Re: Ken Starr
Apologies to all you non-USers - and maybe a few USers too - who don't share the present obsession with Tailgate. I'm heartily sick of even the New Zealand's press's obsession with what local cartoonist, Garrick Tremaine, has labelled Fornigate. Bill /---\ | Bill Rosenberg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Phone:(64)(03)3252-811 Fax:(64)(03)3253-865 | \---/
Re: reviewing books
"I never read a book before reviewing it; it prejudices a man so." Sydney Smith, 1771-1845. Bill Date sent: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 10:46:51 -0500 From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: reviewing books To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gerald Levy wrote: Doug has condemned Gillott and Kumar's book without reading it or even seeing a copy. If what is good for the goose is good for the gander, then Doug should not object to others who have not read _Wall Street_ from condemning it sight unseen. Perhaps Doug will now admit that his "review" of books prior to reading is more than a little problematic and speculative? You're right, Jerry, on the strength of this precedent, I think everyone should condemn Wall Street sight unseen. Or any other book s/he likes to hate. It's the holiday season; condemn generously! Doug
Re: Big Brother: Bill 160 (fwd)
Murray !!! Bill Forwarded message follows - Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 18:28:32+0100 From: jurriaan bendien [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Big Brother: Bill 160 (fwd) To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In response to Valis: Yeah I know what you are talking about. In New Zealand Muldoon set up the Security Intelligence Service in the late 1970s and they used to spy on campus, registering political science students among other things. The biggest laugh was when an SIS agent was spotted with a Penthouse in his briefcase. If the Canadian Government is doing draconian things like you say, the students should respond by collecting some personal information "without requiring permission" on Canadian politicians, publish it, and see how the politicians like it. What does the Canadian Government need this information for anyway ? To breed a new generation of model compliant citizens ? In solidarity Jurriaan. PS - for a New Zealand link on this issue, try Murray Horton at [EMAIL PROTECTED] He's knowledgable in that area. The Ontario government is poised to give itself the power to collect and disclose private information about students - including medical problems, sexual orientation and religious beliefs -without requiring the students' permission. Etc, etc. etc. Hey, just what gives with Ontario, anyway? Should we expect boat people any time soon? The political pox raging there somewhat resembles the unlamented Muldoon government in New Zealand during the Reaganzeit. I suspect that when Quebec becomes sovereign Canada will simply dissolve, and the money folks in Ontario are doing their renovations in advance. Any knowledgeable comment from up there? valis /-\ | Bill Rosenberg, Acting Director, Centre for Computing and Biometrics, | |P. O. Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand. | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone:(64)(03)3252-811 Fax:(64)(03)3253-865 | \-/
Re: Big Brother: Bill 160 (fwd)
Sorry folks - just forwarded Juriaan's message to the list rather than its intended recipient! Bill /-\ | Bill Rosenberg, Acting Director, Centre for Computing and Biometrics, | |P. O. Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand. | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone:(64)(03)3252-811 Fax:(64)(03)3253-865 | \-/
Re: Chossudovsky Award
Date sent: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 13:06:38 + From: maxsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Chossudovsky Award To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] First prize for citing Tom Lehrer first goes to E. Dannin. Honorable mention to Prof Rosenberg for tracing the reference one layer back, and also because I'm not certain, given his extra-hemispheric location, whether he was first or not. Well done Ellen. I guess my consolation prize in lieu of a drink is this honary title of "Prof". Mind you, I don't know what this hemisphere-chauvinist view of the world is. If you consult the time zones in your atlas, you'll see that New Zealand is first in the world for everything! BTW Bill, Maxine said hello back. Her talk was well received, though ten minutes before its close the long hand of neo-liberalism conspired to empty our building with a false-alarm fire drill. Thanks for passing this on. Bill
Re: Global Financial Crisis II
"One man deserves the credit,
One man deserves the fame,
And Nicolai Ivanovich
Chossudovsky is his name!
(Hey!)"
(First one to trace this gets a free drink at my
expense at the AEA meetings.)
Sawicky parody on Tom Lehrer, parody on Danny Kaye/Sylivia Fine
("Stanislavsky").
Mind you, despite all this, Michel Chossudovsky has written some
outstanding analyses - I can think of a couple on Africa and
Yugoslavia. So I'm not conceding that Choss is a Lobachevsky
by any means (unless it was the real Lobachevsky).
