favours the random and/or mass slaughter of Afghanis, he favours the destruction of whatever remains of the social infrastructure in Afghanistan, in short he favours the kind of war of exterminism which mbs: There is no evidence that 'bombing towns and cities', random and/or mass slaughter, or 'destruction of whatever . . . ' are policies of the USG, nor that they have been carried out. This is simple hysteria for the consumption of one-note anti-imperialists. One could imagine cogent critiques of the U.S. campaign, but not any beginning as above. One could even connect the Russian campaign to U.S. machinations, thanks to Zbig's zbig mouth. Why engage in this sort of b.s.? MJ: for example the Russian state has carried out in Chechya in recent years. The collapse of Afghan society as a result of the combined efforts of US bombing and the insertion of Russian ground forces, troops, tanks etc, under the Northern Alliance flag, is creating not just a humanitarian catastrophe but prime-time genocide in Afghanistan. Henwood does support mbs: there were more indications (false, as it turned out) of impending genocide in Kosova than thus far in Afgh. MB: this ongoing genocide. He is a 'voter for war credits', a person who has surely lost any shred of credibility as a spokesman of the left. You cannot be of the left while supporting US genocide in Afghanistan. Now, weasel words about supporting this or that bit of a policy can not help him slide out his moral complicity in the US genocidal assault on Afghanistan, and no self-serving caveats about being against bombing but in favour of oher kinds of administering death should blind us to the truth of his politics: it is a cowardice and an instinct for personal survival, nothing more, that motivates it. mbs: how DH's article advances his 'personal survival' is beyond me. The way to do that would be to follow Hitchens. Unless one reasons that supporting a campaign against terrorism might mitigate against further attacks on NYC that threaten DH directly. I guess this is what Huey Newton meant by revolutionary suicide. MJ: When assessing 'the truth' of Henwood's politics, let us begin with this obvious fact -- the man is simply a craven apologist for exterminism, for US imperialism in its newest and most lethal guise. Mark Jones mbs: one might be tempted to invoke the WWII analogy if one hadn't spent some time here on PEN-L and learned that the justice of WWII is a controversial matter. So let us invoke the October revolution and ask whether it is possible that innocents were not harmed, and whether in light of that, the revolution was rendered invalid. If not, then we have a kind of selective pacifism at work here (not a new thing, BTW). No violence by the U.S. state can be justified, and any violence by anything, and I do mean 'thing,' against the U.S. state is properly met, for all practical purposes, with indifference.
RE: Re: Re: RE: Hetero Depts
are you serious about me listing Chico? All I saw there were a lot of guys who had run out of shaving cream. mbs Chico State, where Gene Coyle lectured.
MaxSpeak, You Listen
Open for business. * Max B. Sawicky http://www.MaxSpeak.Org BLOG: http://www.MaxSpeak.Org/gm/index.htm
RE: pop quiz time
sounds like Joan Robinson. [who said it?] ...confusion forces practical economists to explain the determination of interest by opportunity cost reasoning - a particular rate of interest being set by the 'pure' rate yielded by the riskless government bonds, with inflation, risk, and administrative cost premia added. But there is no watertight justification for the perpetual existence of this 'pure' rate. Interest exists because it is there; it is still held up by its own theoretical bootstraps. The failure of mainstream economics to explain adequately the existence of interest betrays the fact that it is merely a theoretical concept with no true basis in reality. It is a figment of our collective imaginations.
RE: Giddens: get tough on crime
Oh these brits they're sharp. Giddens: In the US, Bush won - by the skin of his teeth - only because Ralph Nader took away votes from Al Gore. LOL. Everyone knows it was Monica Moorehead's fault!! mbs (Posted to Marxmail by Ed George) [Anthony Giddens is the man generally accredited with founding the ideology of the 'third way', the ideological camouflage preferred by neo-liberal European social democracy, the most complete practitioner of which generally being held to be Tony Blair. This article is Giddens' attempt to meet the criticism that the generalised difficulties faced by European social democracy - and by extension the rise of far-right forces - are a result of a too great move to the right. Giddens responds with more of the same. Particularly significant - and alarming - is Giddens' conclusion that to save itself, and to counteract the threat of the right - social democracy has to be more tough on crime, and on immigration: i.e. to defeat the far right it has to adapt itself to its positions.] http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,709089,00.html -- Louis Proyect, [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 05/03/2002 Marxism list: http://www.marxmail.org
Latest from Stiglitz
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15403
Enron: Much Bigger than You Thought
The Enron nine By William Greider http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=13260
Oh Six
EPI's labor market mavens Mishel/Bernstein/Boushey look pretty good now, with their prediction of 6.5 UE by the end of the year. We could be in for a double-dip. See: http://www.epinet.org/webfeatures/econindicators/jobspict.html http://www.epinet.org/Issuebriefs/ib176.html http://www.epinet.org/briefingpapers/bp121.html Max Sawicky EPI
RE: day of reckoning for the dollar?
Following the deficit debate, I've been hearing about this day of reckoning for 12 years. It must be getting really close! I'd say the key issue in all this is the Bubble. U.S. assets still seem to be over-valued. As for the accounting scandal, it may be that the ingenuity of Euro and japanese accounting just hasn't seen the light of day yet. We can't doubt an equal capacity for chicanery by our capitalist brethren. Perhaps it is greater, if we grant that U.S. capital markets are more honest, relatively speaking, then the rest. Bob Eisner used to point out that those holding dollar-denominated assets who started to bail out ran the risk of taking a bath as the process continued. Paul Davidson would reply that on the micro level, with atomized decision-making, anyone in the midst of such a wave has a rational reason to try and dump before the next fool, leading to the big communal bath. Given the age structure of the U.S. population, with aging Boomers trying to save after leading our dissolute lives, this ought to prop up asset values for another ten years or so. At that point who knows what shape the world will be in. mbs FM: Related to the Business Week article sent to the list last Friday by Jim D. on the danger of the US deficit on the current account and increasing foreign debt, below is an article in last Saturday's Financial Times, which concludes that the day of reckoning for the dollar is close at hand. . .
RE: Re: RE: day of reckoning for the dollar?
