[PEN-L:4277] Robert Samuelson and the CEA
It appears that the economic pundits (at least one) and the Clinton Administration have attempted to counter the complaints of workers, etc. that inequality is increasing, that job insecurity is increasing, etc. etc. --- we have Robert Samuelson's new book (prominently featured in NEWSWEEK) and the CEA report on job creation. Has anyone out there had the (dubious) pleasure of reading Samuelson's pompous work (pompous because in the Newsweek piece he basically complained that the people worried about job insecurity and falling standards of living had a PSYCHOLOGICAL problem since the economics he uncovered showed that things are fine --- economic advancement continues apace, etc. etc.)? Any detailed comments?? I just ordered the CEA report. If no one comments on it before I've digested it, I'll file my own description/report on it to the net. Good news bad news: The good news: I have more time to finish my book this June; the bad news: I do not have a summer course to teach since it didn't get enough enrollment! Cheers, Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:4257] Re: One family's experience with HMO (fwd)
GC-ETCHISON, MICHAEL wrote: A Heart-Wrenching Story about One Man's Conscience and an HMO leads to the "horrifying prospect to contemplate that medical decisions between doctors and patients (difficult enough in the HMO environment) are subject to second guessing by financial aid and accounting folks..." What I found impressive is that it was ONE FAMILY'S STORY followed up by ONE MAN'S STORY (and the man's story was about an ENTIRE HMO). It is always important that we not be overtaken by a "sample of one" which is what any good case study is ... thus, I thought Bill Moore's example of his friend the CPA would add weight of evidence to the horrendous story posted by Sid. And I had never thought of penellers as having such a sly sense of humor. But not to worry -- the HillaryPlan will not be back at least until after the elections. What is remarkable is that all the criticisms of the Clinton Health Reform Plan that came from the right were about predicting the VERY TRENDS that are occurring in the much vaunted private sector. The difference of course is that the Clinton plan (Rube Goldberg contraption that it was) had political controls --- not driven by profit entirely. The reform that most PENNERS would undoubtedly support was the Canadian style plan which left ALL medical decision making to doctors and patients and had NO managed care superstructure of accountants and bureaucrats. (I know some would go further and support a British style plan!) The cost controls were when the Provinces set the prices they would pay doctors and hospitals for different procedures. [much of the income received by American specialists, insurance companies and hospitals are (in jargon) 'rent' anyway --- forcing the price down as was done for the Canadian medical profession did not produce a reduction in service!] I certainly hope Congressman McDermott revives the single-payer bill in Congress --- and I hope Senator Wellstone is reelected (it'll be a tough fight I gather!) so he can do the same in the Senate. If Clinton is re-elected, maybe this time he and Hillary will opt for HEALTH INSURANCE reform rather than the "[big] insurance company protection act" which is what his "reform" bill should have been called! -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:4258] PWW: Cuba solidarity Fast for Life in third month (fwd)
Don't know how many PENNERS read the People's Daily World. I have begun to receive articles via e-mail. This one caught my eye as it has a suggestion for action and perhaps some hope for success... Mike Meeropol **Cuba solidarity 'Fast for Life' in third month** (Reprinted from the May 11, 1996 issue of the People's Weekly World. May be reprinted or reposted with PWW credit. For subscription information see below) By Fred Gaboury BROOKLYN -- His name is Lucius Walker -- make that Rev. Lucius Walker. He's 40 pounds lighter and has taken in his belt eight notches. The seat of his 14-year-old pants sag and his collar is several sizes too large. He's consumed nothing but water spiked with lemon juice and maple syrup since Feb. 21. He says he and three others will continue his "fast for life" until the the U.S. government agrees to release the 400 personal computers it confiscated on Jan. 31 and allows them across the U.S.-Mexican border for delivery to Cuba. The computers, meant to link health care clinics in the countryside with a central computer in Havana, had been donated to Pastors for Peace for U.S.-Cuba Friendshipment VI. Five previous friendshipments had been allowed to cross the U.S. border for shipment to Cuba despite the 30-year U.S. blockade. When interviewed at his Salvation Baptist Church in Brooklyn, Walker speculated on why the government took special steps to prevent the border crossing. "Until then the score was 5-to-0 in our favor. I think they felt they had to do something." When efforts to resolve the situation hit a stone wall, Walker and several others felt they, too, had to do something. Thus the fast for life by Brian Rohatyn, a student from Canada; Lisa Valenti, a medical technician from Pittsburgh and Jim Clifford, a former Air Force captain from Louisville, and Walker. The four moved their fast from San Diego on April 3 and have now set up the Wayside Chapel for Peace and Friendship in a tent on the grounds of the Methodist Church Center in Washington, a few blocks from the White House. Their courage and steadfastness has begun to pay off. Pointing to feature articles in the Washington Post and a New York metropolitan tabloid, Walker said, "The voice of the people is beginning to make itself heard." On May 2 more than 60 members of Congress made a public appeal to President Clinton to respond to the fast and release the computers. Speaking for the group, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) said, Pastors for Peace had worked for years to "ease the suffering of the Cuban people" by organizing humanitarian shipments of food and medicine without applying for a license as required by the U.S. blockade. "Our government should not be in the business of denying humanitarian support for sick people," Rangel continued, "especially when religious people, responding to the highest moral authority, are willing to put their lives on the line." Walker said negotiations were underway with the Treasury Department and the White House. "We know for a fact that the administration is divided on the question," he said. Walker "does not believe" the government is going to allow its decisions to be made by Jorge Mas Canosa and other right wing Cuban exiles in Miami. "I refuse to believe that the honor of our government is going to be undermined by one right wing Cuban so he can go back to Cuba and become a real estate tycoon," Walker said. The administration "must choose" between those who elected it and those who opposed it. Ellen Bernstein, a staff member working with the fasters in Washington, told the World the Treasury Department has gotten so many calls from supporters around the country that a special phone line has been established just for calls supporting pastors for Peace. "This is the time to redouble our efforts," she said. "And don't let them get by with having you talk to the tape machine -- insist on talking to a human being." Walker called for continued grass roots mobilization and urged people to call the White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta at (202) 456-6797, National Security Advisor Anthony Lake at (202) 456-9481 and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin at (202)633- 0190. ##30## *** * Read the Peoples Weekly World * * * Sub info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * 235 W. 23rd St. NYC 10011 *** * ** * $20/yr - $1-2 mos trial sub* * *** * * * Tired of the same old system: Join the C
[PEN-L:4253] Re: One family's experience with HMO (fwd)
Dear Penners: An economist friend who doesn't usually subscribe to PEN-L received the post from SID and sent this comment. [aside to Harry Cleaver: Bill wants you to contact him!] Bill Moore wrote: From: Bill Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why am I not surprised? A good friend of mine (a CPA, mind you) became a mid-level financial manager for Central Texas Health Plan (a local HMO in Austin, now defunct) and did a good job in developing a cost allocation plan which resolved some of the capitation issues between GP's and specialists. As a result, he was hired away by Traveler's HMO and transferred to Sacramento to work on "the same problem in CA." Six months later, in a phone conversation, he tells me that instead of looking at flexible formulas (I think that was the terminology for the methodology he pioneered), he was being asked to consider *individual* cases and determine whether some "specialist" charges should be disallowed completely, irrespective of referrals by the PCP's. When he protested that that was a *medical* decision and that he was unqualified to make any such judgments, he was told that the Medical Director "knew the costs and the benefits to the HMO" and would support his decisions 100%. He struggled internally for several months without making any decisions, putting his supervisors off with "need to study this more and develop an overall policy" and finally requested (and received) a transfer to Atlanta so he wouldn't have to deal with the mess. As I understand it, the folks in Sacramento then took the tack of issuing a blanket rejection of *all* the claims which had been pending based on a *business* decision that very few of the rejectees would appeal the decision and that the ones who did could be staved off indefinitely via appeals, litigation, etc. Unfortunately, I've completely lost touch with Jim, so I'm reciting from memory and have no way to verify all the facts; but it is a horrifying prospect to contemplate that medical decisions between doctors and patients (difficult enough in the HMO environment) are subject to second guessing by financial and accounting folks... Bill -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:4179] Re: FW: BLS Daily Report
Richardson_D wrote: "For Richer, For Poorer: An Election-Year Primer" was an article in Sunday's Washington Post (page H1) by Steven Pearlstein. Pearlstein says that, depending on which set of statistics you believe, Americans' income has either been largely stagnant for two decades or has risen smartly; he charts wages, household income, wages and benefits, per capita income, and after-tax income The article gives a brief primer for evaluating these claims and counterclaims as the issue takes center stage in the election year debate, by looking at seven areas: (1) Compensation vs. Wages. One of the statistics most frequently cited by the pessimists is that the wage of the typical American has declined 7 percent since 1973 after adjustment for the rising cost of living But there are big problems with this wage series. Even the people who collect the numbers at the Labor Department concede that it is based on a survey of an out-of-date sample of the work force that relies too heavily on hourly production workers. And by measuring only cash wages, the median wage series ignores the fact that employees have been receiving a greater share of their compensation in the form of tax-free fringe benefits. But broader compensation data ... have their own shortcomings If the value of compensation is the market price of the services provided -- for example, health insurance -- then this clearly overstates the increase in income. The "contribution" of employers to employee health insurance premiums have gone WAY UP, much faster than wages have risen in nominal terms, but the value of what has been purchased has declined --- The only way to deal with this would be to deflate the compensation percentage related to health insurance by general medical inflation as opposed to the CPI. Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:4151] Re: minimum wages
Evidence for Doug's point on the WSJ edit page. I responded to the set of op pieces by right wing economists plus Bob Eisner by stating the obvious: The minimum wage increase also increases income which increases aggregate demand which might explain Card and Krueger's results. It's been over a week, interesting to see if they run it! Probably won't, even though no one has made that point, yet ... -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:4129] Re: minimum wages
Max B. Sawicky wrote: stuff omitted It reminds me of what happened to David Aschauer, a Chicago U-type macroeconomist who discovered that public capital augments private sector productivity and got roasted for it. This is one reason I think many academics of a variety of political orientations prefer not to go anywhere near the public arena. It requires some very unacademic and unscholarly traits, tastes, and faculties. You have to enjoy crotch-kicking contests. Max's story about David Aschauer would explain a strange occurrence. When I was working on a section of one chapter about the decline in infrastructure investment over the 1970-1990 period, I called up Aschauer and put a message on his machine asking if he had written any rebuttals to the counters to his original work (counters basically emphasizing that the ratios for the 1950s were unusually high because of the construction of the interstate highway system and that it would be logical for the percentage of GDP spent on infrastructure to decline after the system was mostly completed by the end of the 1960s). He never respoded. I now can guess why! -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:4131] Re: C.Eugene Steuerle onSocial Security
Max B. Sawicky wrote: I like Gene [STEUERLE] a lot and admire his body of work. Like the Brookings gang, I think he is so worried about capital formation that he overemphasizes negative factors in the long term outlook. My story on this is pretty simple. Currently legislated benefits for OASDI can be paid by non-trivial but unspectacular combinations of higher taxes and lower benefits. That's Gene's proposal, basically. I'm glad to see you agree on that. By the way, Gene and Bakija do have a chapter on Medicare and they separate out THAT problem from the "fundamental imbalance" of SS (OASDI). Just want to agree with Max about Gene Steuerle. I had the pleasure of meeting and talking to him at length once about my work -- I've used chapters from _THE TAX DECADE_ in my Public Finance classes also and have shamelessly cribbed from it for my book. If anyone wants a solid (mainstream but impeccably honest) look at the tax changes between 1980 and 1990, you can't do better than that book. By the way, when asked to "self characterize" himself, Gene called himself a [Herbert] STeinian --- not the guy who worked for Richard Nixon but the guy who wrote _The Fiscal REvolution in America_ and who said, "any trend that is unsustainable will change" [implication: ONE WAY OR ANOTHER!] or something like that! I have just ordered RECLAIMING PROSPERITY, looking forward to it. IF Dean Baker has reviewed Steuerle and Bakija anywhere, I'd love to hear about it! Cheers, Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:4140] Re: minimum wages
DOUG: Many thanks for getting David Card's response. Now, PENNERS may not be aware of the fact that on the WSJ editorial page just recently, there were the "usual suspects" all attacking the idea of raising the minimum wage (only Bob Eisner bucked the trend -- as usual!). Finis Welch trashed the Card/Kreuger study using the same reasoning so completely refuted by David Card. I wonder if someone might try to get an op-ed piece in the WSJ making just the kind of charges Card makes in his analysis --- that the "research" to attack Card and Krueger is bought and paid for by a lobbying group using questionable techniques and the WSJ is treating it like independent academic work. Want to try? Another angle would be to see if FAIR can get involved checking out how the WSJ responds to criticism such as made by CARD (now that Card has posted it to PEN-L, anyone can use his analysis, referring to some of his statements...!!). Anyway, thanks again. PS: I know this is going to the entire network. I wanted everyone to be involved in this discussion. -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:4141] Re: Don't whine, pelt back!