Just Email the drink thanks.
Bill
==
Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200
202-775-8810 (voice) 1660 L Street, NW
202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036
Opinions here do not necessarily represent the
views of anyone associated with the Economic
Policy Institute.
===
Re: New Zealand Employment Contracts Act
Symposium on the New Zealand Employment Contracts Act Sounds like this symposium has an all-star cast! Just to bring matters to do with the ECA up to date a little. The government is now considering effectively abolishing the current legislated entitlement to three weeks annual leave, by "allowing" workers to exchange some or all of their leave for money. This naturally will leave workers with low bargaining power with no holidays. A similar proposal may do the same for statutory holidays such as Christmas day. These are among a number of options in an official options paper leaked by the Alliance Party. There is also a suggestion that employers be entitled to bargain directly with workers, completely bypassing the union. Doubtless other similar proposals are in store in a review of labour legislation currently being carried out by the government, results to be announced officially in the next few weeks. Bill
The New Zealand Experiment
Those interested in the New Zealand Economic Experiment may be interested in a brief paper by Paul Dalziel, Reader in Economics, Department of Economics and Marketing, Lincoln University. I reproduce its abstract and conclusion below. Paul has not yet had it accepted for publication, but is happy for it to be distributed and is interested in comments, so I can send a Word 6 version to those who are interested. Bill Rosenberg Abstract: Evans, Grimes and Wilkinson's (1996) essay on New Zealand's economic reforms claims that real per capita income has risen above its pre- reform trend, overseas debt has fallen, and the number of households experiencing poverty is no greater than before the reform program. This communication documents that the data producing these claims are not reliable. Instead, there is still no clear-cut measured improvement in New Zealand's growth performance, overseas debt was significantly higher in 1995 than in 1984, and substantial income sacrifices between 1988 and 1993 doubled the number of households in poverty. Conclusion: New Zealand's program of economic reforms continues to attract international attention, and EGW's article is likely to be widely cited. Using official and public data sets, however, the previous three sections allow the following statements to be made in contrast to the claims of EGW. 1. Using an absolute poverty standard, the number of households below the poverty line increased from 4.3 percent in 1984 to 10.8 percent in 1993. 2. Between March 1984 and March 1995, New Zealand's total overseas debt rose by almost 30 percentage points of GDP. 3. New Zealand's real per capita output (based on working age population) in the year ending March 1995 was still 1.3 percent below the level that would have resulted had the economy continued to grow at the peak-to-peak trend rate of 0.795 percent per annum between 1966/67 and 1981/82. 4. The income sacrificed between 1987/88 and 1993/94 as a result of real per capita output being below its pre-reform trend was $11,500 per working age person (in 1991/92 prices), or 32 percent of annual GDP. These figures indicate why many economists in New Zealand remain cautious in our evaluation of the reforms. The program's close adherence to economic theory should have raised the economy's long- term potential. Nevertheless, the output sacrificed and the poverty created during the transition phase of the program were substantial, and it is still not possible to demonstrate a clear-cut improvement in measured growth performance thirteen years after the reforms began. /-\ | Bill Rosenberg, Acting Director, Centre for Computing and Biometrics, | |P. O. Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand. | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone:(64)(03)3252-811 Fax:(64)(03)3253-865 | \-/
[PEN-L:11841] Re: Risk and Unequal Opportunity under cap
I showed this post to my statistician colleague, Jim Young, whose PhD (on flood prediction!) went into subjective risk assessment in some depth. His comments (which don't answer Nathan's question!) follow. Bill --- Forwarded Message Follows --- From: "Young, Jim" WHIO/YOUNG2 Organization: Lincoln University To: "Rosenberg, Bill" WHIO/ROSENBER Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 09:23:22 +1200 Subject: Re: [PEN-L:11819] Risk and Unequal Opportunity under capitalism Bill This issue is one for what I think are called 'decision-theorists'. For example, subjective utility theory is one of many possible theoretical frameworks for decision-making. Utility is a number measuring the attractiveness of the consequences of a decision. People should, if convinced by the axioms of the framework, act so as to maximise their expected utility. Lindley (1971 p70-76) considers that most people would wish to behave in a decreasing risk-averse manner as the level of some desirable attribute increases - but this is not a requirement of subjective utility theory. That is, as their financial worth increases they will become 'more willing to gamble ' so to speak. Or looking at it the other way round, as they become poorer, they will become increasingly