Don't know. After the tornado takes me, I'll ask him. Maybe he was referring to a consideration inhibiting a possible decision by foreign governments. - mbs Bob Eisner used to point out that those holding dollar-denominated assets who started to bail out ran the risk of taking a bath as the process continued. How's that any different from any other speculative market? People sell stocks in a bear market, it drives the value of their remaining shares down, they sell more, etc., until you have a selling climax. How could prices ever go down in Eisner's world? Doug
Israel as a Client
I've been thinking about this a bit more. What follows is today's hypothesis. Next week, who knows. If you look at it from one end, there was little to recommend Israel as a client state, in and of itself, relative to other states. Why not make Egypt a military collossus on behalf of the U.S.? Why indulge a nation of six million rather than its far more populous neighbors? U.S. public opinion is a factor, I would acknowledge, but is not sufficient to explain U.S. policy in support of Israel. A factor in British thinking around and after WWI was Palestine's location in re: the Suez Canal and Britain's connection to India. But the Brits were not interested in limiting themselves to one client. The more the merrier. They were more interested in denying clients to Russia (and later, the USSR) and Germany. Similarly, the interests of any would-be imperialism would logically be to enlist as many clients as possible in strategic locations. A key caveat is that the actions of one client should not be so odious as to drive away other clients. So Israel can survive as long as it doesn't get too big for its britches. No Nile to Euphrates nonsense. It is all right for your clients to hate each other, not all right for them to destroy each other. Everybody is kept on a leash. The Oslo process can be explained in this light as an ambitious effort to recast arrangements among clients who happen to be mutual enemies for the sake of regional stabilization. Islamic and Jewish fundamentalism in the ME have both pushed this project off the rails. Fundamentalism has an autonomous, intransigent, volatile character that can get away from you -- the proverbial blowback. This development feeds and is fed by the emergence of a new strategic orientation in the Son-of-Bush Administration, as discussed in Lemann's New Yorker piece. The adoption of agressive, military projection to pacify the U.S.'s Islamic clients and destroy the most recalcitrant ones (Iraq, Iran, Syria). Naturally in this scenario Israel's role is paramount. Not incidentally, Israel's most vociferous partisans are also those most committed to U.S. power projection. In a nutshell, there are two alternative imperialisms in question here, each with their own cohort of apologists in the U.S. and associates in the ME, each moving to make the other untenable. In this context, pipelines are a small part of the puzzle, just one stand of trees in the forest of the Great Game of this century -- control of Central Asia and the ME in conditions of increasing scarcity of oil. mbs
Far Out Budgeting
my latest. mbs http://www.epinet.org/Issuebriefs/ib176.html
Business Week the Nineties
Title: Business Week Restates the Nineties [Apologies for html, but you need it for the charts. This came up a week or so ago. Dean finally finished this, after my egging him on. Feel free to circulate, with credit of course to Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research. mbs] Business Week Restates the Nineties Dean Baker Center for Economic and Policy Research 1621 Connecticut Ave., NW Washington, DC 20009 202-332-5218 [EMAIL PROTECTED] April 22, 2002 A recent issue of Business Week featured a provocative cover story, which offered a new interpretation of the economy's pattern of growth in the nineties (Restating the 90s, 4-1-02; p 50). The article claims that the big gainers from the nineties were actually workers, not corporations and shareholders. One representative comment asserts that workers received 99% of the gains from faster productivity growth at non-financial corporations. It is easy to demonstrate that this was not the case. Data from the Commerce Department and the Labor Department show quite clearly that there was a redistribution from labor's share to capital's share (profits plus interest) during the decade. This is the first time that this has been the case since the Vietnam War. During the rest of the post World War II period, labor share has either increased, or at least held constant. The fact that the redistribution went from labor to capital -- and not in the opposite direction, as implied by this quote -- means that capital received more than its share of the faster productivity growth in the nineties. The basic issue on distribution can be settled easily by examining the commerce department's data on corporate income. This is graphed in the figure below.[1] The starting point is 1988, because that was the peak profit year of the last business cycle. The profit share dipped in the early nineties recession, as it always does during a recession. However, it recovered strongly in the mid-nineties, reaching a peak of 21.6 percent in 1997, a level exceeded only by the Vietnam War era profit peaks. The profit share trails off slightly over the next three years, but even in 2000, it is still above the peak share of the last cycle. This is true regardless of whether the broad measure of capital income is used -- combining profits and net interest, or a more narrow measure that just takes the profit share directly. (From the workers' standpoint, it doesn't matter whether their wages are reduced due to growth in the profit share or the interest share, in either case the rising capital share implies a decline in labor's share.) It is possible to tell a slightly different story by focusing more narrowly on the non-financial corporate sector. Profit shares in the non-financial sector also peaked in 1997 at a level well above the eighties high point, but they fell more sharply in the last three years of the decade, as shown in the graph below.[2] As a result, the broader measure of profit share in 2000 was somewhat below the peak of the eighties cycle. The main reason for the sharp falloff in the profit share in the last part of the business cycle was a 20.5 percent decline in profits in the manufacturing sector. This in turn was attributable to the flood of low cost imports resulting from the run-up in the dollar following the East Asian financial crisis. While this does support the claim of a shift away from capital at the end of the decade, this is only due to the fact that post-peak years are compared to the peak of the eighties or nineties cycle. At the peak on the nineties cycle, the profit share was almost a full percentage point higher than it peak in the eighties cycle (19.2 percent compared to 18.3 percent). It is also worth noting that the non-financial sector is not very well defined. Profits can shift from non-financial to financial as firms change the way they conduct their business. For example, if a store extends credit directly to customers, and charges interest, these earnings would appear as profits in the non-financial sector. On the other hand, if they opt instead to rely on credit cards, then the interest earned from their customers will appear as profits in the financial sector. If more financial services are out-sourced in this manner, thereby shifting profits from the non-financial sector to the financial sector, it would be misleading to characterize the development as a shift to labor. The data from the broader corporate sector is unambiguous -- the profit share increased in the nineties, and remained above its previous business cycle peak (1988) until the onset of the recession in 2001. One factor that may explain some of the conclusions in the business week article is that it uses data for the recession year of 2001. Profits always fall sharply in a recession, and 2001 was no exception. For example profits fell by 19.2 percent in the
The Blame Game
If all the energy going into condemning Greens, Trots, and what-not was devoted to thinking how the moderate left could fashion a stable, governing, productive majority, it might just happen. In the end, Gore and Jospin, despite huge advantages in money and media coverage relative to their left gadflies, could not persuade enough people to vote for them. The elections were theirs to lose. If voting for them is such a moral and practical imperative, if the case is so compelling, how come it doesn't pan out? The onus is on them and nobody else. They had the platform and they blew it. And to anyone who kvetches, YOU blew it. Nobody ever got votes by being a moral scold, whether it's Al G's boyz warning of the dangers of the GOP, or Jesse J. trying to sell his own unique claim to conscience. If you don't know that, you need to review politics 101. Look in the mirror. A neglected factor is that those who control the Dems et al. would rather retain control of a losing party than lose control of a winning party. mbs
RE: Re: Palestine Vietnam
If it's not too obvious, it seems worth saying that the Middle East complex of issues -- fundamentalism, terrorist attacks on the U.S., oil, and Palestine -- is what will dominate U.S. political discourse for some time to come, much in the way that SE Asia did in decades past. The future of the anti-globalization movement will depend on how it is able to link up with this. Concept shifting for $500 please Alex? Ian Answer: Israel is a garrison state that provides crucial support for the projection of U.S. military power from Africa to the Indian sub-continent, where the overwhelming bulk of the world's petroleum reserves are located. This military power is the armed force underlying economic arrangements that are euphemistically referred to as free trade, structural adjustment, neoliberalism, democratic capitalism. Question: ? mbs
Re: re: profit rates
I've worked with BEA people in the past. A friend of mine in Gov refers to them as righteous technicians. They are resolutely without political bias in their work. All of their procedures are vetted by panels of outside experts. Without doubt, you can spot all sorts of problems in their work. But I would be willing to bet that you would not be able to arrive at a better way of doing it, given the same resources and data that are available to them. This is probably the best sausage you can get, given the ingredients. One of my own truisms about the Gov, based on my own admittedly limited experience in it, is that however crazy something may seem from the outside (with reference to bureaucratic procedures), there is always a good underlying reason for it, and equally good reasons for not doing it some other way. There is rationality at the micro level, more often than not. Irrationality emerges at the macro level, or it is injected by elected officials or their appointees. mbs I would like to expand on what Daniel said. The problem with the BEA accounting is that it presumes that depreciation follows a preset, regular pattern regardless of changing economic conditions. In addition, the depreciation rates apply to broad ranges of capital goods.