Doug Henwood wrote: Well, I've been thinking about this [MAINSTREAM ECONOMCSTS GETTING COLD FEET WHEN ATTACKED FOR RESEARCH THAT ISN'T PC (right wing)] since I first read Max's post this morning and all I can say is tough shit. Economics isn't just about neat models, it's about politics and power. So what if right-wingers pelt you? Pelt back. Don't whine about attacks on your science and retreat into the Ivory Tower. Aschauer's work is important for the real world, and so is Card's. Doug I think the value of the experiences of people like Card and Ashauer is that they might be forced to recognize the "political" in "political economy" as a result of their experiences. They may not enjoy it, but they'll come to understand it. As long as there are people like us cajoling them to respond and using their responses we'll be all right --- and the right wing ideologues will shoot themselves in the feet by their outrageously intellectually repressive behavior. However, it is left to those of us WITH a political bent to make sure that research such as Card's and Krueger's and Ashauer's get widely publicized. -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:4110] C.Eugene Steuerle onSocial Security
I am glad to see Max Sawicky posting to PEN-L. Since I know he has done a lot in the area of social security, wonder if he (or anyone else for that matter) could comment on the book by C.Eugene Steuerle and Jon Bakija _Retooling Social Security for the 21st Century_. I just used it in my Public Finance course and I'm very impressed. But I wonder if Max agrees with the view that there is a "fundamental imbalance" in the social security system that has to be addressed -- and the sooner the better. Steuerle and Bakija do not accept the Peter Peterson set of recommendations but they do beleve some judicious increases in the retirement age (both early and normal) and making all of Social Security taxable would go a long way towards restoring the system to actuarial balance after 2020. Any responses will be welcomed. Particularly "reviews" of the Steuerle-Bakija book. Thanks in advance, Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:4072] Re: Capitalism Corruption
Blair defines capitalism as the appropriation of surplus value. The only way this is true is by tautology: all other forms of "surplus production" are not surplus value -- only under captalism are forms of surplus production surplus value, therefore... etc. etc. Consider what all of us might agree is really a socialist social formation: a democratically controlled industrial system where the social surplus is allocated democratically. What workers produce over and above what is necessary to replace her/himself with two equally qualified/satisfied adult children over her/his working life and what is necessary to replace all equipment over the same period would be allocated in part to the worker and in part to the rest of society. Now --- is that "appropriation" of surplus value: if the word means "taking against one's will" one might argue "no" because of the democratic control of decision-making. Yet even in that circumstance, the MINORITY's "surplus" will be appropriated by the majority. Yet this would be socialism. I would go further and argue that all class societies which utilize markets involve the appropriation of surplus value --- the slave mode of production in the American South is a perfect example of that situation. Capitalism (IMHO) is a particular form of the expropriation of surplus value. Surely, the situation under Stalinist Central Planning created some kind of class society --- but I am loath to call it capitalist. For one thing, I don't think it had the same kind of dynamics --- particularly in the form of imperialism it adopted (in my opinion, Soviet imperialism after World War II was quite defensive in nature --- not to the people it oppressed but in terms of strategy). I would have a hard time seeing any "exploitation" motivation for Soviet expansionism -- in terms of aid to Cuba, Africa, Vietnam, etc. (whereas the motivation for the US in many of the Cold War episodes were so blatantly exploitative as to be beyond question --- except for most US intellectuals!). Cheers, Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:4073] Re: Downsizing Conference
How do we get copies of papers, etc. from that conference? -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:4047] Re: Capitalism Corruption
WARNING: I am responding to part of a post from S. Tell. SHAWGI TELL wrote: -- lots of stuff deleted -- In terms of establishing an economic and political system to serve the interests of the people, there is rich experience from the twentieth century. The only system which had no crisis was socialism, established in the Soviet Union during the period of 1926-27 to the time J.V. Stalin died in 1953. Nikita Khrushchev introduced elements into the socialist system which were to enable the new bourgeoisie to rise from the bureaucracy and the overthrown exploiting classes. Charles Bettleheim's _Class Struggles in the USSR_ and E.H. Carr's mammoth _A History of Soviet Russia_ gives the lie to this absurd dichotomy which argues that Lenin and Stalin established "socialism" and from Khrushchev through Gorbachev the "misleaders" established "capitalism." Until the re-creation of private ownership of the means of production (not control by a factory manager but actual ownership) in the former Soviet Union whatever social formation existed in that country it was not capitalism. In addition, the development of a "non-socialist" social formation which called itself socialist began VERY EARLY --- and the process of Stalinist central plannng and Stalinist anti-democratic bureaucracy was in many respects the antithesis of socialism. Without power emanating from the people with _real teeth_ in the unions and peasant cooperatives and political organizations sufficient to check centralized power, our 20-29 hindsight permits us to recognize that socialism as the antithesis of capitalism was NEVER created in the former Soviet Union. Perhaps at certain times people were actually TRYING to do it, but by the time Stalin had visited his anti-democratic authoritarianism on the Soviet people, cynicism, careerism and self-protection became the rule all through the country. Roy Medvedev's _Let History Judge_ is probably as good an internal critique of Stalinism (by a professed socialist and Marxist I might add) as I've heard of, but I'm sure there are plenty of people on the list who could provide us with sufficient bibliography to refute the absurd statement that I've quoted above. Normally I ignore stuff like this ... but there are certain FACTS of history that have to be understood and acknowledged. At least ... IMHO. Sorry to those who took the trouble to read this for taking up so much space/time. Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:4048] Re: Cornel West lecture NYC 5-3
Bill, How can we get a copy or tape of Cornel's presentation. That's one I'd shell out some dough for ... I live to far from NYC to come just for that! -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:3890] Re: Teaching economics
Soskice and Carlin: _Macroeconomics and the Wage Bargain_ (OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS). Sorry I forgot it the last posting! -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:3892] HELP!!
Dear Penners: If anyone on PEN has taught at ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY in Chicago beginning in 1991 up to the present, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE contact me off list. I have an extremely important question to ask of you which is not within PEN-L's area of interest. I apologize for using the list to ask this question. Thanks in advance, Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:3843] Re: Teaching economics with Hall and Taylor vs Truth
Chris, did you ever try SOSKICE and CARLIN? I used them two years. They were too difficult for my students but for any student who could handle them I think that book is very good. -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:3787] Re: Tips for avoiding corporate rule
MANY MANY thanks to Sid for forwarding the piece by Jane Kelsey. I wonder what Penners think of the viability of the strategy and tactics. At first blush they seem down to earth, useful and I couldn't see anything wrong with them .. but that was a cursory first read. Cheers and solidarity, Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:3764] RE: ATT and Working Assets
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: stuff omitted Like Wojceck (sp.?), I use Working Assets long distance. But nowadays, they bill using Pacific Bell (if that's what its called these days, having recently merged). Without the mailer direct from WALD, it sure feels as if I were dealing with ATT instead of WALD. There's no clip-off form saying "send a protest letter to Newt" or whatever. Without that connection, WALD is going to die. I'm shocked. I still get the mailer direct from WALD (recycled paper, etc.). It has all sorts of information and makes me feel I'm doing a (tiny bit of)little good ... I agree, if they start billing using someone else, forget it! I think Jim oought to call them and complain. I'm going to do the same as a warning. cheers, Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:3729] Re: military keynesianism
No Rich, The "second crisis in economic theory" was Joan Robinson's Richard T. Ely lecture at the AEA in New Orleans in December 1971 (AEA Papers and Proceedings, May, 1972, 1-9.) There's no reference to military keynesianism. Herb Gintis wrote a piece for either RAdical America or Socialist Revolution in either 1970 or 71 called AMERICAN KEYNESIANISM AND THE WAR MACHINE. I don't know if he used the term military keynesianism and don't know if he's still lurking and can tell us ... Is it possible that it was first used in the writings of Seymour Melman? How about Jim O'Connor's _The Fiscal Crisis of the State_? Lots of candidates! -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:3730] Re: budget statement
As all Penners know, I've been particularly apoplectic about the intellectual monopoly in the media and even in the profession of the "budget balancing" craze. Thus, I really welcome the petition that was just circulated. I hope every person on PEN-L (there are over 200) will take the few minutes (actually seconds) it just took me to address an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] And say, sign me up. The next step is to get ALL our colleagues --- they don't have to be "credentialed" but they could be to sign it also. This is a VERY SMALL action we can ALL take. And it could be very valuable. Then again it could accomplish nothing --- but that's why many of us were drawn to existentialism. The important thing is to FIGHT --- winning or losing is less important than FIGHTING. a) you might win, b) it's good for the soul! c) some future generation might win because of your fight today. Enough preaching! -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:3626] Re: Principles classes
Riddell, etc. is pretty out of date isn't it? Bowles and Edwards is a bit long for a one semester course. I usually use it as a "second text" in a Principles course. I do like it a lot --- though it might be too difficult for my students. Thanks though, I'll re=look at it again. -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:3609] Glass Ceiling Information Request
Dear Penners [and would someone please forward this request to FEMECON?] One of my students just gave a presentation about the GLASS CEILING -- particularly as it relates to women in corporate America. A neo-classical professor not unfriendly to the student's presentation suggested that given that women began to enter this part of the work-force in large numbers only in the 1970s, we've only really had about 22 years during which the promotions of these new MBAs could reasonably have been expected to occur. He opined that even in a "discrimination free" environment in the corporate world, we would expect to see very few female upper VPs and CEOs given that it takes time to get promoted. I argued that I bet that if the age data of all CEOs and Senior VPs in the Fortune 500 (say) were tapped, we'd see plenty of men in these positions young enough to have gotten their MBAs in the early 1970s. Does anyone have any information on studies that could SETTLE this question. I think from anecdotal evidence it's certain that it's not just a TIME issue that explains the class ceiling evidence. But I'd like to see some real statistics on it. ON ANOTHER FRONT FROM THE SAME DISCUSSION: Does anyone know of a cross-sectional study of various corporate "cultures" --- seeing if there's a difference in the companies that make an effort to give women a real "equal chance" in the internal marketplace and whether or not that has an impact on the companies' performance. Thanks in advance, Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:3611] Re: Principles classes
I am now teaching some one semester "principles" sections. The books I have seen (including the one [ugh] I'm using) are all terrible. Anyone with a good suggestion for one that is a) not too difficult, and b) not too one-sided [example: mine says "most economists believe the minimum wages raises unemployment" -- fair enough -- but then doesn't explain ANY REASON why some "economist" might disagree!!]. Thanks in advance, -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:3502] Re: SSAs and globalization
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just a thought about this SSA thread. Others have already laid out what seem to be the social structure pol-econ elements of this new wave, and they are not pretty. More or less total domination by global capital within a neo-liberal framework along with a severe worsening of income inequality, both globally and within most nations. What will this lead to? Possibly eventually a revival of a progressive movement. I see a real problem with how such a revival would occur. The whole point of left-wing class-based activity beginning with the industrial revolution and continuing through the 1940s and 50s is that the main basis of it was that workers (of whatever type, blue-collar, no collar, pink collar, etc.) were _brought together_ in the workplace to see their common grievances and also their common strength. The use of casual labor, contingent labor --- the separation of workers (connected by cyber-space only) might severely limit the _real basis_ for people _recognizing_ their need for solidarity. Solidarity comes from contact --- repeated contact --- which creates a sense of common purpose -- and also a sense of trust. (because solidarity means surrendering some of the control you have over what you do to some "common purpose" --- that MUST involve trust in the people with whom you have solidarity). I see the technological transformations leading to unbelievable fragmentation --- which just permits solidarity to continue to wither away. Without solidarity or the possibility of solidarity, I don't see the revival of left/progressive movements --- politically based progressive movements around political opposition to the horrible trends we see around us will require much better and more sustained intellectual combat to defeat the trends towards atomization of our culture and the celebration of "individualism" which is ananthema to solidarity. Hope this pessimism is full of it! Mike Barkley Rosser -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:3455] Re: New Jersey's Tax Cuts
Marc, I do remember your article now. My mind didn't click the connection with the NY Times piece. That, of course, explains how state aid can be maintained and the tax cut made without seeming to miss any revenue. NOW: Can you send the NY Times a letter detailing the point you made in D S? Good luck! -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:3431] Re: Cost of Job Loss
Thanks to Eric for detailing some of the keys to the differences between his CJL series and the use David, Sam and Tom used the S-B original series to develop their general explanation for the macroeconomic failures of the US economy post 1970. Another aspect of this that I think is particularly significant is that in _After the Wasteland_, David, Sam and Tom argued that the rise in the CJL as a result of the monetarist/Reagan "revolutionary" assault on the working class was only the result of the high levels of unemployment caused by the high real interest rates imposed by the FED as opposed to being the result of ACTUAL high rates of exploitation that would have existed at higher levels of capacity utlization. In other words, though the phenomenon appeared similar, the CAUSE of the high cost of job lost was entirely different --- and not very positive for the long run profitability of the capitalists. They try to track this by deriving an index of underlying power of capital in the capital/labor struggle. I have always been interested in whether that index continued to be low between 1988 and 1990 (when the recession began). Does anyone know if David was keeping THAT index up to date? One other point, which I'm sure Eric will agree with, else why would he bother to derive a CJL: The very CONCEPT of the Cost of Job Loss is a major challenge to the neo-classical conception of the labor market incentives. For the neo-classicals, the "supply of labor" is for the most part a result of the need to "bribe" workers to "substitute" work (ugh!) for leisure (hooray!). I had an interesting experience in my class: I asked them if they thought that leisure was always valuable --- I asked them to imagine NEVER HAVING TO WORK and whether that would be a much better situation than having to work and taking leisure as a break from work. Most of them argued that if there wasn't work, leisure --- doing "nothing" --- could get pretty boring. That "leisure" is only valuable in the context of a life involving work. Amazing that the neo-classical textbook writers never thought of that ... or did I miss something? -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:3440] Re: Keynes and Porkies: Request for Info
Alan Freeman wrote: This is a request for some scholarly info. I'm doing a paper on (among other) Keynes's definition of 'Classicals' as economists who accept Say's Law. Marx doesn't fit this definition, which it seems to me Keynes must have known. Keynes had advisors including Sraffa (for example) who must have known the definition was wrong as regards Marx. It is hard to believe Keynes was generally ignorant of this. But I have seen no widely-cited or informed proof that he wasn't. The question arises: did he suppress this information deliberately? Does anyone out there know of any hard information that Keynes did actually know that Marx rejected Say's Law? Don't know about the fact that Keynes knew THAT specific part of Marx's _oeuvre_ but he knew a lot about Marx. The reason I know this is that when Maurice Dobb was an undergraduate at Cambridge, he was sent to Keynes for supervision. When Keynes asked him what economics he had read, Dobb told him that he'd read the usual institutionalist and heterodox types like J.H. Hobson, but ALSO told Keynes that he'd read MARX. Dobb remarked that Keynes was rather amused that Dobb had read MArx. Fast forward a year or so, when Dobb, still an undergraduate was invited to join the "Keynes Club" which was a club of undergraduate (and graduate?) economics students which used to meet once a month (or bi-weekly) to hear written analyses by students. Dobb said that his contribution was a paper about Marx which (with the 20 20 hindsight of maturity) he (Dobb) assumed was probably not very good. Dobb remembered that the undergraduates were all over him for daring to take Marx seriously, but, "Keynes defended me." Now, of course this doesn't answer Alan's question about whether K. knew about Marx's refutation of Say's Law --- but doesn't Keynes implicitly exempt Marx from his attack on the "classics" by noting that the belief in underconsumption remained in the nether world of economics with Major Barbara and Marx?? Where are you Alan? When are you coming to Amherst?? Cheers, Mike Or reasons to conclude that he genuinely did not know Marx's position? Or the basis on which this information is omitted from the classification in 'General Theory'? Thanx for any help Alan -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:3442] New Jersey's Tax Cuts
Dear Penners: In the Saturday, Mar. 16, NYTimes (OPED Page), Timothy Goodspeed and Peter Salins argued that New Jersey's income tax cuts have produced NO major increase in property taxes and no major decrease in spending on education. Both propositions seem wrong to me --- does anyone know of any research that would tend to counter their assertions? Or was NJ just "fat with waste" waiting for the supply side miracle to sweep away "waste, fraud and abuse" and leave NJ's economy lean and mean but very effecvtive nontheless?? -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:3416] Re: Memorials for David Gordon
I want to say a few words about David Gordon. I met him a few times, but mostly I knew him from his work. He was clearly a person who tried to bridge the gap between "mainstream" and radical economics. VIrtually all his work, though clearly following a radical paradigm that placed conflict at the center of the analysis and sought to incorporate "political" issues (to, in other words, make it _political_ economy), was understandable to those (mis)educated in mainstream American (and British) Economics Departments. His work in the SSA tradition has been particularly valuable to me, not just as input into my own thinking but as a teaching tool for my students. _Beyond the Wasteland_ has been a particularly successful book in that area. Despite his "success" in "the profession" his work with URPE and other groups (Bob's description of his nitty gritty work with the newsletter is particularly revealing --- revealing of exemplary behavior) demonstrates that he considered himself an organizer and participant in a long term struggle, not just a "scholar-teacher." I have a tiny little story to add to that. I sent him an internet message about a year and a half ago asking if he had updated the series for REAL SPENDABLE HOURLY EARNINGS that he, Sam and Tom used in _After the Wasteland_. He sent me back a message saying it was just about updated ... and then sent me an entire print-out of it. A small favor, but one I hadn't even asked for. [The next question would have been to find out where it was available. He anticipated and answered it..] That personal generosity clearly fits with what all the other posts to PEN-L have indicated. Though all deaths are losses; and deaths of the young are particularly serious losses --- it is also true that some losses are more serious than others. David's was clearly one of those. To say he will be sorely missed is a gross understatement. Those of us left have to benefit from the great example he set and redouble our efforts to carry on his work --- and ours. Solidarity, Mike Meeropol -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:3357] Re: tax comparisons
Has anayone come up with a good way to make the case that the "right" way to compare tax burdens is on the basis of collections/$1,000 personal income? Our taxpayers' association just did a critique of this method of comparison that we need to rebut. Without seeing the reasoning, it's hard to know how to rebut the rebuttal. The crucial word is "burden" --- if my income rises, paying the same percentage is taxes is the same burden. How else do you measure tax burdens. Try an analogy: do we measure the success of a business by the absolute level of profit?"I made $200,000 in my business last year; ... I made $100,000 in my business last year." which business-person is more successful? answer: We don't know, it depends on how much capital was invested. If I invested $4 million and "made" $200,000 that's a FIVE PERCENT rate of return. I would have done better in T-bills and taken no risk! If the other person invested $500,000 and made $100,000 that's a TWENTY percent rate of return -- pretty damn good! thats why absolute numbers often are misleading. How about a good defense of the progressive income tax (of course some of you don't have to worry about such things... The progressive income tax is defended by the very people who seek to destroy it with a "flat" tax. All "flat" tax proposals are in fact progressive income taxes because they have a zero bracket -- a level of income below which the tax rate is zero. With a zero rate on, say the first $20,000 of income and a 20% rate on the income above it, someone who makes $40,000 pays 10% of their income in taxes -- Someone who makes $80,000 pays a tax of $14,000 which is 17.5% of income (note, a higher percentage). Someone who makes $1,000,000 pays a tax of $199,800 or 19.98% of total income. So the first part of the argument in favor of progressive taxation has already been conceded even by those who claim to oppose it: That is: that those with low incomes should not be forced to pay income tax on money that they desperately need for necessities. This, by the way is the main justification for the Earned Income Tax Credit which offsets the impact of social security taxes which have no zero bracket. The next step of the argument is to distinguish between raising the SAME SUM of money by taxing those above the zero bracket at the SAME RATE (our example, 20%) or alternatively by starting out with a relatively low marginal rate (it used to be 11%, now it's 15%) and letting it escalate as you go up the income stream. Logic will tell you that if you raise the same amount of revenue with a fixed rate than with varying rates, in the first instance, those with incomes close to the poverty line --- in the lower middle class, those that are just a few steps away from poverty themselves will have a HEAVIER TAX LIABILITY than if their rates were lower and the revenue were raised by putting higher rates on people with higher incomes. Recognizing that even the middle and lower middle classes have necessities they have to buy, the concept I use is to distinguish between income needed for those necessities and what we might refer to as discretionary income. As your income rises the percentage that is descretionary also rises, thus you can "afford" a higher percentage of your total income in taxes. That's the basis of the vertical "ability to pay" principle. The one rate tax even with a zero bracket hits more heavily on those with less ability to pay. My students don't always buy it but that's the argument I give them -- (I believe it's actually the old Herbert Simons argument... but I'm not sure!). Of course, there are plenty who will come back with the idea that progressive income taxation merely punishes success -- and that that's "unfair" -- and so there's usually an interesting discussion about which is "fairer"! PS: I have been momentarily blacked out by the PEN-L computer and among the posts I didn't receive were Doug Henwood (and other)'s responses to my initial query. Doug himself doesn't have it. If anyone still hasn't deleted it (them), please forward it (them) to me. [address below] Otherwise, I'll have to use the archives. Many apologies for posting a private query to the entire net, I just hit the wrong keys! -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:3334] A particularly virulent right-wing assertion
Dear Doug: I'm reviewing a Principles Textbook. The author is Robert Sexton --- he seems like a right-wing Public CHoice type. I'm having fun bashing his one-sidedness. My pleasure is that he won't listen to anything I say, he won't take any of my advice, his book won't be any better and he won't sell any more books because of me and I'll still get paid by the publisher to bash away! However, I came accross this particularly ridiculous statement in one of the chapters I'm reading: "The median income of all individual stockholders is not dramatically higher than the median income of all American families." Now even if it were true it's misleading because lower income stockholders hold VERY LITTLE stock. But still and all, I doubt this is true --- unless he's counting all people with private pensions and life insurance policies. Can you set me onto some data that I can include in my report. This sentence ought to be exposed as phony. If it isn't phony, I need to know that too because I don't want to say things in my class that can be proven wrong later. All the best, thanks in advance for whatever you can help me with. By the way, I haven't gotten any posts from PEN-L. Is it down? I sent another (more recent) copy of the Springfield Republican article attacking balanced budgets. How was the "debate" on SS privatization. Maybe I'll order that one. How much again? cheers, Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:3335] What's up
I haven't received anything for a couple of days. Is the computer down? -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:3351] Re: A particularly virulent right-wing assertion
GC-ETCHISON, MICHAEL wrote: The activist/ideologue mind at work: "If it isn't phony, I need to know that too because I don't want to say things in my class that can be proven wrong later." -- Meeropol Not "If it isn't phony, I need to know that too because I don't want to say things in my class that aren't true." Certainly not, "If it isn't phony, I need to know that too because I don't want to be wrong." Michael Etchison[opinions mine, not the PUCT's] For the record I never want to say things in class that are wrong. However, it's not always possible to say things in class you're sure of. Lots of time people believe things; they "hear" things, etc. -- surprise, even smart honest knowledgeable people say things that are wrong. President Gerald Ford said on national TV that there was no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. Confronted by questions from students I often will say: "I think the following --- ... --- I'll try to find the exact facts for you." Sometimes, surprise surprise, I say something, then go check it , and turn out to have made a mistake. There is nothing wrong with making honest mistakes. My question was a way of guarding against an honest mistake. I see no contradiction between what I wrote and Etchison's alternatives which he believes CONTRADICTS what I wrote. He's entitled to his opinion ... -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:3322] Will send new version of OP ED
Dear Penners: About two months ago I circulated a piece that I had submitted to the local paper attacking the idea of balancing the budget. It has finally been published. Anyone who wants to use it now can ... The paper will be very happy to give reprinting rights if it's just referenced. If you want to use it for more than just the classroom, (say reprinting in another paper) you ought to get permission (but they told me they'd be happy to give it!). I'm sending it right after this one, text only. -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:3323]
WPC [Copyright, The Springfield Republican, March 10, 1996) How To Make Sense Out of the Budget Deficit Issues The rhetoric of "conventional wisdom" in Washington asserts that the Federal Budget must be balanced. The turth is there is no rational reason why the budget deficit needs to be reduced to zero. It is entirely appropriate for certain kinds of expenditures to be financed by the public debt. This is analogous to the rational beahvior of families and businesses. The argument for a balanced budget claims that borrowed money leads to a reduction in other expenditures when the debt must be paid back. People falsely conclude from this argument that their grandchildren will suffer a decline in income in order to pay for the "overspending" of this generation. But, that would only happen when and if individuals borrow for current expenditures: food, rent, gas, entertainment. The truth is, it is good for individuals to borrow money to purchase things that will continue to provide a service while the loan is being paid off. Families routinely borrow for appliances, cars and houses. The key is that thevalue of the product must exceed how much is owed on the product. Similarly, families borrow for investments, such as college educations and business ventures. A successful education or business is measured in a higher standard of living. The interest paid to service the loan will be more than made up for by the results of those investments. When an individual or family experience a temporary decline in income -- a seasonal layoff or an illness -- borrowing is a better alternative than reducing the standard of lviing in the present by selling one's car or moving to a cheaper dwelliing. In the world of business, debt is even more closely analogous to government debt. Unlike individuals, businesses can "live forever" just as governments do and thus are able to "roll over" their debt when it comes due. Individuals have to ultimately "pay off" their debts because they will not live forever and therefore will not have a flow of income to pay interest forever. A corporation, however, if it does good business can pay interest on debt indefinitely. Thus, creditors are always willing to "roll over" (make a new loan to pay off the principal on the old loan) the debts of a successful business. Creditors are concerned with the ratio of debt service (interest and principal repayment) to the business's cash flow. If the income of the business rises, its debt may also rise. However, businesses need to borrow for investments, not for current expenditures. The investment is expected to raise income in the future to finance the debt and earn extra income. Spending borrowed funds on current expenditures, on the other hand, would reduce the business's net income in the future. When it comes to the government, it is important to understand that the issue of deficit spending is different from the issue of government waste. If government wastes money, it is irrelevant whether there's deficit spending or not. However, if the spending isn't wasted, then deficit spending to make investments is just as appropriate for government as it is for individuals and businesses. State and local governments make explicit distinctions between current expenditures and investments in roads, schools, senior centers, sewers, etc., but the federal government does not. If the federal government had an investment budget, most of what looks like a deficit would disappear. It spends money on highways, research and development, and education. Some of its much maligned social programs are also clearly investments in human development such as Head Start. Also, the federal government grants monies to state and local governments for construction projects. The federal government uses deficit spending to stimulate the economy during hard times. In a recession, failure to borrow money and increase federal spending raises unemployment and therefore lowers incomes. Borrowing to fight a recession pays off in higher incomes today as well as in the future. This is analogous to the temporary borrowing of individuals. The guidelines for federal borrowing should be identical to those for individuals and businesses -- the ratio of debt to total income should not continue to rise indefinitely. Between 1980 and the present, Congress and several Presidents have behaved irresponsibly. Debt rose as a percentage of total income. A correction is needed, but one that is much more modest than Washington's current plans. It is totally unnecessary to "pay off" any of the national debt. Just as with corporations, the government can roll over its debt without any problems. From 1946 to 1980, the total size of the national debt grew from approximately $242 billion to $709 billion, while the ratio of debt to Gross
[PEN-L:3284] Need an address
Does anyone have Elaine Bernard's current e-mail address. I thought I was using the old one from a PEN-L list only to have it bounce back. Thanks in advance, -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:3215] Re:
I was also struck by that article. Also by the RIDICULOUS stuff being peddled by Robert Samuelson. IN Newsweek he even had the nerve to argue that layoffs and downsizing and insecurity is mostly an issue of FEELING not reality. Has anyone read his book? Seen his recent piece in Newsweek? I would like to see a good critique of some of the sources he used. -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:3191] Re: Changing...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a student of the nineteenth century, I think one of the outcomes of studying race in terms of black and white has been to oversimplify racial and ethnic issues. In the nineteenth century, and when I was growing up in the 50s and 60s, ethnicity was far more important than simply race. I am also a (somewhat) student of the 19th century --- and my understanding is that over the period of assimmilation of the various European immigrant groups, one of the things these groups BEGAN to learn that they had in common was their "whiteness." It's true it took a while for the white protestant "native" population to accept these non-protestant European groups as fully American --- just as it took time for the irish, Italians and other European immigrant groups to develop enough political and economic muscle to gain their "fair share" of the goodies that white America divided in the period between 1865 and 1965 --- but both trends were unmstakable even in the 19th century. One of the most dramatic was, of course, the exclusion of African Americans from the industrial sector in FAVOR of immigrants during the late 19th and early 20th centuries -- until World War I FORCED the industrialists to "try" AA workers. [see Jay Mandle _Not Slave, Not Free_ (1992, Duke U. Press) pp. 25-32 and the references]. Ethnic conflict WITHIN "white" America has certainly been significant --- and especially in the fight against unionization in various industries in various regions during the late 19th and early 20th centuries --- but the 1950s distinctions that white groups made amongst themselves was in a context of almost complete subservience of the African American -- and in fact complete absence from ANY interactions with African Americans as equals for most whites. Until I went away to college and began to travel in the US, I never realized how UNUSUAL my 1950s childhood/teenage years were in terms of actually meeting and interacting as equals (in school) with African Americans. As soon as I arrived in college (1960), I found myself in a lily white world that I didn't emerge from until I moved into an "integrated" (but mostly AA) neighborhood in 1970. I suspect that latter experience was more like the vast majority of the whites in the 1950s who saw ethnic differences as "more significant" --- Whites were not whites, they were Italians, Irish, Catholic, Protestant, blue collar, white collar, . One small example; a study of Boston in the 1830s shows that many of the same discriminatory practices common in use against African Americans in the twentieth century were common in use against the Irish in the nineteenth century. For the twentieth century, I think viewing racial issues in broad boundaries misses many of the important internal conflicts within racial groups. For example, American born blacks do not necessarily have the same set of cultural values as Haitians. BUt American whites treat them ALL the same. It's the same principle as that learned by non-observant Jews --- your nose and your name makes you a target of anti-semites even without the PA-YESS, the hats and the beards --- The highly superior and educated black bourgeoisie learned that, too. There are significant class differences among black America but unfortunately that PALES to almost insignificance in the face of pervasive racism in our society. Check out Ellis Cose's _The Rage of a Privileged Class_ --- or Lawrence Otis Graham's book --- he went "under cover" working as a busboy in a Country Club in Greenwich Connecticut (he was a six figures Wall St. Lawyer from Harvard Law School) --- First of all in blatant violation of the law, five of the places wouldn't even hire him just because of his skin color. While working he got a taste of the most unbelievably backward racism, bigotry, -- out and out, blatant, with no apologies and no hiding it!! It was really chilling to hear him speak. So, I beg to differ with Maggie. The prism of the color line is the key to understanding American culture --- from the 19th century through the present. The proof is that the very same people who were subjected to the most unspeakably ethnic bigotry -- the Irish, the Jews -- are now full fledged "whites" in America and part of the grand coalition against immigrants of color and Americans of color as blameworthy scapegoats for the next experiment in fascism. Roll over Mussolini and Hitler: here comes Pat Buchanan. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:3193] Re: Changing U.S. Demographics
Patrick Mason's point is very important: So, my brief missive was simply a clarification of a posting by Shawgi Tell. Finally, as a statement of basic math, if one measures "cultural diversity" by the ratio persons of European descent:persons of non-European descent, then the massive European immigration into the U.S. during say 1870-WWI reduced U.S. "cultural diversity." Of course, the large flow of immigrants from Europe were heavily Catholic and Jewish -- and thereby culturally distinct from WASPS -- but recent fears about and animosity towards today's immigrants have nothing to do with religion or language. The current negative attitudes are about racism. The interesting question is why the HIGHER PERCENTAGE of peoples of color in the pre-1870 period was not so much of a "problem" for the US as it appears to be today --- so much of a problem that people "think" that the "browning" of America is new and unprecedented. First: The higher percentage of Indians WAS a problem --- it was the main focus of the United States army from the end of the Civil War to Wounded Knee -- Second: The higher percentage of African Americans was the subject of incredible conflict between the Republican and Democratic parties in the South up till 1877 --- and between the Democratic and "proto-populist" insurgencies (readjusters, grangers, etc.) in the South up till 1892 and finally between 1892 and 1898 (when the populist party in the south became explicitly and vocally racist and supportive of the total disenfranchisement of the African America -- see Woodward _The Strange Career of Jim Crow_ but even better is his biography of Tom Watson _Rebel Tom_) Third: Someone else will have to fill in my blanks about Chicano history in the Southwest and California to see how the whites dealth with that large brown "minority" After the wave of European immigration significantly reduced the "brown ratio" in the population -- the military destruction of Indian resistance and the creation of the rigid Jim Crow system in the South reduced the significance for White America of the existence of various peoples of color. In the post 1965 period of explicitly equal rights for various peoples of color, the rising percentage of non-whites in the population EQUIPPED with LEGAL equal rights and at least a LIP-SERVICE to true equality in our civil society (honored in the breach in reality of course) IS a threat to white privilege that didn't exist after the defeat of the Indians and the victory of the forces of black suppression after REconstruction. That's how I see the history... What Buchanan and company want is a return to the post REconstruction era in American race relations. -- the America of the "Chinese Exclusion Act" as well!! -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:3089] Re: privatiz...