RE: RE: Profit Rates -- From Michael Yates
I think you missed Doug's sarcasm, or I have missed his seriousness. the public sector people are quite well educated. sometimes they are given things to do that are impossible to do well. but they still have to do them. they are not paid as well as some in the private sector, but you would be foolish to take this as a sign of their worth. mbs I think what Doug mentioned is important. By the way, it is not just the public sector, where those who are in charge of producing such statistics are in desparate need of education. A similar problem exists also in the private sector, even at Investments Banks, where they are willing to pay good salaries for well educated people. One way to look at this is that it is an adverse selection problem. Of course, there is also a problem of moral hazard: when you have deadlines, the accuracy of your estimates becomes a very minor concern. Sabri
RE: Re: Sharon quote
The other was his as well. Oz is lying to cover up so he pinned it on the dead man. how do you know? don't you think there is enough to indict Sharon with, even without the quote? mbs
RE: Peter Camejo = Green Party Gubernatorial wild card
Cool. Looey for Provost of the UC university system, BDL's boss. a guy can dream. Peter Camejo = Green Party Gubernatorial wild card Green Party can't be ignored, pundits Say There's not many of them, but they certainly know how to cause damage to the progressive agenda . . . he said. The Green Party single-handedly deserves the blame for Bush Jr. in the White House. And Joe Would that the Dems really believed this. If they did, they would change their behavior. mbs
RE: RE: Profit Rates -- From Michael Yates
but according to the Cambridge UK folks, you can't measure capital stock to begin with . . . To me the interest rate(s) is more meaningful, since at least it is observed and is the object of literal transactions, unlike capital. profits are susceptible to what I suspect are flaky inventory valuation and capital consumption adjustments, and even a pristine profit rate can mislead in light of the time profile of investment returns. mbs From Michael Yates In the discussion about profit rates, I am confused. Doug Henwood suggests dividing profits by capital stock. Wouldn't this involve dividing a flow (profits) by a stock (capital stock) and therefore making a not very meaningful calculation? Dividing flows by stocks is not always bad voodoo. This calculation would give a ratio equivalent at the macro level to Return on Capital Employed, which is always a useful thing to know in the context of companies and I don't see a fallacy-of-composition type argument which would make it not a useful thing to know about whole economies. Or to put it another way, it's a flow divided by a stock in the same way that the rate of interest is a flow divided by a stock; it's a rate of return.
New Welfare Study from EPI
NEW DATA SHOW WELFARE FAILS TO HELP FAMILIES MAKE SUCCESSFUL TRANSITIONS TO WORK FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Tuesday, April 16 2002 CONTACT: Nancy Coleman or Karen Conner, 202-775-8810 Report available online at http://www.epinet.org From 1997 to 1999, while most of the nation experienced a surge of economic prosperity, one group of Americans was conspicuously absent from the party. Families who moved from welfare to jobs during this period found themselves less able to pay for basic necessities like food, housing, health care, and child care, says a new study released today by the Economic Policy Institute. Former Welfare Families Need More Help, by economist Heather Boushey, paints a picture of the rising hardships suffered by families newly off the welfare rolls and struggling to make a go of it in the low-wage workplace. The report documents the clear need for continued and expanded help from the government in the form of programs such as child care and health care that are essential if welfare families are to make a successful transition to work. The findings of this study support criticisms found in a survey reported in the Washington Post. Governors and welfare directors in 39 states think President Bush’s welfare plan is “simply not workable” because it increases the hours people will be required to work, but cuts federal grants that states use to provide temporary support to transitioning workers in areas like housing and child care. “With welfare reform, the government said that the best antipoverty program was a job,” said Heather Boushey, author of the study. “But welfare reform will ultimately fail if jobs don’t offer families a ladder out of poverty.” Most former welfare recipients left welfare and went to work. However, the earnings from the types of jobs available to most former welfare recipients continued to leave too many families without adequate and affordable child care, regular and preventive medical care, and affordable housing. Nearly half of the families that recently moved from welfare to full time work faced critical economic hardships like the lack of food, eviction, or the inability to receive needed medical care. * Under welfare reform critical hardships rose 9.3 percent among families that recently left welfare for full-time, full-year employment. * Under welfare reform critical hardships rose 10.1 percent among recent recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)/Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) working part-time. * Recent AFDC/TANF recipients working part-time also experienced an increase in food insecurity, (up 10.5 percent since 1997), and the lack of health insurance increased 8.2 percent. * For families with a full-time worker, the largest increases in hardships overall were found in the inability to pay child care and housing bills. Indeed there is evidence that homelessness has been increasing in some localities. Although child care expenditures have increased on both the federal and state level, only 12 percent of eligible families receive assistance through the Child Care and Development Fund. More than six million children are eligible but not enrolled in the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). “Immediate steps should be taken to bring eligible families into existing support programs, particularly in light of the President’s proposals to raise work requirements,” said Dr. Boushey. “Over the long-term, fundamental reforms should focus on closing the gap between earnings and the costs of basic necessities.” Heather Boushey is an economist at EPI and co-author of Hardships in America: The Real Story of Working Families, which examines the true costs of living in every community in America. Former Welfare Families Need More Help is an expansion of that report. The Economic Policy Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan economic think tank founded in 1986. The Institute is located on the web at http://www.epinet.org -30- Economic Policy Institute 1660 L STREET, NW, SUITE 1200 WASHINGTON, DC 20036 202/775-8810 FAX 202/775-0819 www.epinet.org
RE: ICDSM-Ireland - Solidarity with people of Palestine
[right-left] ICDSM-Ireland - Solidarity with people of Palestine PRESS RELEASE - OPEN LETTER – To Media - Politicians and to Friends CDSM-IRELAND - SOLIDARITY WITH PEOPLE OF PALESTINE John Kelly – Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic – Ireland at this point I had to ask myself why I should read any further. -- mbs
RE: Nader
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/mar2001/nad-m30.shtml What is your assessment of this article from the Fourth International? The object of Nader's critique is spending programs that provide public subsidies to corporations. I don't necessarily buy his position, but it's a perfectly respectable left statement. This stuff, incidentally, is a very small part of the budget. The tax breaks are much more important. The author reveals his/her stupidity with: In assessing this altogether remarkable article, one is obliged to assume that Nader's professed hope in Bush's ability to oppose the influence of “corporate fat cats” is merely a journalistic device aimed at currying favor with the new administration. Otherwise the piece has multiple inaccuracies. I'm not going to unpack them all. I would advise any interested party to try and verify any assertion before taking it at face value. mbs
Love me I'm a neoliberal
New from EPI: The unremarkable record of liberalized trade After 20 years of global economic deregulation, poverty and inequality are as pervasive as ever by Christian E. Weller, Robert E. Scott and Adam S. Hersh http://www.epinet.org/briefingpapers/sept01inequality.html juicy excerpt: . . . Finally, the World Bank’s conclusion that the lot of the poor has improved during the era of increasing trade and capital flow liberalization relies substantially on data from China and India, but the experiences of both countries are anomalies. In reality, the facts in these countries undermine the case for a connection between greater deregulation of capital and trade flows and falling poverty and inequality. While in China the percentage who are poor has fallen, there has been a rapid rise in inequality (World Bank 2001a). Most notably, inequality between rural and urban areas and provinces with urban centers and those without grew from 1985 to 1995. Also, a large number of China’s workers labor under abhorrent, and possibly worsening, slave or prison labor conditions (USTDRC 2000; U.S. Department of State 2000, 2001). This situation not only means that many workers are left out of China’s economic growth, it also makes China an unappealing development model for the rest of the world. Thus, improvements in China are not universally shared and leave many workers behind, often in deplorable conditions. Using India to illustrate the benefits of unregulated globalization is equally problematic to the World Bank’s position, since India’s progress was accomplished while remaining relatively closed off to the global economy. Total goods trade (exports plus imports) was about 20% of India’s gross domestic product in 1998, or 10 percentage points less than in China and only about one-fifth the level of such export-oriented countries as Korea (IMF 2001a). Moreover, that the IMF (1999, 2000) continuously recommended further liberalization of India’s trade and capital flows—the only large developing economy for which this was the case—suggests that the IMF viewed India as a laggard in deregulating its economy. . .