Eugene Coyle wrote: stuff deleted What I think this "giving choice in personally investing money" is really about is dividing the public. Those who make lucky investments -- or shrewd ones -- will, like those who still have jobs, feel that they have "earned" what they have, and those who don't make investments that pay well have only themselves to blame. This is divisive. I agree 100% with what Gene just said (and also with myself!) --- I would like to refer folks to a piece by Dick DuBoff in a recent issue of MR where he chastizes Radicals for forgetting the "anti-capitalist" kernal in the development of Social Security as "social insurance." Social security is not, from his perspective (which he argues ought to BE the radical perspective) a program to redistribute income --- it's a program of social solidarity. WE are ALL responsible for EACH OTHER --- we all work; we all are ENTITLED to a decent retirement BECAUSE we work --- we are ENTITLED to survivors insurance; we are ENTITLED to disability insurance; we are ENTITLED to health insurance [but we only get it once we're retired]. That is the social compact entailed in the social security act. Even something as trivial as TAXING "Rockefeller's social security pension" begins the process of dividing up the folks into those "really entitled" to social security and those who aren't. I've made that mistake myself -=-- arguing that there was nothing wrong with taxing SS benefits --- Check out DuBoff's piece for more details of the argument why social security must be preserved as a model of SOCIAL INSURANCE that needs to be expanded rather than have it become similar to all other income redistribution programs where the recipients should be scrutinized to see if they "really deserve/need it" so as to reduce the "burden" on the rest of us. Divide and conquer has worked lots of times sometimes it doesn't... we have to figure out a way to combat the unbelievably successful dividing that's been done to the US population since the last high tide of solidarity, the 1930s and 40s! Hopefully, Mike Taxing social security benefits hurts all of us because that is divisive. "Why shouldn't Rockefeller pay taxes on his Social Security income?" we are asked. Because taking away part of ours is the next step. Gene Coyle -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:3066] Re: privatizing Soc Sec
Don't want to sound like a one-trick pony, but ... Robert Peter Burns wrote: Eugene, I think the answer to this is: refuse to sell the stocks back to the so-and-sos. Indeed, the government would presumably need to hold on to the stocks in order to generate the dividend income needed for paying social security benefits. Also, why not levy some hefty taxes on the ex-capitalist class once we've paid them the money? so that we get most of it back (crafty, huh?) WHY not "pay" for the stocks with bonds and then engineer a bit of inflation =--- that will expropriate the bonds but the stocks will rise in step with the inflation as long as they're based in real assets rather than "water"! I'm talking about an expropriation process here--a way of doing it. I'm not saying this is what the current shower in power has in mind, of course. Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sun, 18 Feb 1996, Eugene Coyle wrote: Let's see. If we save up our money and buy out the Capitalists, won't the capitalists then have our money and be able to buy us out? -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:3067] Re: privatizing SS in CHILE
Michael Perelman wrote: Just read the rave reviews the right gives Pinochet for trailblazing this form of "reform." -- Does anyone out there know of any sources or any individuals who know the REAL results of the privatizing of Social Security in Chile --- Chile went through a terrible few years in 1982 and right after when the whole "Pinochet miracle" unravelled and virtually the entire banking system had to be rescued by the Central Bank. Since then, I gather the "economy" has grown though I haven't seen any income distribution, nutrition, life expectancy, infant mortality and other significant social indices since then. The privatization of Social Security "works" so long as capital values grow faster than the economy as a whole. Since in the end that CAN'T GO ON FOREVER, Doug is absolutely right it's just a new version of a Ponzi scheme. Since Chile has been at it for a long time, I'd be really curious if anyone with a radical perspective has studied that system. Thanks in advance, Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2990] Re: fantasy
Michael Perelman wrote: I get the uneasy feeling that neo-liberalism will continue unabated until we hit the wall with a global underconsumption crash. It seems that no single country has the wherewithall to withstand it now. Let me propose the following fantasy. Suppose that Clinton wins along with a compliant congress. Someone transplants a clone of Gene Deb's backbone and courage into Clinton. He then comes to pen-l and asks for advise for ways to turn the country around without creating a capital strike. Any takers? THIS IS EASY: Gunder Frank and I independently proposed the same thing over three years ago --- only objection: politically it wouldn't work. POLICY: Call the heads of the EU and Japan together and tell them the three nations need to stimulate aggregate demand in all three countries to goose the world economy forward and transfer wealth to the masses to fuel mass consumption via INFLATION [it's really Roosevelt's "reflation" all over again when competitive abandonment of the gold Standard was a method of stimulating the world economy in the post Smoot-Hawley world]. The agreements have to be iron-clad that each country will slowly accelerate inflation TOGETHER from the current levels to levels 5-7 percent higher than they currently are while insisting that all three Central Banks cap interest rates where they are (as the FED did during WW II and before the 1951 accord!). [congress can order the FED to do it!!} The STICK for the international bankers will be withdrawl of the US from the world currency system --- a return to the pre WW II era of trading blocs, etc. which will NOT make the rest of the capitalist world into happy campers. In other words --- expropriate capital on a world scale with inflation!! The beauty of it is the over a decade of FED tightness will have reduced inflationary expectations so even if one accepts Rat Exp, the change in policy will be UNANTICIPATED and the rentiers will be expropriated before they know it. AFter that it'll be a question of "flooding the economy with money" to keep inflation churning while insisting on full employment and government investments to stimulate productivity growth so that inflation will be moderated by rapidly expanding production. WE CAN DREAM, CAN'T WE? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2991] Re: fantasy
On the issue of capital strike world wide inflation can make capital _flight_ unlikely. As for a capital strike, -- remember, lots of LABOR strikes get "broken" --- there are plenty of candidates for "capitalist scabs" to do investing if the returns are right -- and there's always good old social democractic spending -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2908] Re: the cost of 'peace'
Eugene Coyle wrote: Lisa Rogers listed all the possible wars to fight except the one we never fought: the war on poverty. Or was that the one we won, and I wasn't at the victory parade? There are certain wars that involve government action that CUTS INTO private profit. That's why the war on poverty had to be surrendered. Can't have those workers with too high a floor under their income. Cheers, Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2844] Posting something long
Dear Penners: I'm sending something "text only" -- it will have no title. It is an edited version of a speech Clinton gave to some university/college organization on Feb. 7. It's got some of his "analysis" of what's going on in the US today and the role of higher education in "solving" it. It also has some nasty editorial comments by me. If you think you'll be bored just delete it without a second's thought. I hope some people find reading the exact words he uses as he formulates his position useful. If not, well, not much time lost! -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2845]
DEAR Penners: This is a LONG post. I have edited the following: REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT COLLEGES (Feb 7. 1996) 2:28 P.M. EST In this speech, Clinton speaks about economic and social trends and the importance of education for his 'poly-annaish' view of the "future" for "America." I thought some of us might be interested in seeing these kinds of arguments, "from the horse's mouth." Perhaps I'm wasting my and our time, but, in that case there's always the delete key. THE PRESIDENT: If I might, I would like to take just a few moments today to try to put the struggles that you and I are engaged in, to not only keep open the doors of college for all Americans but to widen those doors, in a larger historic context. In my State of the Union address I said I thought that America had entered a great age of possibility, and I believe that. I believe that the American people who are poised to take advantage of it will have more opportunities to live out their dreams than any generation of Americans every has. We also know, perplexingly, that this is an age of great challenge in which huge numbers of Americans feel deeply frustrated and worried that not only they, but their children, will not have the chance to live out their dreams. How could both these things coexist at the same time? How could there be so much good economic news, and so much troubling economic news? How could there be good news on the social front and troubling news on the social front? It is, I am convinced, endemic to the nature of this moment in our history, which I believe is most like what happened to us more or less a hundred years ago when we went through the transformation from being a rural and agricultural society into a more urbanized, more industrial society. And now we're moving into an age dominated by information and technology and the markets of the global village. The nature of work has changed and that helps you [colleges and universities] in your enterprise because we now have -- almost all work contains more mind and less body, more information and more technology, and is changing more rapidly so you not only need to know more, you need to be able to learn more. The nature of work is changing and there is no sign that the rate of change and the direction of change will do anything but speed up. The nature of work organizations are also changing. You have more and more people who are self-employed, more and more people who can now work at home because there are computer hook-ups. The largest and most bureaucratic and most top-down organizations tend to be slimming down, pushing decisions down, and getting rid of a lot of people in the middle of the organizations that used to hand orders and information up and down the food chain of the enterprise. And, again, that can be good, but it can be severely disruptive if you're 50 years old and you've got three kids to send to college and you've just been told that your Fortune 500 company doesn't need you anymore. We see the change in the nature of work. The encouraging thing is that in the last three years, more jobs have been created by businesses owned by women alone than have been eliminated by the Fortune 500 companies. But they're different. They're smaller, they're more scattered about. They are less secure in a traditional sense. So work is changing and work organizations are changing. EDITORIAL: What about the wages and benefits in these new jobs? The success the US economy and people had in moving from an agricultural to an industrial society occurred only after a few decades of suffering (the 1920s and 1930s) for the new industrial working majority followed by success in the boom years of 1945- 1972 --- a success in large part based on the high wages won by the successful unionization drive of the 1930s and the low unemployment years of the 1940s and 1960s. Isn't this good historical evidence for a high wage strategy in the current period of transition. Even though he "supports" raising the minimum wage he never says a word about it to this group ... maybe because a lot of them outrageously exploit their non- academic staff with miserable salaries and no unionization! And, finally, the nature of our markets are changing. The markets for financing and the markets for goods and services are increasingly global, increasingly rapid and, on occasion, ruthless because of their ability to seek the area of greatest opportunity in a split second. And all of these things have opened up vast new opportunities, but impose great new challenges on our ability to maintain old-fashioned values and to maintain a sense of national community as all these changes proliferate and put pressures on all of our institutions to pull apart and break down
[PEN-L:2805] Re: Another quote
Peter? St. Thomas Acquinas (!!)?? He was an "economist" at least according to Schumpeter's History of Economic Analysis! -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2806] Re: Quotes from Pat Buchanan
I overheard a Buchanan speech which was full of (very justified) complaints about the Mexican bail-out of the big money-center banks in the US. This class conscious rhetoric is important and has gotten him a response. If he continues climbing in the GOP primaries, watch the ruling class get REALLY upset with him. By the way, when talking about NAFTA he said, "everyone was for it --- leadership of both parties, CEOs of corporations, NY Times, etc. -- who was against it, Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, Ralph Nadar and Jesse Jackson." --- The question raised about REAL tendencies towards fascism in the US needs to be answered by examining the Buchanan campaign --- is he galvanizing anger the way Hitler and Mussolini did and promising not merely populism (which Hitler gave up in 1934!) but "order" after victory in the cultural war? Is he an agent of mass mobilization (a crucial element of fascism)? These are actually serious questions. Ruling class, reactionary policies which harm real people don't hold a candle to repression by riot and mayhem and murder which is the way fascism "solves problems." Perot had this hair-raising proposal to surround "high crime areas" (read ghettoes) and go house to house arresting all the criminals, consfiscating all the weapons, etc. etc. There's a chilling version of it --- with lots of murder and mayhem --- in the bible of Timothy MacVeigh, _ The Turner Diaries _. It may be alarmist --- but the position for all good socialists and communists in 1932 in Germany if they had perfect foresight would have been in support of the reactionary current rulers of Germany against Hitler. This suggests that the Clinton-Republican coalition with its retrograde policies may be LIGHT YEARS better than a Buchanan-Perot style fascism. Hopefully, I'm wrong! -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2825] Re: Cost of Past Wars
Gina Neff wrote: As promised here is the definition of the "costs of past wars" that the War Resisters League includes as part of their analysis of the US budget: " 'Military Debt and costs of Past Wars' includes the portion of the interest on the national debt that has been estimated to be due on military spending (55%), veterans benefits, and several small veterans-related expenditures" 19% of the tax revenue was spent on this according to their chart 26% of tax revenue is spent on current military spending for a total of 45% of tax revenue spent on "total military" Gina, the 19% has got to be wrong. Interest payments by the federal government are less than 19% in toto --- so 55% of them cannot possibly be this number. I must be missing something ... -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2832] re: Rousseau on property (fwd)
Paul B. Cheney wrote: . . . our cherished assumptions about individual freedom are grounded, orginally, in the attempt to elaborate individual rights vis a vis property. Is there any other institution besides property that does not reduce individual rights in mass society to a mere grant of the state? Usually asking a question this way calls forth an obvious answer --"No." and that makes the case that private property is the key to freedom. but consider: private property means nothing if it is not PROTECTED by the power of the state. Thus, even this "foundation" of freedom is a "mere grant" of the state. The most crucial thing about freedom is for the state to be LIMITED by the democratic institutions that govern it. On the other hand, one can have an anarchistic society where there is NO state and NO UNDERSTOOD "RIGHT" to private property --- just the free association of free people. We can dream, can't we! -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2835] CBO and OMB predict no recession for seven more years!