Speaking of What's Left
Feel the excitement. SEATS ARE FILLING UP QUICKLY! REGISTER FOR CONFERENCE AND DINNER ONLINE AT http://www.ourfuture.org. Campaign for America's Future and Institute for America's Future invite you to join us for RECLAIMING AMERICA A Conference on Progressive Strategies for the New Era April 10, 11, 12 Washington, DC ONLY TWO WEEKS LEFT! Go to http://www.ourfuture.org and register online today! *** Wednesday, April 10th *** 7:00 pm GALA AWARDS DINNER Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill 400 New Jersey Avenue, NW MC Molly Ivins- Columnist, Author Rep. Nancy Pelosi- House Minority Whip Warren Beatty*- Actor, Political Activist Gerald McEntee- President, AFSCME Sen. Jon Corzine- D-NJ *** Thursday, April 11 *** 8:00 am-5:00 pm POLICY CONFERENCE National Press Club 529 14th Street, NW 9:00 am UNITING AMERICA--Rejecting the Enron Future: Press Conference Robert Borosage- Campaign for America's Future Stan Greenberg- Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research John Sweeney- President, AFL-CIO Rep. Maxine Waters*- D-CA Rep. Jan Schakowsky- D-IL 10:00 am GOVERNOR HOWARD DEAN - Vermont 10:20 am A PROGRAM FOR A STRONG HOMELAND Robert Kuttner- founder and co-editor, American Prospect Marian Wright Edelman*- Children's Defense Fund Rep. Rosa DeLauro- D-CN Chellie Pingree- Candidate for US Senate in Maine John Podesta*- former White House Chief of Staff, environmentalist 11:45 am HOUSE MINORITY LEADER RICHARD GEPHARDT- D-MO 1:00 pm Lunch Session Sen. John Edwards- D-NC 2:00 pm Breakout Workshops CONFRONTING ENRONOMICS RETIREMENT SECURITY HEALTH CARE GLOBAL CRISIS POVERTY AND FAMILY SUPPORT EXPANDING DEMOCRACY 3:30 pm BUILDING A COALITION THAT CAN WIN IN 2002 Rev. Jesse Jackson- President, Rainbow-Push Coalition Kim Gandy- President, National Organization for Women Eliseo Medina*- Executive Vice President, SEIU Deb Callahan- President, League of Conservation Voters Sen. Paul Wellstone- D-MN *** Friday, April 12 *** 8:00 am-3:00 pM TRAINING AND STRATEGY SESSIONS National Education Association 1201 16th Street, NW 9:00 am PANEL OF POLLSTERS Celinda Lake- President, Lake Snell Perry and Associates Rodolfo de la Garza- Professor, Columbia University Ron Lester- President, Lester and Associates Gloria Totten- Executive Director, Progressive Majority PAC 10:15 am Workshop Strategy Sessions SOCIAL SECURITY HEALTH CARE ENRON NATIOANL CAMPAIGN FOR JOBS AND INCOME SUPPORT LIVING WAGE STATE PROGRESSIVE ACTIVISM CONFRONTS STATE FISCAL CRISIS NATIONAL HOUSING TRUST FUND CAMPAIGN MOBILIZING YOUNG VOTERS INTERNET ACTIVISM 11:45 am PAUL BEGALA: Political activist; co-host, CNN Crossfire; Author, with James Carville of the new book, Buck Up, Suck Up... and Come Back When You Foul Up. 12:45 Lunch Session Ben Cohen*- founder, Ben and Jerry's and organizer of Contract With the Planet, a project of the Priorities Campaign Jim Hightower- populist political agistator, media commentator, organizer for Rolling Thunder Down Home Democracy Tour *=invited FOR MORE INFORMATION OR TO REGISTER ONLINE, GO TO http://www.ourfuture.org.
RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: We are what's left
But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. The sneaking arts of underling tradesmen are thus erected into political maxims for the conduct of a great empire. People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies.
RE: Re: Speaking of What's Left
REGISTER FOR CONFERENCE AND DINNER ONLINE AT http://www.ourfuture.org. Please count the young people for us Max: . . . grassroots empowerment. Ultimately, it is up to our generation to restore one person, one vote and get the movement back on the track of true democracy. [Guess the author...] I agree with the first sentence of that essay. I don't know the author, but whoever it is, he or she is confused. The smorgasbord of groups and the implied atomization of program and politics is the fruit of democracy. People vote with their feet. Participation is nice, and so is unity, but one doesn't necessarily promote the other. The description of SDS/SNCC is all wet, but there isn't much point in unpacking all that. Instead of counting young people, I should probably count the Palm Pilots. mbs
RE: RE: Speaking of What's Left
N.B. You are sectually confused. Challenge is Progressive Labor Party. mbs speaking of excitement, Max has an article in the issue of CHALLENGE that came today, something about fighting recession, even though all Those Who Know are sure that the recession is dead and gone. (I have to check to see whether this is the CHALLENGE that is published by M.E. Sharpe or it's the one published by the Larouchite U.S. Labor Party. I'll be back to you on this.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: We are what's left
I appreciate the elaboration on Smith's moral philosophy, but the context of this discussion was whether Nader and populists were more like Smith than not. My clipped summary of Smith emphasized the contrast. No embroidery of Smith's moral thought can find any contact with the basic thrust of political populism, either 19th century style or Naderite. Restoring or creating fair market competition is not the most pressing theme in Nader's repertory, though it is not absent either. We should be at least as interested in accurately gauging current political trends as we are in rehabilitating dead economists. mbs Unfortunatetly, quoting of the butcher and baker passage out of context is exactly what the 1980s Adam Smith tie-wearing Reaganite Gordon Greed is Good Gekko types did to promote the idea of Smith as an unabashed promoter of self-interest. . . .
RE: RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: We are what's left
The observation about the populist theme of the many and the few, in contrast to class, is accurate. So much the worse for hackneyed class analysis. (Workers and peasants of the Bronx!) The way the Pops chose to 'unrig' the market included a) nationalizing the railroads; b) co-ops allowing farmers to band together in buying supplies and selling their output; and c) a new monetary system to replace the extant chaos of private banks. Laying this to Adam Smith is quite a stretch, sort of like looking for crucifixion symbolism in Hemingway. -- mbs the above makes sense to me: in the U.S., at least, the late 19th century Populist movement was one of the little guys against the power of the elites (Eastern bankers, etc.) The cry was that the Big Corporations were rigging the market against the little guys. This suggests that the markets needed to be unrigged rather replaced by something different and better. That fits with the general Smithian viewpoint (though not necessarily with the _laissez-faire_ interpretation of his ideas).
RE: RE: 'Living Wage' Laws Reducing Poverty Levels, Study Shows
No doubt it is a politically useful 'man-bites-dog' story. I would expect advocates to milk the study for all they can. But as a word to those interested in the substance on an intellectual level, my advice is there are much better things to read. mbs 'Living Wage' Laws Reducing Poverty Levels, Study Shows I don't know about the methodology of this specific study, but it's always a good sign when someone who opposes some hypothesis does a study that backs it. It's as if Milton F. did a study which showed that the connection between the growth of the money supply and inflation was insignificant. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Fightin' Yids
Thursday, April 4, 2002, 10 pm on PBS (check your local listings): Resistance: Untold Stories of Jewish Partisans I saw a screening of this. It's pretty good. Producer is a friend of mine. mbs
RE: RE: Fightin' Yids
if true, one reason could be the extent to which the resistance was intertwined with the Soviets. the documentary makes heavy use of Soviet archives, including old reenactments that use Russian soldiers. portraying both partisans and Nazi's. mbs a friend of mine -- an anthropologist named Martin Cohen -- has done a lot of research on this (and he's not the only one). He argues that there was an amazing amount of Jewish armed resistance to the Nazis, even in Germany. Also, he argues that the U.S. Jewish establishment hates this stuff and wants to push the image of the European Jews before during WW2 as being basically passive victims. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: RE: RE: RE: Fightin' Yids
I think it's slightly more sinister: the elite wants passive donors to their cause and support for Israel no matter what. Zionism and standing-and-fighting are seen as mutually exclusive alternatives. Further, the Bund tradition of socialist or labor-oriented Jews is anathema, whether or not the socialists were pro-Soviet. jgd Not necessarily. Properly reconstructed, the resistance could serve the purposes of elites. For instance, the recent TV movie about the Warsaw ghetto uprising was leached of left political content and framed the rebellion as a more honorable form of suicide: stand-and-fight as a matter of Jewish honor. The implicit subtext was the ancient Jewish version of the Alamo -- Masada -- a staple of zionist macho discourse. Little or no hint of some overarching, historical purpose in fighting fascism. As I think of it, I don't remember the word 'fascism' ever being uttered in the movie. mbs
Living Wage
In related news, today Hell froze over. PPIC aspires to be the Brookings of the West. At this rate they'll never make it. -mbs -Original Message- From: Industrial Relations Research Association [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Daniel J.B. Mitchell Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 1:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: living wage laws The report described below is available at: www.ppic.org. = 'Living Wage' Laws Reducing Poverty Levels, Study Shows Labor: Battle between advocates and business opponents over the issue has intensified in recent years. By NANCY CLEELAND TIMES STAFF WRITER Los Angeles Times, March 14 2002 Living wage laws, adopted in dozens of cities and counties in recent years, reduce overall poverty levels despite causing some job loss, according to a cautiously worded study from a conservative economist. David Neumark, a Michigan State University economist known for his opposition to minimum-wage hikes, said the findings--to be released today by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California--surprised him. Going into this, I would have been pretty negative, Neumark said. But I come away saying these things work reasonably well, and there's no reason to condemn them on empirical grounds. The electoral fight between advocates and business opponents has intensified in recent years over living wage laws. The laws raise hourly wages beyond the minimums for select workers, generally those with some connection to government. About 80 such laws have been enacted since the first was adopted in Baltimore in 1994, and dozens more are pending. The city and county of Los Angeles have adopted living wage laws, as have at least 10 other California cities and counties. Neumark is still no fan of an increase in the minimum wage, which he maintains won't reduce poverty and could even exacerbate it. Living wage laws have the opposite effect, he said, because they are more targeted. Beneficiaries are more likely to be adults heading poor households rather than those in middle-class homes, such as suburban teenagers in part-time jobs. It's a distributional question, he said. The Public Policy Institute said the 145-page study is the first comprehensive look at the outcomes of living wage legislation. Neumark collected income data from 40 cities that have living wage laws and compared trends with other cities where no such laws exist. He cautioned that his study should not be taken as a prescription for the living wage approach. There are two themes that come out of this, he said. One is if you simply ask the question, 'Do these things tend to help the poor?' It looks like they do, at least the broader ones. The more subtle question is, 'Is this the best way [to reduce poverty]?' That's not so clear-cut. The findings were questioned by the Employment Policies Institute in Washington, which is an organization of restaurants and other employers of low-wage workers and a prominent voice against living wage laws. Chief economist Richard Toikka said it may be too early to reach conclusions about costs and benefits. And because the laws vary greatly, it is difficult to generalize about them. More significantly, Toikka said, there are more efficient ways to reduce poverty, such as with earned income tax credits. On the other hand, living wage proponents said the study backs up what they've maintained all along. These laws are running straight at some of the most dire economic realities that poor people face, said Jen Kern, director of the Living Wage Resource Center at ACORN, a national coalition of anti-poverty community groups that has been a leading voice for the living wage movement. It's fundamental: If you work, you shouldn't be poor. People in America believe that. The living wage campaigns have been championed by groups ranging from labor unions to affordable-housing advocates. The laws vary widely as well. Nearly all set wage floors for employees of government contractors, such as janitors, food service workers and security guards. Many also cover employers that receive any government subsidies or benefits, or who lease space from the government, such as airport concessionaires. Emboldened by success, proponents have been raising the living wage floor--from an average of $9 an hour in the late 1990s to about $12 now--and broadening the definition of covered employees. And private employers are increasingly being targeted. One example is Santa Monica's recently adopted coastal zone living wage of $10.50 an hour, which covers private employers near the beach and is being challenged by a hotel-sponsored ballot initiative. Just last month, voters in New Orleans approved a landmark living wage that covers all workers in the city. It immediately was met with a business-sponsored legal challenge, and even proponents concede that it may not survive. Employer groups have fought each new wrinkle with lawsuits, rival
RE: Re: Living Wage
Well some people would say he didn't need any help. I'm not into that literature, so I couldn't say. But you know people who are, who could. mbs Hasn't Neumark discredited himself enough working with Berman?
RE: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
I've been suppressed this way for years, so I can identify. --mbs What's the sound of one side suppressing Marx? You have only to listen to the silence. Andrew Kliman
RE: Steel woes redux
Comical blending into tragedy. My colleague tells me the specific measure will have the opposite effect desired, from the steelworkers' standpoint. mbs [this is getting comical] World Fumes at U.S. Steel Move, EU Hits Back GENEVA/TOKYO (Reuters) - The European Union pledged on Wednesday to hit back ``immediately'' at the United States through the World Trade Organization (WTO) as steel producers went on a war footing over hefty U.S. tariffs on steel imports.
From the heartland
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthtribune/news/opinion/2741000.htm
RE: Krugman Komes Around
Not so fast Sparky. http://www.epinet.org/Issuebriefs/ib175.html http://www.epinet.org/webfeatures/econindicators/jobspict.html http://www.epinet.org/briefingpapers/bp121.html mbs [Maybe I should sue because of violation of my intellectual property rights (see http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/faculty/jdevine/talks/ESTalk020502.htm) ;-) ... still, this is a pretty good article.] The W Scenario By PAUL KRUGMAN First comes the victory parade. Later we'll find out if we won.
RE: RE: RE: Krugman Komes Around
no i meant you weren' t the only one w/claims to pre-K vision. mbs -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Devine, James Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 5:44 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [PEN-L:23086] RE: RE: Krugman Komes Around Max, I don't understand your point. It sounds like PK is leaning in the EPI direction on this one. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Max Sawicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 11:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23076] RE: Krugman Komes Around Not so fast Sparky. http://www.epinet.org/Issuebriefs/ib175.html http://www.epinet.org/webfeatures/econindicators/jobspict.html http://www.epinet.org/briefingpapers/bp121.html mbs [Maybe I should sue because of violation of my intellectual property rights (see http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/faculty/jdevine/talks/ESTalk020502.htm) ;-) ... still, this is a pretty good article.] The W Scenario By PAUL KRUGMAN First comes the victory parade. Later we'll find out if we won.