I had the pleasure of listening to Laura Tyson on NPR this afternoon. She was speaking at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco. She said something very revealing: (I can't quote exactly) The reason I have concerns as an economist about replacing a federal entitlement to welfare, food stamps and medicaid with block grants to states is because even in a well managed smoothly growing economy there are going to be dips and bumps. When states experience dips there will be MORE people needing welfare, food stamps and medicaid -- with the federal entitlement, the federal government pays the money to the states as needed. A block grant means there's NO MORE MONEY to meet these blips of rising needs. Note, she never once said recession. The reason, her whole premise in supporting Clinton's balanced budget plan is that the economy will grow at 2.2% for the next two years and then 2.3% for the following 5 years. According to the Tuesday, Feb. 6 Wall St. Journal [p. A2] the OMB and CBO both agree on these seven years of forecasts. I wish someone would ask Laura Tyson, Joe Stiglitz, or any other economist who works for either of these organizations how they can in good conscience make such a prediction when they KNOW there will be some sort of recession sometime before the next seven years. And where are the journalists? Won't someone say the emperor has no clothes? [!!} In fact, does anyone know Laura Tyson's address in Washington?? -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2741] Re: Urban economics texts?
While we're talking about books, I have a request also. In my senior seminar, the students are interested in reading a paperback in the area of urban economics and/or environmental economics. These should NOT be text but they should not be graduate level monographs. I need something that a student with a principle background could handle. Any ideas?? in either area? Thanks in advance. -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2742] Re: intermediate macro
Dear Penners: I find Terry's historical approach VERY VALUABLE. I use it too. One final suggestion -- if you can successfully squeeze in the THEORY of macroeconomics into the first 10 weeks of the semester, I like the end with three-four weeks of a LABORATORY story -- Using the last 20-25 years of US economic history, I have the students read Bowles Gordon and Weisskopf's _After the Wasteland_ which builds a "conflict" growth model and then applies it to the period before and after the Reagan Revolution. This permits one to revisit a number of issues --- the limits of Keynesianism, the "monetarist experiment" -- the "test" of R.E. with the so-called "credibility hypothesis" surrounding the strong anti-inflationary policy of the FED in 1979-82 which by all rights (following R.E.) would have resulting in a big fall in the nominal rate of interest, but it didn't! -- and finally the possibility that distribution of income and power relations have a lot to do with rates of economic growth [the BGW model]. After a lot of theory that students often find very unpleasant and hard going, the "lab" part of the course is quite enjoyable for them -- despite the radical conclusions of the authors. -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2698] Review of Olasky, THE TRAGEDY OF AMERICAN COMPASSION (Long) (fwd)
uot;paint a grim and gloomy picture of the American past, one that emphasizes failure and makes it seem that most of the faults of mankind have here found their most fertile ground." Gingrich, by contrast, "starts with the assumption that 'this is a good country filled with good people.'" Like Olasky, Gingrich dates America's decline from "around 1965," when "intellectual elites began telling us another story: that this is 'a racist, sexist, repressive society of greedy people who exploit the poor' and that government intervention is essential if we are to live up to our ideals." Gingrich, Cheney, and Olasky are all seeking to push that story aside. Will they succeed in popularizing their version of American history? The answer will not come from professional historians, because Olasky and his associates are appealing over the historians' heads to what they imagine to be their own, larger, public. They are certainly correct in their calculation that there is an audience for their efforts: most Americans of European descent resent histories that demonize all whites or all property-owners -- though Olasky, Cheney, and Gingrich greatly exaggerate the prevalence of such denunciations in contemporary university classrooms. A professional historian can suggest that many readers will not find Olasky's story appealing. Olasky avoids giving direct many direct affronts to those who feel they have benefitted from the Civil Rights or Women's movements, or from the expansion of social security, medicare, or the support for nursing home care provided through medicaid: but he does little to attract such people and leaves to others the writing of histories that will appeal strongly to them. He avoids direct assaults on women's rights, but his story will not appeal to women who aspire to life outside the kitchen, the playroom, and the sickroom (and indeed recent opinion polls show that many women reject the idea that they should return to the sickroom so that taxes can be cut ). Olasky's is certainly not a story that will be read with pleasure by anyone who takes his or her identity from what he or she views as a modern, science-based profession. Nor is it likely to satisfy for long anyone who fears that his or her religious or philosophical views may be those of a minority. Olasky's book may well find an audience among those who feel displaced in contemporary society, among those who lament the end of the old order in which women and people of color seemed to accept subordinate status, and among those who are deeply troubled by the apparent collapse of "family values" and by violence among youths. But because his history fails to take seriously the concerns of the vast majority of Americans, it is not likely to gain anything like general acceptance. David C. Hammack Professor of History and and Director, Social Policy History Ph.D. Program Chair, Master's of Nonpforit Organizations Degree Committee, Mandel Center for Nonprofit Organizations, Case Western Reserve University David C. Hammack Professor of History Case Western Reserve University (216)368-2671 -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2687] public school facts [long] (fwd)
ng the test is performing as well or better today than it did 15
years ago. If SAT scores are controlled for class rank and gender, so that
the population of students taking the test matches that of the 1975
test-takers, the average performance of these "traditional' students has
improved more than 30 points.
NAEP {National Assessment of Educational Progress] scores:
The fraction of students scoring at or above a given level has generally
remained steady or has increased for all age groups and subject areas.
Dropout rates:
On-time graduation rate has been steady over the last 20 years at roughly
75-80%. Including other routes to graduation completion rate is now over 85%
and is among the best in the world. [ have better data on this somewhere but
can't put my hands on it right now]
Misc. findings:
About 57% U.S. youths attempt postsecondary studies. This is roughly the
high-school graduation rate of the early 1950's and is about 2X the rate of
Japanese students.
About 25% of 25-29 year olds has completed at least a 4-year college degree.
This is about the same as the U.S. high school graduation rate of the 1930's.
Only Belgium and Finland exceed the U.S. in the percentage of 17 year olds
enrolled in school."
Diane, still bleeding a bit
--
Mike Meeropol
Economics Department
Cultures Past and Present Program
Western New England College
Springfield, Massachusetts
"Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!"
Unrepentent Leftist!!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2689] Re: 1990s compared to 1980s
Doug Henwood wrote: Truly the 1990s are making the Reagan years look kind and gentle by comparison. Doug Doug is absolutely right. When we realize that the 1980s which only gave the right-wing ghouls a fraction of what they wanted to do --- and in some cases like Food Stamps and SSI, Congress actually reversed the original efforts to cut them --- still produced the polarization of the "middle class" the rise in inequality between quintiles and WITHIN quintiles and within wage=earners, etc., still produced the rise in the working poor, and still produced a REDUCTION in social mobility --- just imagine if the budget-cutters and entitlement busters have even 1/2 of their way (and since Clinton has already surrendered that half it'll probably be worse). We'll have Reaganomics WITHOUT the increased aggregate demand caused by the deficit and without the post 1984 roadblocks from Congress. I know this may sound irresponsible coming from a relatively comfortable 50 year old -- but I wonder if the only real way to fight back against this tide is for those who are harmed to organize and make as much trouble as they possibly can so that the instruments of control start costing so much that maybe the "contented majority" will begin to wonder if their model of cops and prisons and the "back of their hand" to those "left behind" really is a way to keep "contented." Organizing the working class at the point of production would be nice but when they move the point of production to Mexico, Singapore or mainland China, what the Hell can those of us left here do?? Despairingly, -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2633] Re: Is Patrick Buchanan a fascist?
I think Barkley raises a valuable point. I've always been uncomfortable with the epithet fascism being thrown around --- Fascism has to be more than "repression as usual" by the capitalist state. One element in it, IMHO, ought to be _mass mobilization_ and _mass psychology_. In this area, it does appear that Buchanan, the Militia Movement, and the Christian Right all have the potentials of becoming fascist movements. The other element of fascism from the Mussolini model is "corporatizing" society with the state in charge. The right wing _shrinkage_ of the state envisioned by the budget balancers would seem to go against that. Just musing. I believe this point is worth following through on ... but by people who know a lot more than I do. I like asking questions ... I LOVE reading answers on PEN-L. Cheers, Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2634] Re: Larry Summers on globalization
Just a brief comment on one small aspect of Terry's post. On globalization, Tim Koechlin (sp?) did some research a few years back and discovered that despite all the rhetoric about a free-flow of capital, particularly in financial form but also in the form of creation of new structures, anywhere in the world, there still remained clearly discernible "national tracks" of capital export and international flows of goods suggesting that the world had not yet homogenized into one global marketplace for international capital and was not likely to do so --- that history was still determining a lot of the flows; and that history had a lot to do with previous colonial and neo-colonial relationships of a more national nature. Now, I don't know if these findings were challenged or what Tim himself thinks of these (Hi, Tim, if you're on PEN-L, this is a BIG invitation!) issues now --- but I remember being struck with how Larry Summers' quote that Doug posted seemed to be right in the same argument that Tim had made. Anyone out there can follow up? -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2619] Re: Strategy Change by Credit Card Companies
ZAHNISER STEVEN SCOTT wrote: Greetings, PEN-Lers! I recently noticed a change in the behavior by one of my (former) credit card companies. In previous years, if I asked for the firm to waive the annual fee, they would agree to do so. This year, however, the representative of the company told me firmly that the company was not waiving any annual fees during all of 1997 and that they were instead focusing their efforts on reducing their interest rates. Is anyone else experiencing this? Steve, I've had the opposite effect. I simply tell my credit card company that I already have one credit card without an annual fee and that if they want to impose an annual fee I will cancel immediately. They always come around but if they don't -- do cancel and move on. Cheers, Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2620] Re: Strategy Change by Credit Card Companies
D Shniad wrote: Query to Penners about the practices of credit card companies and their rapacious ways: I recently found out via a documentary on the tube that in certain credit card companies, customers who pay (for example) $795 out of an $800 balance on their credit cards are charged interest on the full $800! How widespread is this practice? Surely there must be a way to challenge the legality of this practice? Most companies charge the interest on the AVERAGE DAILY BALANCE during the previous 30 days UNLESS you pay it off in full. They are very up front about this --- I don't know how you would challenge it since it's part of the "contract" you enter into when you sign up. No one "forces" you to sign up. Clearly, the only way to use credit cards for convenience but not be caught by the USURORS is to pay it all off every month. They hope most of us won't have the discipline to do that EVERY TIME. The other thing is to NEVER take a cash advance since that immediately starts the interest charge. Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2496] Infinite Value [was The V-Word]
Thanks to Terry: Terrence Mc Donough wrote: Short response to Ken H. 's post: much omittede: Of course, I wouldn't expect anyone who was starving to refrain from digging up and eating burrowing owls. It is just incumbent on the rest of us to provide alternative food sources. Perhaps we can revive the old anarchist slogan: Eat the Rich. I had been mulling over how to respond to Ken's message. Terry did it for me. One of the pernicious impacts of capitalism was that the rapacious "consumption" of the natural environment has made it appear possible to increase the rate of exploitation of labor AND increase the standard of living of labor for a significant enough percentage of the population to creat a politically powerful coalition in favor of capitalism --- even decidedly unequal capitalism without a human face! (such as in the US for the past 25 years!). I can't remember the passages in Vol I. of Capital but I _do_ remember clearly that Marx distinguished between exploitation that USED living human labor but granted it subsistence so it could be USED AGAIN (through the generations, let's remember) and exploitation that USED UP living human labor -- this was the basis of him arguing that limiting the working hours of labor was actually protecting the long term viability of capitalism (despite the fact that the capitalists themselves didn't realize it). In a sense, from the point of view of the capitalist class the "labor power" of the working class over a lifetime and into the generations had a sort of "infinite value" for the sustainability of capitalism. Capitalism in the 20th century has figured out how to avoid "using up" the working class by "using up" the natural environment. The latter, too, is a dead end. With less and less environment left to "use up" perhaps we can look forward (not too soon as some of us are getting pretty old!) to the day when the workers will decide that the only source of a rising standard of living is to take back from capitalists what they've stolen from us --- instead of trying to steal a bit more from mother nature. The solution for starving folks mentioned by Ken is more in the hoarded granaries of the local merchants than in the tiny bit of natural environment so far untouched. As Amartra Sen has shown, most famines have coexisted with sufficient food stocks to feed the starving --- it's almost always been a distributional issue. I think it's time to foment a little class warfare --- environmental constraints may actually force that to the top of the agenda. Here's hoping, Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2461] Re: The V-word -Reply
Lisa Rogers wrote: Mike Meeropol [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1/19/96, 06:36am Just ONE THOUGHT on Terry's post responding to Blair: [snip] I know this uses the neoclassical approach but one way I have tried to bring home to me students the importance of what Terry has stated in this paragraph is to ask them to consider the VALUE of the enironment in which we humans must live to be INFINITE. [end quote] Lisa asks: And do they buy it? I expect that some might 'value' the private profits [or even the social housing-use] from one more sub-division as greater than the 'value' of one of the few remaining burrowing owl colonies in the area. [For a real example from my neck of the woods.] On a micro level, there is this great desire for a trade off --- what I try to get them to focus on is the impossibility of infinite expansion to the point of making the planet uninhabitable. With a FINITE planet, the consumption of the natural resources of the planet and the life-sustaining capabilities of the bio-sphere cannot continue. We can argue about WHEN we will make the planet uninhabitable but we cannot argue that it can't happen ... That is where the "infinite value" comes in. This discussion is of particular value when we cover global issues like global warming, destruction of rain-forests, keeping the oceans alive, etc. Most students don't "buy" anything that will make their lives less uncomfortable but intellectually they are drawn to the idea of SELF-SUSTAINING systems because in addition to getting rich, they want to have the world around for their entire lifetimes -- in a form they are somewhat used to. Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2439] Re: The V-word
Just ONE THOUGHT on Terry's post responding to Blair: Terrence Mc Donough wrote: most omitted Questions of the value of nature must be posed as considering the preservation of the system as a whole rather than comparing the marginal value of bits of it. Whatever criteria are used (utility, use value, spiritual, aesthetic) it can be agreed that the remaining ecosystem and its component parts have much more value than any conceivable alternative human use of the resources and consequently the preservation of the ecosystem at its current level of diversity becomes a bedrock principle which is not in practice subject to debates about the relative value of the environment. I know this uses the neoclassical approach but one way I have tried to bring home to me students the importance of what Terry has stated in this paragraph is to ask them to consider the VALUE of the enironment in which we humans must live to be INFINITE. This gets away from the neo-classical idea that "efficiency" requires that "we" exploit the environment until marginal costs EXCEED marginal benefits. With infinite costs to further environmental deterioration, it forces us to set limits as quickly as possible. Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2406] JEff Cohen
Dear Penners: In case you didn't hear, they postponed Jeff Cohen's appearances on CROSSFIRE until the 18th and 19th. Hope you-all can watch and let CNN know we want a REAL leftist on that show. Please forward! -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2407] Re: The V-word
Blair, I absolve you of crass self-promotion by asking you to post to the list the title and year and institution of your Ph D. Maybe some of us (maybe one of us!) wants to order it for the school library! Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2408] Re: A new Threat on the Horizen -Post Tenure Review
This idea of post-tenure review was proposed very seriously in an article on the back page of the Chronicle of Higher Education about two years ago by Patricia Hollander who was the legal advisor (or something like that) to some national organization of Boards of Trustees. Her focus was that NOW THAT MANDATORY RETIREMENT is not permitted for faculty, how are colleges going to "get rid of" faculty who are "too old" (and doddering and senile) to do their jobs properly. Her answer: regular post-tenure review. (which of course is a way of ENDING TENURE). I think this is a perfect example of the proletarianization of teachers/professors and fits into the discussion we had about a month ago stimulated by the suggestion that our profession is kind of a medievil guild which while under assault by capitalism has not yet completely succumbed to it. Perhaps this might be a powerful recruiting tool within our profession --- nothing concentrates the mind more than the thought that one surely will be hanged [paraphrasing Oscar Wilde] --- maybe more of our "colleagues" in a basically apologetic and accommmodating profession will be shocked into serious intellectual opposition to capitalism by being forced to play by its rules instead of merely cheering those rules on for "other" "less deserving" people! Is it too much to hope?? -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2411] Re: A new Threat on the Horizen -Post Tenure Review
Blair Sandler wrote: Between Edwards and Gintis, I think this really says something about the whole social structure of accumulation crowd. Maybe I'm being too harsh, too judgmental, allowing my personal biases to get the better of me. I'm interested in other's opinions. Leave out Herb Gintis for a bit ... but why make Rick Edwards' personal behavior say ANYTHING about the "social structure of accumulation crowd" -- I am influenced by the S.S.A. analysis as are many of the people who are involved in the Center for Popular Economics in Amherst. I can't speak for ALL of them but the individuals I've interacted with have been TO A PERSON the most collaborative, non-elitist, non-hierarchical individuals I have ever worked with in ANY political organization --- starting back with the "old" SDS in the 1960s and moving through a variety of experiences in the anti-war movement in Madison, Wisconsin etc. etc. True, many of these folks aren't "household names" [though some are...] but they are part of the "SSA crowd" as much as Rick, Sam Bowles, Tom Weisskopf and David Gordon. It may be certainly fair to complain that Rick Edwards doesn't practice what his (earlier?) work might preach but what does this have to do with the issues raised by the concept of the S.S.A. as a way of analyzing the dynamics of late Capitalism?? The ideas that individuals write and espouse may or may not be contradicted by the BEHAVIOR of those individuals [Engels was a capitalist for God's sake!] but that's almost completely irrelevant (well it IS completely irrelevant) to the value of those ideas. I've just read a wonderful biography of the great radical historian William Appleman Williams. [Paul Buhle and Ed Rice-Maximin _William Appleman Williams: The Tragedy of Empire_] His work had a tremendous positive impact on the study of history and the force with which the anti-war movement could speak to ordinary Americans about American imperialism --- particularly in the mid to late 1960s. Yet personally he was an unmitigated sexist who treated a couple of his wives very shabbily and failed to understand and credit the women's movement and the rise in women's studies as a legitimate area of historical investigation. THAT DIDN'T REDUCE THE VALUE OF HIS BOOKS! Sorry for going on ... and on Blair Sandler -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2372] Re: Unemployment: An Appeal (fwd)
The Appeal Sid has forwarded ought to be circulated in the US with its own wording. It fits discussions we had on PEN about four years ago that boiled down to the fact that a concerted effort of "reflation" (good 1930s term!) by Europe, the US and Japan, would counter the competitive deflationary pressures that have brought us to this terrible situation. Anyone here want to draft a North American version of this? Maybe applied by all three NAFTA countries?? -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2319] Jeff Cohen on Crossfire (fwd)
Dear Penners and Friends: Please forward this message to anyone and everyone who might be convinced to call CNN after Monday and Tuesday. Thanks in advance, Mike Meeropol From: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jeff Cohen, FAIR's Executive Director, will guest-host Crossfire on Monday, January 15 and Tuesday, January 16. Please tune in and let CNN know if Jeff Cohen is the kind of person you'd like to see hosting Crossfire permanently. We expect CNN to make a decision shortly. Tom Johnson President, CNN One CNN Center PO Box 105366 Atlanta, GA 30348-5366 CNN comment line is 404-827-1500. E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** The following was given to CNN in November: An Open Letter to CNN on Selecting a Crossfire Co-host We send you this communication because we value the left vs. right debate format that CNN offers each night. Such a format can contribute greatly to democracy and national debate. Together, our organizations represent millions of mainstream Americans -- and some of the leading progressive constituencies in our country. Now that you are considering a new Crossfire co-host "from the left," we urge you to choose an individual who is an unapologetic advocate for progressive issues. As Crossfire co-hosts, Patrick Buchanan, John Sununu and Bob Novak have been forceful on-air champions of most right-wing causes and movements. But the other side has often been represented by individuals who -- while informed and articulate -- are not allied with or strongly supportive of progressive constituencies. This creates an imbalanced, incomplete and sometimes fuzzy debate. We encourage you to choose a bonafide advocate for progressive causes and activism -- and not a middle-of-the-road establishment pundit or political figure who just happens to be a Democrat. Public Citizen Ralph Nader National Organization for Women National Education Association United Steelworkers of America National Rainbow Coalition Southern Christian Leadership Conference National Council of La Raza Sierra Club Greenpeace Earth Island Institute Center for Defense Information Peace Action (formerly SANE/Freeze) Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Gay Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation Americans for Democratic Action -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2326] HELP! (need publisher address)
Sorry to ask such a silly question. I've decided to use THE NEW FIELD GUIDE TO THE US ECONOMY in classes that begin in A WEEK (gasp!). I called up the Center for Popular Economics only to find out the office is closed till the 20th or so. I need to know the PUBLISHER so I can call them and place an order using a credit card IMMEDIATELY. Anyone who can help me RIGHT NOW (THursday afternoon) please bleeb me a message privately. Thanks so much. -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2306] Lewis column on balanced budget idiocy
This is reposted from the Mercury News. I have explicit permission to repost their stuff. Budget standoff exposes the true Republican agenda By Anthony Lewis ANYONE WHO WAS still not sure what the Republican radicals in Congress really wanted should be enlightened by now. For in the last week the House Republicans have disclosed their hearts' desires with extraordinary candor. The candor was forced upon them by circumstances of their own making. The tactic of pressing President Clinton to accept their budget priorities by shutting down much of the government backfired. The public grew irritated at the loss of government services. Laying off federal employees with a promise to give them back pay later for not working looked more and more absurd. So House Speaker Newt Gingrich and his colleagues in the House leadership retreated. They put through legislation that sent all federal employees back to work until at least Jan. 26. But the legislation allowed only some of those employees to do the actual work for which they were hired. The Republicans were determined not to let the government reopen activities that they disliked. What were the disapproved programs? These were some: -- Head Start, providing early education to poor children. -- The Environmental Protection Agency. -- The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. -- The Securities and Exchange Commission, regulating the nation's securities markets. In insisting on those terms, the House Republicans made clear what the budget conflict with President Clinton is all about. It is not, as they claim, about a balanced budget. It is about what the budget will fund: what the government should do. In short, the House Republicans have been using the budget process for what they could not accomplish through regular legislation: to remake the government in their image. They have been attempting a coup. Another bill passed by Congress allowed all federal agencies to resume their work if Clinton presented a plan to balance the budget in seven years. He immediately did so. But the Environmental Protection Agency, for example, is given such meager funds in the temporary funding plan that it must abandon much of what it has been doing. There is the kind of question that the budget conflict really presents: Do we want to protect wetlands and clean air and water? The Republican radicals want to gut that protection. Having discovered that open attacks on environmental laws are politically harmful, they are trying to do the gutting in the guise of balancing the budget. The attempt to disguise what is at stake in the budget conflict continues despite the moment of forced candor. Thus Rep. Ron Lewis, in a letter to The New York Times criticizing a column of mine, said the Republicans truly were waging ``a historic struggle to balance the budget.'' He ignored the real points at issue, such as the fact that their plan balances the budget in ways that hurt poor working families while giving large benefits to the richest 1 percent of Americans. The reaction of Republican leaders to Clinton's budget-balancing plan showed again that the conflict is not about balance but about what kind of government the budget will finance. Republicans protested that the Clinton plan did not adopt their proposals to end federal welfare and did not cut back hard enough on Medicare and Medicaid. It is the contents of the budget that matter, and they matter a lot. There are many ways to balance the budget -- by cutting defense, for instance, as a University of Maryland poll shows most Americans want to do. But the present battle is about domestic programs, and its outcome will determine the character of the federal government for years to come. Anthony Lewis is a columnist for the New York Times. Published 1/09/96 in the San Jose Mercury News. Jonathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] ELLEN: you might forward this to your lists! Mike Meeropol
[PEN-L:2149] Re: Budget b.s.: A proposal
I'm VERY INTERESTED in Mark Weisbrot's project. I think it would have to be coordinated. I myself proposed (months ago) that we approach the AARP for help in coordinating such a move. Maybe EPI or the "Center for Budget and National Priorities" would be a better place to house the project. This is NOT a short term issue. Even after there is a "deal" there will be twists and turns, especially when the first recession hits. [When the unemployment rate goes above the CBO's projected "average" what will the budget balancers do? If they permit the deficit to rise they might get back on tract but given political constraints they probably won't which will make the recovery so slow that unemployment will AVERAGE above 6.1% and the result will be a failure to reach their goal]. If an ad and campaign could make this prediction from the get-go, it might make "our side" more respectable when we're proven correct! I have no time nor ability to do any coordination but I'm more than willing to "take direction"! Any other volunteers? Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2150] Re: academic unionism
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill mitchell wrote: if pen-l would like a report from me on how i am coping with being a HOD in a time of considerable structural change in OZ unis and in a faculty (dept) which is facing major budget cuts and a necessity to reduce our staff levels, sing out and i can tell you the whole gory story. Bill: I'm singing out!: Me, too. Unfortunately, I don't know any Victor Jara songs but I love the verse from "It Could Have Been Me" by Holly Near about Victor's vicious murder at the hands of the junta. Anyone know if in post-Pinochet (almost) Chile, there is any official recognition of Victor as a martyr to the coup? Please post to the list, Bill. I'm about to become chairman (but it's a small department) and I want to avoid as many pitfalls as possible. Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2113] Re: class position of professors
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On a more general note, I think it is important when teaching introductory economics classes that have a micro component to talk to students about some of the realities of the labor market regarding wages, benefits, and working conditions. Most people have a very idealistic and romanticized conception of what work in different occupations is like. I tell them about the routine, lack of creativity, unlikely prospects for job promotion, and general oppression that accompanies the overwhelming amount of jobs, including "professional" jobs. They don't like that part of the course *at all*. They would rather keep their illusions. They complain *loudly* when I tell them about some of the realities of work in our society and some have even went to counselors or their parents for solace! Jerry, this sounds like a fascinating and very valuable "unit" to be introduced into micro-sections of Principles. Do you have any materials you assign or is it basically oral presentation? Do you have any factual material that you consider particularly useful in making this point. It is a particularly valuable seed to plant because when the REALITY of their situation hits them, they might very well remember what you said and go "EUREKA" and go running through the streets of Athens naked ... NO, wait a minute, that was a different realization ... They might reach out to other workers in search of solidarity rather than merely blaming themselves or their PARTICULAR boss, etc. If anyone else out there has experiences in making THIS PARTICULAR POINT about the "real world" of work, even so-called "professional" work -- this might be a good time to start pooling such informaton. Many principles of economics sequences do micro in the second semester (mine does) so many are beginning (finishing) their planning for that semester as we write!! Cheers, Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2054] Did the French Railway Workers sell out?