Fellowship at EPI
Last notice (for this year). Application deadline is 4/1/02. mbs THE MARCIA McGILL RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP Purpose To provide advanced graduate students with experience in policy-relevant empirical research and to assist them in developing their own research/dissertation topic. Activities The research fellow will assist EPI economists in empirical research, providing an opportunity to develop as well as use statistical and methodological capabilities. The Fellow will develop research/dissertation ideas and explore databases at EPI, and will be encouraged to attend seminars, hearings and conferences in the D.C. area. SEIU will provide the research fellow with the opportunity to learn about the role of labor unions in the policy-making process. Research will be empirical and relevant to public policy. Examples are the outcomes of welfare reform, the distribution of the tax burden, trends in labor markets and the income distribution, work reorganization and worker participation, macroeconomic policy, and the evolution of privatization efforts in state and local governments. Historically specific factors and the role of institutions will be included in the analysis. Eligibility and Terms of Award The fellowship is available to advanced graduate students in economics, public policy, industrial relations, and related fields who have completed all requirements toward a doctorate except for the dissertation. It is primarily intended for those who have not yet selected a dissertation topic, but those who have begun their dissertations are also invited to apply. Minorities and women are strongly urged to apply. Application Requirements Applicants must submit: 1. Statement from their department describing their current academic standing. 2. A three page statement on the applicant's research interests and their relevance to public policy. If applicable, the statement would briefly describe the dissertation, including the research problem or area, research questions, methodologies, sources of data or evidence (e.g., surveys, case studies), and policy implications. 3. Two letters of reference from faculty, one of whom must be the applicant's chief academic advisor. 4. Curriculum vitae and transcript from the graduate institution. 5. A writing sample, preferably a research paper, or equivalent. Application Dates Applications must be postmarked by April 1, 2002. Awards will be announced by May 1, 2002. The award will cover a 12 month period between July 2002 and August 2003. Start and end dates are somewhat flexible. Arrangements The Fellow will receive a pro-rated $25,000 annual stipend and reside in the Washington, D.C. area. Health benefits are available if the Fellow is not covered by his or her university. Non-U.S. citizens are welcome to apply. It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that he or she has a visa/immigration status that permits participation in the program. EPI will not support H1-B visa applications. Affirmative Action People of color are strongly encouraged to apply. Contact Please direct all e-mail correspondence to Max Sawicky at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or fax inquiries and applications to (202) 775-0819.
RE: [PEN-L:22566] Re: [PEN-L:22555] Fw: [?$?i]?i,R?A?a A? A??i?a,| A?CN A$A$?c?cCN cAIAR ?ACA ?E3 !
Try a laxative. mbs I get one or two each day. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: Re: RE: Export tax subsidies that aren't?
In a world in which transaction demand on the current account was the sole basis for forex markets, with constant PPP and never a whiff of pricing to market, then this type of analysis would make sense. We're not in that world, however. Peter AND . . . . ??? mbs
RE: Re: RE: Export tax subsidies that aren't?
Depends on the price elasticity. If the price of jellybeans goes down, do you spend more or less on jellybeans? But I should beg off on this. I don't do trade. --mbs Wouldn't a decrease in the total cost of goods lead to a *decrease* in the demand for dollars? In which case, the rest of the mechanism: cost of dollar (and good, in importer's currency) go up, cost advantage disappears. would be thrown into reverse, and the currency swings would reinforce the effect of the original subsidy. Michael __ Michael PollakNew York [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: Re: query: Historical Materialism
What's the best book for an introduction/overview/tour d'horizon of analytical marxism? One citation only, please. mbs It's analytical Marxist. Most AMs, like me, do not believe that Marx's value theory is more than a heuristic, and think that the important and true insights in Marx can be stated without the labor theory of value. jks _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
RE: Q4 Sunbeam
you left out the fun part. Nominal GDP actually fell, but the price level went down more (3/10's%). We're in a deflationary recovery. Will wonders never cease. mbs -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tom Walker Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 11:16 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:22093] Q4 Sunbeam Surprise! Surprise! GDP rose in the fourth quarter by a breathtaking 0.2%. 0% financing on new car sales have raised the yankee economic chin just millimetres above the bar. Huzzah! Huzzah! Buy! Buy! Happy days are here again! Prosperity is just around the corner. We see the recovery Sunbeam* at the end of the recession tunnel. *Hint: Chainsaw Al, rebates, Arthur Andersen Tom Walker
RE: Export tax subsidies that aren't?
The mainstream argument is that exchange rates adjust to wash away all tax advantages, whether legal or illegal. Not being a trade person, the best argument I can think of goes like this: If you want to buy US goods, you need dollars to pay for them. A cost reduction in said goods increases demand for dollars relative to other currencies, cost of dollar (and good, in importer's currency) go up, cost advantage disappears. I'm not familiar with the Grossman paper. If you have less faith in the flexibility of the price system, you would favor the position that cost savings improve U.S. competitiveness, so there are indeed tax subsidies, relative to tax systems with no special concessions for exports. In the latter sense, the VAT and the CIT both subsidize exports. The U.S. problem is that the latter is GATT illegal, and now thanks to the WTO, the U.S. faces the prospect of actually facing up to the dictum that crime doesn't pay. The fun part comes when the free trade maniacs in Congress are confronted with a breach of U.S. sovereignty (something they claimed couldn't happen), in the form of instructions from commie-pinko Europeans to change our red-white-and-blue tax system. It's kind of sweet. max Jagdish Bhagwati has an op-ed in yesterday's FT where he says the US Congress's objections to that huge WTO ruling last month that declared we are unfairly subsidizing our exports to the tune of $4 billion are hypocritical, nationalistic and wrong. No argument from me there. But he makes one argument I can't follow:
How Much Is Enough
Simplifying radically: If the baseline budget projections show unemployment of 6.0, and we say 4.5 is a reasonable standard, we need a stimulus sufficient to move the rate 1.5 percentage points. OMB says you need a percent of real GDP to get half a percent less unemployment. So you need three percent real GDP, which means, say, five percent nominal GDP. In a $10 trillion economy, that's $500 billion. So if the multiplier is 1.5, must we advocate a $333 billion stimulus on an annual basis to force unemployment down to 4.5%? mbs
RE: Re: How Much Is Enough
You're right. I'm using a conservative estimate of the multiplier, which ironically implies a higher required stimulus. Alternatively, I could use a more optimistic estimate that would imply less need for stimulus. --mbs So if the multiplier is 1.5, must we advocate a $333 billion stimulus on an annual basis to force unemployment down to 4.5%?mbs Why would the spending multiplier be this low? If, simplifying very radically, it's 1/1-mpc+mpc(t)+mpm, and the tax rate is going down, and generally mpc is, what?, .6 or something, then why wouldn't the multiplier be much higher, like in the 2.5- 3 range? Christian
Gaining on Time
I propose we continue this by your putting forward four (or less, if possible) basic policy changes that would make possible the reduction of the working day. To hold up my end, I will do the same now: Lower or no taxes on the first X dollars of labor earnings, higher on the remainder (there is more than one way to do this, but the principle is the main thing). Preclude payment of health care costs by business firms. (also disability life insurance, other fringes) by establishing alternative sources Increase mandated overtime pay (definition of work week, etc.) Facilitate non-standard work arrangements that permit shorter weeks (conditional on ensuring fringes noted above) Then anyone who cares to can pick apart the proposals or their rationales. mbs You're right. Now is a good time to talk about it. That still leaves the heap o' work. -- mbs I have to fall back on the position that it is therefore *always* important in principle to do the heap of work it takes to launch that discussion. . . .
RE: Re: From the Heartland
You're right. Now is a good time to talk about it. That still leaves the heap o' work. -- mbs I agree with you, Max, that the best time to raise the Time issue is when the economy is in good shape. The problem then, however, is that no one is worried much about unemployment and so it is off the political agenda. I recall you specifically making that comment to me in this forum, oh, about two or three years ago. That makes two times when it is not opportune to raise the Time issue -- when unemployment is not an issue and when it is. Having established that it is *never* opportune to raise the Time issue, I have to fall back on the position that it is therefore *always* important in principle to do the heap of work it takes to launch that discussion. Certainly Lonnie's work and Eileen's are part of that heap and that's a credit to EPI. I still can't quite square your characterization of the spending paradigm as the one under discussion when your op-ed piece was about the lack of attention being paid to it by Dems and Repubs alike. Perhaps the signal that it's time to try a different paradigm is when Dems and Repubs aren't even paying the one under discussion much lip service. mbs: It's a different paradigm. I'm sympathetic, but for a variety of reasons I'm stuck in the current one. It's going to take a heap of work to launch that discussion. The downside of the business cycle hands us a context that is ignored if we shift to a timeless focus on time. It would not pay to try and change the subject when the one under discussion redounds to our advantage. I would say the time to raise the Time issue is when the economy is in what is ordinarily thought of as good shape. Tom Walker
RE: reform and rev
I would say that keynesian demand management combined with a good safety net, ample social insurance, and a new agency that would rapidly resolve business bankruptcies and redeploy their assets, would solve the underlying problems of the capitalist system, if I only had a brain. The problem here is RB is arguing with me and a corporal's guard of others, but we're not in this thread, so he has to argue with people who can't resist talking to him, even though they don't disagree with him. Like Reagan and Grenada. mbs ^^^ CB: So, who on this list or thread has claimed that Keynesian demand management can solve the underlying problems with the capitalist system ? Perhaps it was the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz who said it .
RE: Re: Re: Two, three many geniuses
I would like to announce that there is no way in Hell that I would ever support J. Lieberman for president. Where have you gone, Monica Moorehead? mbs In my dreams I imagine that an alert CBS journalist immediately asked Lieberman Just how DO you want capitalism to be? And in my nightmares I can hear his answer. Gene Coyle http://www.nightmareanalysis.org Ian
RE: FW: today's papers: The Enemy of My Enemy is My...Enemy
I had the same thought, but reportedly the shipment included C4 explosives and other implements that go well beyond the needs of a police force. Unless you think the PA feared aggression from Jordan. mbs I don't get this: doesn't the Palestinian Authority have an army and a police force? isn't normal for organizations like that to buy arms? doesn't the Israeli state import arms? if the PA can't arm its security forces, how can it suppress the violence of Hamas, etc.? why in heck is this a big flap? all of the above are rhetorical questions, not needing answers. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: Budget follies
when they feel compelled to address recession, they use that claim. otherwise they try to change the subject to the long-term need for investment, or they try to inveigle people with the promise of giving you your money back. On the positive side, they do not invoke the Democratic canard that higher surpluses will cause interest rates to fall and cause investment spending to end the recession. mbs CB: Thanks, Max. I forget. What is the rationale for their tax cut ? That the rich will invest it, starting a new round of investment , and ending the recesssion ?
RE: Re: BLS Daily Report
State revenue forecasts came in below expectations last year, so retrenchment has already begun. As state legislatures begin convening I suspect they will take a pessimistic view of revenues (which probably are a lagging indicator anyway) and move accordingly. There is little indication the Feds are going to help them out, so if the forecasts of recovery by summer are wrong, the U.S. could be pretty deep in doo-doo. mbs I have noticed that a number of forcasters have noted the less than expected rise in unemployment indicates that the economy is beginning to rebound from the recession. But if one of the reasons that the rise in unemployment was due to the increase in government employment, how much of that is at the state level which, due to requirements for balanced budgets, means that curtailment of employment will occur if the recession cuts into state revenues. In other words, is the recent increase in public employment sustainable, or will subsequent cuts to state revenues reverse the procedure and lead to falling public employment? Anybody got any ideas? Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
RE: Budget follies
They say the recession is somebody else's fault and will be over soon. mbs %% CB: Do supply-siders express an aim to lessen recessions' unemployment etc by their tax cuts for capital, or do they say recession is a necessary, good thing ?
RE: Re: Re: Re: Fiscal Crisis of the State
thanks. I don't expect to resolve any debates about Marx, or even to engage them. I don't know anything about that stuff. All I could hope to do is fairly evaluate JOC's theory in light of subsequent experience. I don't have a horse in the marx interpretation contest, so in that sense I may be a bit more objective than others.mbs Max, I think you might very helpful the discussion . . .
RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: RE: Enron's Success Story
I would say the relevant test in this context is whether the product kept flowing to customers at prices that covered production costs. The California crisis is clearly an example of consumptis interruptis, but no role of Enron's bankruptcy in that crisis has been raised, as far as I know. So I see no downside in the Enron affair as far as market failure is concerned. Whether it was overhyped by some conservative commentators is another matter. If I was looking around for market failure, my first impulse would be on concentration and the restricted output, high prices, and inequitable distribution of rents associated with them. Also up there would be the proliferation of external costs and failure of government to deal with them. mbs Max, nicely clear statement, isn't there another issue here? Enron supposedly proved that market forces were superior to government regulation. It could create low prices for consumers and lush profits for investors. Michael Perelman
RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: RE: Enron's Success Story
You could read it that way, but whether or not the affair does point to an inherent problem with markets is another matter. Choice and imperfect law creation/enforcement make illegal acts possible; that doesn't mean the underlying arrangement isn't the best available.mbs Max, I read the big push to define the Enron affair as criminal as an effort to suggest that there is nothing wrong with the functioning of the market, just some bad apples who everybody thought were good apples. Which is not to say that pushing the criminal investigation high into the Bush administration is not a good idea. Gne Coyle
RE: Re: Re: RE: Farm subsidy data base
That's a useful distinction, but I would say it is the commodity sector that 'works' as far as markets go, and the other one that doesn't. The stability of the intellectual-prop sector preserves its inefficiency and unfairness. Market functionality travels over the dead bodies of failed suppliers. -- mbs Gene, I have been pushing the idea that the economy breaks into two different sectors. 1 consists of the undifferentiated commodities, and the other, those sectors protected by intellectual property rights. The former will remain in trouble while the latter will prosper as long as it is backed by state power. But then, you will have to wait until my book comes out in a few months On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 09:47:31AM -0800, Eugene Coyle wrote: My argument is that selling an undifferentiated commodity on the market -- like many farm commodities -- actually results in prices that only cover marginal costs, not average costs. The difference has to be made up somehow. That is what I see as the idea behind farm subsidies. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: Re: RE: Enron's Success Story
Two different issues seem to be mixed in here. One is market failure, the other is illegal acts by Enron execs possibly linked to illegal acts by the Bushies. The mere fact of a company failing, even a large one, is not a market failure. Market failures exist because markets keep functioning in some perverse, diseconomical way. Neither is the commission of illegal acts a market failure. In this case, such acts happen to be politically sensational. That's the importance, IMO. Not market failure. Capitalism is guilty of its successes, not its failures. mbs To answer Michael's question below: No. But the reason for the Wall ST Journal story was not to work through micro theory to get the right answer. The article appeared to head off any questioning of the market in Congress or State legislatures. People . . . Michael Perelman wrote: Is it ever possible to the disprove market efficiency to the satisfaction of a conservative economist?