Dear Penners: I make no apologies for forwarding the European message which Bill Mitchell believes was immediately refuted by the fact that the trains are not running in France. If "timing is everything" then it is good that the issue posed by the writer --- that this was a "strike against Maastricht [sp?]" --- ought to be discussed, not in the heat of the strike going on, but in the cool reasonableness of the "calm" before another "potential storm." The following excerpt from a post from France refers to a proposed Dec 21 "summit" which may or may not address the issues Bill has decided should be a litmus test for the solidarity of the Railway workers with other oppressed members of the French body politic. I personally remain quite open minded about the ultimate effects of the French strike --- however, unlike Bill, by INSTINCT is that if it's a strike and it appears to be pushing against capitalist power it's PROBABLY worth supporting -- as a variation on the old anglo-saxon principle of justice, strikers are "right until proven wrong" in my book. Check out one observer's comments: Juppe originally refused to budge. His line is that this is the only way to cut the deficit, and to conform to new EEC guidelines. Its a "liberalize or die" argument. He has strong support from the financial community, which fears that his failure could lead to big drops in the value of the franc. But the electorate is pissed, because Chirac got himself elected by promising economic growth and lower unemployment, then put Juppe in to slash and bash. Throughout the first two weeks of the strike, polls showed remarkably strong support for the strikers, with well over half of those asked supporting their demands. Then, last week, with everyone becoming very frazzled, Juppe capitulated to the railroad workers' specific demands and agreed to hold a "social summit" on the issue of the larger public sector budget on December 21. The union leadership tried to keep everyone out until the summit, but just couldn't do it. Christmas is coming, its cold, there is a sense that something as already been wonand the strikers are now beginning to lose public support for those same reasons. So some trains started rolling again on Saturday and the prediction is that things may get back to normal next week. Then again, they may not, and much depends on what happens at the "summit." I think this discussion has been quite valuable on PEN-L --- I just hope we can get more comments from Europe. -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2030] DAvid Frum on California Home Health Aides
This morning on NPR, there was a commentary by right-wing "journalist" David Frum (wrote _Dead Right_ [!!]). He noted that Sweeney's union (Service Workers) had just won a dues check-off for its organized home health aides in California who get paid by the state. He then zinging the listeners -- first he noted that the workers are paid very little and "who would begrudge them a raise" -- then he added, "until you realize that half of them are caring for members of their immediate family." He then went on to philosophize that that's what's wrong with government today -- things that used to be "our" personal responsibilities that people would do for their families or themselves just because they _should_ do this -- are now being done by government. And the union then has the gall to hit an already strapped California budget for HIGHER PAY for only taking care of a realtive and (in Frum;s [unspoken] opinion) should be done for NOTHING. 1) He kept forgetting to let the listeners realize that if HALF work for members of their immediate family the OTHER HALF don't. 2) He left out the obvious fact that to the extent that people are cared for at home by their immediate family they SAVE THE TAXPAYERS LOTS OF money by reducing the use of skilled nursing care (often covered by Medicaid) or hospital stays (covered by Medicare or Insurance -- the latter, of course raises rates!). 3) How many people caring for their immediate family have to GIVE UP JOBS to do this. ANyway: I'm writing this not just to vent off steam. Are there folks out there (I'm sending this to two lists, H-STATE and PEN-L) who know the deal in California and can give some details which Frum's commentary left out? I'm in the mood to call NPR's comment line and give some rebuttal -- though anyone out there who knows this stuff cold is urged to do it instead of me since I don't know anything except the "gut" responses I listed above. Thanks in advance. BTW: I'm glad Sweeney's union has organized home health workers. If David Frum's against that, then it must be a GOOD THING! -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2043] Post Coming Re France
Dear Penners: I am sending, "text only" a complete file in my PC consisting of an anonymous posting from a European comrade who has some important and valuable (IMHO) things to say about the recent PEN debate about the French Strike. The mailing will arrive without a title but might indicate it came from me. This is a warning to tell you what it is. Cheers, Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2044]
ANONYMOUS POSTING FROM EUROPE: The political target of the French strikes is the Maastricht Treaty and the neoliberal government of Alain Juppe. Everyone knows that. It's all over the news here; what do they tell you in the US of A? Heaven knows what they get told in Australia. *Everyone* from shopkeepers to ghetto youth to bluecollar no-hopers supports the strike. They all support it for their different reasons and they are completely confused about what's going on - but they know damn well that if Juppe wins, they'll *all* be worse off, and the ones at the bottom of the heap worst of all. If what Bill [Mitchell] says were true, then the Rail workers would have caved in as soon as Juppe offered them a special private deal. A grand total of ONE railshop voted to return to work. Moreover the problem is nothing to do with the organisation or goals of the strike, the problem is it has no political leadership, because no serious political force in Europe opposes Maastricht except the fascists. That is why the unemployed feel so utterly betrayed and that is what is feeding the right wing. What the left should be asking is why is it that almost *no* serious force on the left has told the truth about Maastricht; they are all so caught up in the joys of European Union that they have completey failed to ask on what basis the unification is being organised. I'm not normally one to chant the virtues of blind militancy as a source of political clarity but on this particular occasion the left has a lot more to learn from the workers than vice versa. Thank goodness that at last, and by no means in time, a mass social movement against European neoliberalism (aka Maastricht) has actually emerged and a curse on the socialists - particularly the so-called 'left' who did everything possible to obstruct it. All power to people who are willing to try and mobilise against it. What I might do sometime is put together a simple list of facts about what the Maastricht Treaty actually *says* (like, eg, it's illegal to try and control the central bank, to subsidise services, etc etc). Maastricht is *also* the imposition without vote, without consent, without any democratic recourse, of a treaty law which *outlaws* deficits. This is what the 'convergence conditions' are all about. Monetary Union *means* that you can't even join unless you have *already* balanced your budget. But worse than that, because of the gross social inequalities in Europe, and because of the complete inadequacy of the fiscal measures needed to ameliorate this, and because monetary union means everyone is hitched to the strongest currency in Europe (the Mark), it means all the poorer countries have to balance their budgets by austerity on the grand scale. No other government measure is left. Monetary policy is handed over to the European Central Bank (read: the Bundesbank) and any government that makes provision for needy citizens or attempts to boost industry that cannot compete at DM-regulated exchange rates, is declared to be acting illegally. This means complete social and economic disaster is staring the majority of European workers and petty commodity producers in the face. It is an indication of what a disastrous state the left has got itself into that on a 'progressive list' we get to the point where a workers' movement against this can be labelled as reactionary. Incidentally if anyone in the US has the quaint notion that Europe is a liberal social idea marred by a shortsighted economic doctrone, I might also add a few choice extracts from the Shengen accords (like, no blacks welcome here even if your own country is so impoverished by the Lome accords that you'll be tortured to death if you return there, and the police have the right to enter any house or place of employment without hindrance, arrest without rights anyone they suspect of being in Europe illegally, detain them and throw them out without appeal...) It's as if the Antebellum South had written the US constitution. Then where would the radicals be? Waffling on about the need for an American ideal, I suppose. No doubt we would be treated to lectures on how without a Social Charter the slaves would have no defence. Meanwhile collaborating with the Confederate Army to remove the slaves most important real defence, namely the ability to get the hell out to a free part of the country. Whatever the debate about European Union, the Maastricht Treaty is not just about dismantling boundaries; it's about imposing universal Gingricth-Thatcherism by *treaty*, which means, you can't throw it out: it's outside government control. I.e. it is declaring neoliberalism to be the constitutional basis of Europe. This is what needs to be explained. Moi, j'accuse the socialist left of abandoning the fight against Maastricht and thereby creating a mass basis for fascism for the first time since Hitler. [MM note: this is because since the only meaningful opposition to
[PEN-L:1984] Re: The continuing disc
Peter.Dorman wrote: STUFF OMITTED For those interested, I will present an analysis along these lines at an URPE panel on labor standards and globalization in SF. This brought me a thought. Could Peter, and other people presenting at the URPE conference e-mail a disk version of their papers to the list (or make it available off list). I won't be in San Francisco and I bet that goes for the majority of PENNERS -- his presentation sounds like something I'd like to read. Cheers and solidarity, Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:1845] Re: eter Dorman on the load of bull
Peter.Dorman wrote: Thanks to Sid for his interesting post on deficit mania and the decimation of the Canadian welfare state. As a rhetorical point, has anyone noticed the absurdity of claims that countries like the US, Canada, the EU states, etc. "can't afford" the level of social spending inherited from the past? Somehow, a social wage that was affordable twenty years ago, before twenty years of slow but positive per capita economic growth, is now beyond our reach. Even the demographic argument (older society) doesn't have the oomph to overcome the gap between rhetoric and reality. How have they been able to sell this load of bull? (See the coverage of the French strike in the New York Times for a typical example.) Peter Dorman I've said this numerous times on PEN-L --- and I'm sure people are sick of it. But I sincerely believe that part of the problem is that the ARGUMENTS against deficits which began to surface in the writings of the anti-Keynesians (like HAzlitt, etc) in the 1950s and really his their stride with the beginnings of the Public Choice stuff -- particularly Buchanan's book _Democracy in Deficit_ and the continued conter-attacks by Milton Friedman, etc. had finally reached critical mass by 1992. Part of the problem was the partisan grasp of the "deficit issue" by the DEMOCRATS beginning with Mondale in 1984 and continuing with books like Benjamin Friedman's _Day of Reckoning_ and Peter Petersen's _The Morning After_. The journalists bought into it and when the economy ran out of gas in 1992 it was easier for the nonsense Perot used (identifying the lousy economic performance of the US economy and then with a BLYTHE ASSERTION [did anyone actually read _United We Stand_??] connected it to DEFICITS!!) during the campaign to strike a responsive chord because the kind of structural analysis of capitalism's failures by radicals that had at least been pretty current in the labor movement and elsewhere in the 1930s and even the 1960s had been DROWNED OUT. (so much for the tyranny of p.c.!) The overwhelming intellectual surrender to the "anti-deficit mantra" is in part based on the fact that "our side" with a few praiseworthy exceptions (I think Robert Eisner is one -- though he's clearly no Marxist, he certainly sounds radical in the US context!) has given up without a fight. I keep wishing people on this list would be interested in taking up the intellectual cudgels. My dream would be a J'ACCUSE advertisement campaign complete with press conferences all over the country but especially in Washington over C-SPAN where we accuse Perot, the President, the Congress, the Concord Coalition, the "intellectuals" of attempting to destroy the modern welfare state based on the nonsensical idea that if "we" don't balance the budget the country will a) go bankrupt, b) dissolve into chaos, c) disappear, d) ... [grow backwards??]. And we should then insist that the media have "our side" represented whenever they discuss it. We should be writing letters to every media outlet whenever the issue is discussed to remind people that there is NO RATIONAL REASON TO BALANCE THE BUDGET so long as the DEBT/GDP ratio doesn't grow indefinitely!!! Sorry ... I got carried away. Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:1849] Re: eter Dorman on the load of bull
arners, then services are under pressure. the only other alternative is ever increasing debt levels. But remember, if the debt levels don't rise FASTER than GDP that's not an increase in pressure. Debt increases CAN be calibrated. Just because there are episodes when they seem out of control doesn't mean controlled increases are impossible. anyway, that is enough for now. kind regards bill All the best, Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:1775] Re: Re[2]: THE QUESTION OF WEALTH
lbell wrote: Jim, you are always going off on twigs! Love you anyway. But Gates owns the rights to the use of what he sells, this generates ongoing revenue. He also has kept ownership of what he started. If he got ill tomorrow, his business would continue to generate income. This is what I am getting to. Create wealth and it will create revenue for generations to come. It's what we should be thinking about in this country. Magic Johnson, put it very well several years back at a graduation speech. Telling his audience they better make sure they own something; otherwise, they have to go back every year to the man and beg for a new contract. Owning something does not guarantee that that ownership will produce a stream of income in the future. In fact if EVERYONE owned sufficient wealth producing property to survive on their own, then the only income they could generate would be based upon how much TIME they personally could spending using what they own to produce a stream of income. It may be obvious but it's worth repeating. The only way OWNING SOMETHING can translate into income in our society today is if there are a sufficiently large enough group of people who own nothing so that they must work for you so that what you own can generate enough income to keep you satisfied! CHeers, Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:1718] Re: Alternative Capitalisms (from Riccardo)
Riccardo Bellofiore wrote: I have doubts on the second problem raised by Hugo. First, I think that Aglietta C. are not guilty of a strictly 'national' orientation (as Hugo himself aknowledges): they go on analysing the arena of 'regional' supranational capitalisms, taking into account the crisis of national economic policies. Second, I think the plurality of models of capitalism is a fact. Third, I think these models are in conflict: at the minimum, there is a 'laisser faire' capitalism, and a Schumpeterian one, and the second went better than the former in the '70s and '80s, contrary to the received wisdom (I say this without being a fan of the latter). The 'laisser faire' version is obviously Thatcherite-Reaganomics. I wonder what is the "Schumpeterian" version. Are you identifying the statist approachs of MITI and some of the other state-aided innovative activity in Continental Europe with the creation of Schumpeterian "new industries"? Isn't there a significant difference between the "Japanese" version of this approach and the continental European version. I also don't "prefer" the former to the latter but I wonder if on macroeconomic grounds we might not say that 'laissez faire' did better FOR THE ECONOMY (not the people) than the continental European model. Some would argue that international competition and financial flows are leading to a convergence of European Social Democratic (formerly "social democratic") capitalism with the more laissez faire version in the US and Britain. I don't know enough about Europe to even hazard a guess on that one. From a hater of the 'laissez faire' model of Capitalism, US style, Mike Four, I think that also the talking of globalisation of capital is a mess. Yes, there is a lot of work to be done. riccardo == Riccardo Bellofiore e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Economics Tel:(39) -35- 277505 (direct) University of Bergamo (39) -35- 277501 (dept.) Piazza Rosate, 2(39) -11- 5819619 (home) I-24129 Bergamo Fax:(39) -35- 249975 Italy ====== -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:1695] Re: Cuts?
At 10:22 AM 12/4/95 -0800, you wrote: Any thoughts about the claim that the GOP's Medicare plan(s) relies on decreases in projected expenditure increases rather than *real cuts*? Several of the Right's spokespersons claim that there are NO CUTS in the plan. I'm somewhat skeptical of this claim. What do you think? Jim Westrich's response covered a lot of important ground. However, the most important point to make is that the "increases" that the GOP is merely "reducing" are in what is called "current services." That means, the way to maintain the delivery of current levels of service given that the population qualifying will increase and the cost per person will increase with the rise in the price of these services will be to keep the dollar amount spent rising to keep up with these other trends. When they "cut the rate of growth" they make it IMPOSSIBLE to continue current services. When the argument FINALLY gets to that point, the "cutters" argue that the states can deliver MORE services at lower costs because they will be more efficient (MEDICAID) and that the increase in choice will cut costs because business competition will be involved (MEDICARE). Both claims are dubious to say the least. This is where the studies of the MEDI-CAL (California) experience can be most useful in showing what has happened historically. It's a really rotten world out there ... -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:1526] Wattenberg (again!)