RE: Re: Re: Query on Anti-Colonial Revolts
Crucible of Empire: The Spanish-American War appeared on PBS. I thought it was great, especially for PBS. to purchase, go to www.greatprojects.com\store mbs Do you know of any movies of significance, be they documentaries or fictions, on the following subjects: the Sepoy Rebellion; the Mahdi Revolt; the Spanish-American War/the Philippines-American War; the Boxer Rebellion; and any other non-Marxist but anti-colonial revolts rebellions? -- Yoshie
Fiscal Crisis of the State
I understand there is a new edition of this coming out. I'm thinking of doing a piece on it and would like to know of references to other works that refer or react directly to O'Connor's book. mbs
RE: Re: Fiscal Crisis of the State
thanks. mbs 1. a long footnote reference in Mario Cogoy, International Journal of Political Economy, vol 17, no 2 (1987) see last article. . . .
RE: RE: pop quiz in lieu of finals
How do you know Karla Hoff? She's a nearly-new assistant prof at U-Md. Does she have some rep I didn't know about? (I knew she was a Stiglitz student.) mbs 2)'[T]he evolution of economics as an academic profession is a case of lock-in comparable to the peacock's tail. Sets of genes producing the . . . a)Geoffrey Hodgson b)Karla Hoff b)Philip Mirowski d)Warren Samuels
RE: Re: Re: Stupid profit rate question
Sorry if I misinterpreted. I agree that corporate influence is an eternal problem, but it is the least interesting one analytically. Even if without any such influence, there is an intrinsic problem of contracting in some areas simply because running a contract system has costs, both government and vendors are self-interested, and some public services are too complicated or too risky for contracting to be feasible. You could have the same sort of problems if a socialist Gov was dealing with an independent cooperative and nobody except the Gov owned capital. mbs Max, I never intended to implement contracting out would be easy. You gave a number of examples of government screw-ups. Won't they be almost inevitable so long as the government is permeated with corporate influence? Max B. Sawicky wrote: MP suggested contracting was an easy alternative, tho he didn't advocate it. I said it isn't easy. --- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
RE: Re: Stupid profit rate question
The Gov would have to organize a competitive bidding system, evaluate contract proposals, monitor contract compliance, enforce contracts, and have substitutes (possibly itself) in the event of non-performance. It ain't like ordering pizza. Taxing is definitely easier. If the Gov is renting capital and paying managers what they could earn in alternative employment, the extent of remaining surplus that it has 'nationalized' is in some doubt. In the pharmaceuticals case, it would might own patents and collect rents they earn. But where would it get the patents? What's really in question is the ownership of the research, not the manufacturing. The latter lends itself to contracting, with above caveats, whereas the production of patents is an excellent candidate for public ownership, as Dean Baker has written. -- mbs Several people mentioned that taxing is easier than running businesses. Maybe so, but the experience of running businesses may prove valuable. Also, business may well be able to use its influence to undermine the taxing more easily than to create a reprivatization. Finally, both Bill and Gene mentioned pharmacueticals. If government owned the business, they could easily contract out the production of the medicine. I don't advocate that strategy, but at least there would be nothing to run. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Baker on external debt
I have yet to hear a Bushie express anxiety about the trade deficit. The fact that foreigners own more U.S. assets might mean little to the Bushies if they own the foreigners. mbs A paranoid thought: what if George Bush's efforts to create a US-dominated world government is an effort to change this? Now that the US external debt is increasingly gigantic, if the US government can get taxing power over the rest of the world... it would be a little like when the various states joined the US union back in the 1780s and were able to get the Federal government to help them with their debts. On the other hand, the US already the ability to reduce its external debt via inflation, since that debt is almost entirely denominated in dollars. Another question: do pen-l people agree with Baker that The cause of the [2001 U.S.] recession was the collapse of the stock market bubble? I'd say that the popping of the bubble was only the _proximate_ cause, as in 1929, but that the U.S. economy was riding for a fall. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: Re: Re: Stupid profit rate question
Don't own; just tax. Fewer headaches. -- mbs I'm just wondering with which markets we should start our program of public ownership. Bill
RE: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
A desperate Jim D. writes: Can someone tell me how to set up a filter under Microsoft Outlook? Step 1: make sure you're in a mail folder (i.e., Deleted Items) with a prospective filteree's post in the list. Step 2: click on organize on the toolbar, or if you don't use the Toolbar, click on the menu item Tools, then Organize. Your list of posts should now split in two, revealing a new top panel for setting up filtering rules. Step 3: click once in the bottom panel to highlight the aforementioned post Step 4: Next look to Create a rule (the second bullet) and try different options in the little drop-down box (from, sent to, etc.) until the name of the targeted sender of the post shows up to its right. Step 5: Next to the Create button, click on the destination of the unwanted posts (i.e., Deleted Items, Inchoate Ravings, etc.) and click on Create. It will ask you if you want it to sweep up all such posts in that folder. Say yes. You're done. If you are stuck with an older version of Outlook, this will not work since all you can do is filter the whole list or nothing at all. In that case you'll just have to shoot yourself. cheers, mbs
RE: 1929 stock market
If you value an asset according to a ROR above its long-run average, doesn't that mean it is over-valued? mbs (chief asset: '96 Lumina) This is not as silly as it sounds. The fact is that in 1929, the profit rate had attained its cyclical peak (before a very steep cyclical decline). High earnings allow high stock market valuation. The problem was that the profit rate -- and thus the stock market -- rested on a house of cards. The US and world economies were extremely unstable. There probably was a stock market bubble going on, too. But even if there wasn't, the stock market was going to fall as earnings plummeted in the recession. Jim Devine
RE: Land Value Taxation: The Basics
It's been discussed quite a bit, though not lately. I'm a fan, in general. One problem is that it implies a new pattern of location that could disrupt the lives of people. If you rent in an area that should be high- density, LVT would create pressure to turn your home into something that generated higher profits. In other words, it's a machine for urban renewal. The reason is that a zero tax on 'improvements' (buildings, equipment fixed in place) enhances the incentive to maximize improvements where they create maximum after-tax profit. Sort of like an 'enterprise zone.' mbs Land Value Taxation: The Basics Does anyone have critics of land value taxation ? Charles Brown
RE: A little rant about NPR propaganda on unemployment
Reciting trends in wages and incomes doesn't get you very far in politics, truth be known . . . mbs Subject: [PEN-L:20293] A little rant about NPR propaganda on unemployment I was listening to NPR this morning and they had a brief report on unemployment benefits paid by states. They had an economist from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) on to describe the basic facts. . . .
RE: RE: RE: A little rant about NPR propaganda on unemployment
Jeff Wenger, who does excellent work. I was not referring to him in particular, but to us (incl this list) in general. mbs who was this EPI economist? jd
RE: Re: A project for Pen-l -- Krugman point
. . . Krugman's work is similar to that for an optimal tariff in that it is possible to, theoretically, identify a government intervention into trade that makes the nation (doing the intervention) better off. But the response of Krugman . . . This parallels a layer of public choice thinking that similarly doubts the efficacy of anti-trust, regulation, public provision, etc. Obviously if we are going to make comparisons, we would compare real-world deregulation and its nominal opposite. I raised it, though, because free trade is itself put forward in a bowdlerized academic form in the political arena. You hear about wine and wool in newspaper columns. When Gary Becker was asked why he supported the Bush Campaign's tax cuts, he advised reporters to consult a Principles of Economics textbook. So counter-models in this vein are not without practical usefulness. mbs