Dear Penners: Finally was able to track down some information about the Wattenberg show "Values Matter." It appears to have been a virtual "one man show" by Mr. Wattenberg. The producers are BJW, Inc. (obviously him, his initials!) and something called New River Media, Inc (maybe his consulting company, who knows). The originating station was CH. 13 in NYC but usually that doesn't mean much it's just a source which puts somethinginto the PBS network. The ONLY FUNDING source was the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. My local media people suggested this was a perfect example of C.P.B. trying to win some "politically correct" brownie points with the republicans on the Hill --- they surmised that when Wattenberg's book was in the pipeline, someone from CPB approached him and asked him it he'd like to put together a show. He probably jumped at the chance to enhance the sales of his book and CPB jumped at the chance to look good to the right wing. Meanwhile, the viewer gets screwed by one-sided propaganda --- what else is new? I plan to call Ch. 13 and see if I can get a copy of it --- it might be useful for a "debate" in various classes --- Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:1494] Re: State taxes
Richard Ira Lavine wrote: Here's the reality of trying to deal with state and local taxes: omissions I would consider it a great step forward if we could direct the current public discussion on tax reform in Texas toward a consideration of distributional impact. Once there, we could get into ability to pay, etc. and I would be happy to settle for moving toward proportionality. In fact, Gov. Bush is pushing hard to replace $9 billion in local school property taxes (and $1 billion in corporate franchise taxes, tipping off who is really pushing tax reform to begin with) with some kind of consumption tax. His argument is that a consumption tax would promote savings, and thus economic growth (the Holy Grail of all state politicians). The fight will probably not be over the regressivity of any changes (although I'll do my best), but instead over the role of consumption taxes. Dear Dick: For starters what about mentioning the fact that state INCOME and local PROPERTY taxes are deductible from federal income taxes and state SALES taxes ARE NOT! In the era of budget balancing mania in the Congress, it's very unlikely that they would approve a new loophole to subsidize state tax-payers. Thus, by lowering income and local property taxes and raising state consumption taxes the same amount the state INCREASES the total tax burden of state taxpayers who also pay federal income tax. Might work?? Dick Lavine Center for Public Policy Priorities Austin, TX -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:1466] Re: public finance texts?
I used to use Eckstein's _Public Finance_ from the small paperback Prentice-Hall series. I don't know what's available in the small size format but the reason I mention it is I believe that the last edition of Joseph Pechman's _FEDERAL TAX POLICY_ is still the best way to introduce students to the ins and outs of taxation issues. Progressivity vs. proportionality; consumption vs. income taxation; the capital gains preference, the homeowners' preferences, intergovernmental fiscal relations, the incidence of the corporate income tax, the incidence of the real estate property tax, etc. etc. are all there. I have never seen a BIG THICK hardback Public Finance textbook that was worth the price for the students and always attempt to put together a bunch of paperbacks. Since I've taught public finance for 23 years and am back at it this spring, I would be VERY interested if there in fact is a real honest-to-goodness text that is good enough to use. Pechman is getting a bit dated and Eckstein's been out of print for years! In solidarity, Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:1467] Letter to Clinton re welfare reform
Dear Penners: Many thanks to Teresa Amott for reminding me/us that there are some things we can do no matter how small to attempt to make a difference. Below is the e-mail I sent to Clinton re "welfare reform" Dear Mr. President: I am writing to express in the strongest way I possibly can that you MUST veto any version of welfare reform that increases the number of children in poverty. I did not support your original version of "ending welfare as we know it" because I do not think that the basis of the welfare problem is "too much illegitimacy" and an unwillingness of the poor to work. However, the proposal you had originally made had money in it for CHILD CARE and for JOB TRAINING which the Republicans, EVEN IN THE SENATE, have taken out! This means that the Republican bill (though "better" than the House version --- query: was Mussolini "better" than Hitler??) is even more unacceptable than your original proposal. Now your own Department of HHS has come up with projections that clearly show that lots of children will be made worse off by the abolition of the entitlement status of AFDC. Show yourself as a man of principle. You KNOW from your incredibly intelligent reading of the research that the Republican approach will do more harm than good. Please, please, please, PLEASE, veto anything that comes to your desk out of conference unless it retains entitlement status! By the way, I'm not just a citizen who voted for you and will only vote for you next time if you show backbone on this and other issues --- I am a professor of economics at a college and I have been teaching about these issues for over 20 years. I know whereof I speak! Sincerely, Michael Meeropol -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:1440] Re: State taxes
I think it is important that the ORIGINAL arguments in favor of tax progressivity be clearly developed --- Virtually EVERYONE who supports what they call a "flat tax" believes there ought to be a ZERO bracket -- that is, a level of income FREE of taxation so that no one in poverty pays income tax on their poverty level wages. Thus, the argument in favor of progressivity is already SOMEWHAT conceded by even those who support a flat tax. Then we get to the question of whether INCOME ABOVE POVERTY should be subjected to one rate or rising rates. The basis of the progressivity argument here is the intensity of the need for the income as you are close to the poverty level. The whole point of "ability to pay" as a principle of taxation is that one can afford to part with a higher percentage of your income because as your income goes up, the PERCENTAGE you're spending on necessities shrinks, the percentage you're spending on luxuries goes up. A single rate would tax a higher percentage of the income needed for necessities of the near poor and lower middle class than it would of the rich --- only escalating rates with approximate EQUAL taxation on "non necessity income" This is somewhat complicated but it really is an important point. One must somehow illustrate the RISING ability to pay taxes as incomes rise. Another point: "flattening" the tax rates to a single rate over a zero braket means a TAX BOOST for the lower middle class who are barely above poverty. all the best, Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:1419] Re: Medicaid Note [Re: Wattenberg and Values]
Thanks to Jim Westrich for that note. I didn't get your personal address so I apologize for replying to the list. In terms of understanding the reasons for Medicaid growth since 1988, what do you think of Holohan, et al's book _Medicaid Since 1980_ put out by the Urban Institute. I have it, but haven't read it yet. Wondering if it differs from the National Academy's study. Also, what's the best way to GET that study? Thanks, with apologies to the rest of the list. Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:1399] A Dishonest Abomination on Public Television
Dear Penners:
First of all, somebody please forward this to FEMECON and to FAIR.
I had the distinct displeasure of seeing part of Ben Wattenberg's atrocity
against truth last night on public television. Dubbed "values matter" he
trotted out all the dishonest old saws of the right about crime and welfare
(and education, too) The only part of the show that he "permitted" any
debate to occur was in the section on affirmative action.
I missed a lot of the part about crime and was so disgusted by the time the
education stuff came on that I didn't watch closely.
In the welfare section he included:
showing how much welfare spending had increased by using nominal rather than
constant dollars and including medicaid in there as if it involved income
for the poor. Bottom line: the transfers to the poor are the equivalent of
over $20,000 of pre-tax income from work.
he had a neat trick of sitting with a bunch of welfare mothers trying to get
off welfare saying, "Ive heard that some women actually have children just
to get more money. I don't believe it" and having them ('the experts') tell
him that lots do in fact have children just to get the money (despite the
evidence that there's no difference in out of wedlock births between states
with wildly different benefit levels).
He talked about the rise in the number of people of welfare without showing
that the percentage of the population receiving AFDC has been virtually
constant for over 20 years.
I could go on and on. The point is he DIDN'T HAVE ONE VOICE OF DISSENT from
his lockstep presentation. It was unbelievably outrageous.
People should try to find out where this was produced.
People should flood their local tv stations with request for equal time.
We need a full copy of the script (or people ought to get a videotape of it
--- I was so pissed I forgot to pop in a tape so all I have is my memory).
This is somewhere where we actually can make a difference because many of us
have some knowledge that can be put to good use.
I hope we can get something started. Still mad, Mike
--
Mike Meeropol
Economics Department
Cultures Past and Present Program
Western New England College
Springfield, Massachusetts
"Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!"
Unrepentent Leftist!!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:1407] Re: Wattenberg and Values
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike Meerpol, reacting to "Values Matter," (tv essay by Ben Wattenberg) wrote: "He talked about the rise in the number of people of welfare without showing that the percentage of the population receiving AFDC has been virtually constant for over 20 years." No. He very clearly illustrated that AFDC $s had stayed fairly constant but that welfare in other categories had risen. The other categories included MEDICAID. If you take AFDC and Food STamps, there has been an absolute decline in the real purchasing power of AFDC plus FOOD STAMPS for the past 21 years. Including MEDICAID is totally inappropriate because all the rising cost of MEDICAID measures is medical cost inflation, not increased "income" to the person "consuming" the medical care. [lots of MEDICAID finances the ability of formerly middle class elderly to live in nursing homes without cutting into their children's inheritance!] And I recall a state- ment that they were working in constant dollars as well, though that may have been in the section on education spending. It was (on education). There was a chart that showed medical care, food stamps, "other welfare", energy assistance, housing assistance as rising dramatically since the 1960s, ALL in non-constant dollars. Generally I agree that his presentation was awfully biased while straining after the appearance of evenhandedness. They did say it was an essay, not a research report, but then why go out of the way to pull in all those dupes (the welfare mothers all chosen from a group who are involved in a program to get them off welfare -- that is, primed to say the right thing -- and honest, hardworking citizens carefully including a well-dressed black woman, and experts all chosen for the uniformity of their views). I enjoy statements of opinion, but I prefer that they not masquerade as something else. Still, what do you think of his dominant message, that it's "values" that will determine the next election rather than economics? First he mis=states and mis-interprets the economics so as to show that the values "everybody" shares are being trashed by wrong-headed policies --- then, after having used fake economics to get everyone's "value-meter" up past the boiling point he asserts that the effort to "change" values (note: in order to combat the terrible economic reality he's just medaciously created!) will dominate the next election. Which right-wing conservative foundation financed this show? Where did it originate? Which PBS station?? we ought to bombard them with letters, faxes, messages with specific refutations!!! Cindy Cotter [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:1383] Re: teaching
Comment on Evan's comment about teaching: I am just being "forced" back into teaching some micro in a one-semester "Business Environment" course in our college's MBA program. We've got to give them about 5 weeks of micro. Our approach is to use the policy orientation of Shepard's _Public Policies Towards Business_ (this is the slimmed down version of Clair Wilcox's _Public Control of Business_ text which was used everywhere I suppose in the 1950s and early 1960s!!) to "teach" micro we end up showing how price-discrimination works, how regulation supposedly plays an important role, etc. etc. -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:1320] Re: Responses to query on books regarding changes in income and wealth
A couple of slight corrections to Paul Z's list: I believe that AMERICA, WHAT WENT WRONG is written by BARLETT and STEELE Williams Greider is the author of _Who Will Tell the People_. -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:594] We need to respond
Dear Penners: Thursday's Wall St. Journal had a particularly odious column on the OP ED page by some Cato Institute folks who trotted out the old lie that welfare is very generous (more generous than wages) --- the did this by putting in MEDICAID. We all know that's a crock. We need someone who can get his/her hands on Medicaid data state by state (my 1993 Green Book is a bit out of date, the 1994 one doesn't seem to have Medicaid data --- anyoone see the 1995 edition) and give a couple of examples to expose how dishonest the presentation is --- and then make the comment that Medicaid cannot be counted as INCOME to the poor. It's income to the doctors, etc. I'll try to put something together using 1992 data but it would be better if stuff came with more recent data. Anyone out there from EPI? Cheers, Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:5682] Iqbal Masih
Dear Penners: I have notified my friend of the difficulties with the WEB site. I asked him to send the note directly to PEN-L since I will be leavng before he has a chance to contact me with the correction. Sorry for the difficulties. One of those things on the net... The documentary Harry mentioned was quite dramatic ... All the best, signing off for now, Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:5532] Re: Gil's aside re Republican class warfare!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As an aside on Mike's post, I'd like to comment on two code phrases in Bob Dole's "Republican response" to Clinton's proposal. They're interesting because one hears them a lot from right-wingers these days, and in taken in tandem they contradict each other in substance. # 1 omitted 2) "Return education to state and local control" As in, we statespersonlike Republicans want to get the Federal government off your backs and out of your wallet, so that you can have your children educated as you see fit. Translation: yeah, we know the US spends the smallest percentage of GDP (or close to that) among the developed countries on public education, the largest percentage on private education, and maintains the largest disparities in per-pupil spending. And that's fine with us (notice the absence of education provisions in the Contract on America, e.g.), so let's take steps to perpetuate these trends. In trying to figure out why class conscious "leaders" who represent (however haltingly) the interest of the ruling class would be willing to shrink the available pool of educated citizens in their own country, I've come to the conclusion that Robert Reich's hint at the "secession of the successful" in _The Work of Nations_ is really on the money. The ruling class is now (or becoming) state-less. EVerywhere in the world, the power of the state is aimed at preserving the rights of capital. CApital now has the ENTIRE WORLD from which to pick their labor force needs. It is NOT IMPORTANT anymore for a particular _country_ to be the home for the most important capital accumulation activities of any particular business --- they can more to where the (appropriately skilled) labor is. Perhaps even more important --- the highly skilled, creative, labor (what Reich calls the "symbolic analysts") can come from any part of the world. They don't have to be "home grown." In this context, a widely successful system of public education is TOTALLY UNNECESSARY. --- the inequality in the US system may actually be a harbinger of the future. [sort of like Marx warning the Germans in Vol. I of Capital that the story he tells about Britain as the archetype capitalist social formation shows the future for the rest of the world!!] Reich's lame efforts to suggest that some kind of altruistic nationalism should conquer the "secession of the successful" suggests precious few reasons why any class conscious politician would resisit the transformations underway as exemplified by the promises (AND OMISSIONS -- good point, Gil!) in the Contract with America. As always -- we have to figure out a way to fight back. I agree with Loren, we ought to be kicking, yelling and screaming. And there ought to be a DEMOCRATIC _PARTY challenge to Clinton's reelection. I wouldn't have said this before his speech because I thought he might fight the Republican onslaught --- but he just joined them. I could have puked when I saw Laura Tyson THREE TIMES say, "WE _have_ to balance the budget!!" And of course leave it to MacNeil-Lehrere not to have ANYONE one who has a different point of view. We ought to call them and demand they have a Bob Eisner or even one of us on!!! More gnashing of teeth! -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