risk-averse. Regards Jim PS This stuff links in with a Baysian statistical perspective - you have been warned! Lindley D.V. (1971) Making decisions. London: Wiley-Interscience, 195p. Date sent: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 17:27:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Nathan Newman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[PEN-L:11819] Risk and Unequal Opportunity under capitalism Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I just finished off Peter Bernstein's AGAINST THE GODS: THE REMARKABLE STORY OF RISK and found the book's history of risk analysis fascinating and, most compellingly, found some of the most recent studies he documents around the psychology of risk extremely pointed in showing how risk itself has a class divided nature. Much of present policy prescriptions, from stock market investments a s a replacement for social security to the level of indebtedness required of students as a risk of attending college, point to the average return on such risks, from the higher investment returns of the market to the higher wages gained from attending college. However, Bernstein documents a number of psychological studies that (not surprisingly) show that those with little become extremely risk adverse even when facing the same odds as those with more income (better than the real life situation where racism and networking privileges give upper income folks an advantage in most risk situations.) The result will be, as Bernstein writes, that in any risk situation, "people who start out with money in their pockets will choose the gamble, while people who start out with empty pockets will reject the gamble." What this implies is that any social policy geared to rewarding risk will generally direct the incentives involved in social resources toward those with income. I am curious what progressive policy folks or economists have explored this risk bias against the poor in their analysis of concrete social policy. It seems especially relevant in education policy as students are looking at tens of thousands of dollars of debt as a normal price of college education. Any cites? /-\ | Bill Rosenberg, Acting Director, Centre for Computing and Biometrics, | |P. O. Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand. | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone:(64)(03)3252-811 Fax:(64)(03)3253-865 | \-/
[PEN-L:11722] Ellen Dannin in the New Zealand news
People may be interested that Ellen Dannin received good coverage in the "New Zealand Herald", Auckland, New Zealand's largest circulation newspaper a week ago (4 August). Headlined "Employment legislation damned", subtitled "US labour expert Professor Ellen Dannin says the Employment Contracts Act is unintelligent and full of faults and predicts labour relations will deteriorate steadily", the generally sympathetic interview with her includes: But how about all those jobs created in the past six years, improved productivity and workplace harmony? "Slaves don't go on strike too often," responds Professor Dannin, who has just written a mercilessly critical book, called "Working Free", about the legislation. As for all those jobs, she does not think the labour laws had anything to do with them. Well, how about higher productivity? "Garbage statistics", says this former trial attorney for America's National Labor Relations Board, author of many articles on labour and employment law, and globe-trotting lecturer. Bill /-\ | Bill Rosenberg, Acting Director, Centre for Computing and Biometrics, | |P. O. Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand. | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone:(64)(03)3252-811 Fax:(64)(03)3253-865 | \-/
[PEN-L:11248] Why MAI?
The MAI (Multilateral Agreement on Investment) sparked a long discussion on globalisaton in May, but here's a more specific question about this (type of) agreement that I'm puzzling over. The basic question is this: what is the (e.g. OECD, WTO) orthodox economist's rationalisation for such a treaty from the point of view of the host country? My thoughts so far go like this: 1. Payment of investment incentives to foreign investors loses some of the benefits to the host country of the investment. However if countries compete for inward investment by paying incentives then that loss is more difficult to avoid. Hence it is in the interests of all host countries to cooperate in agreeing not to pay such incentives. (Significantly OECD cannot agree to include this in the MAI!) 2. If one assumes (as the orthodox economists do) that all foreign investment is A Good Thing - i.e. a net benefit to the host country - then it is in the interests of every host country to impose upon itself all the other "disciplines" in the MAI to encourage such investment - such as "non-discrimination" (National Treatment and Most Favoured Nation), transparency of regulations, removal of performance requirements, removal of restrictions on capital and investment income flows, guarantee against expropiation, etc. Thus there is no need for common agreement to enforce these - i.e. no loss to the common good if they are not enforced. In fact individual countries can benefit by not signing such an agreement because they can gain a competitive advantage by offering such disciplines to attract investment, and that process would eventually make them universal. Even if the economist conceded *some* foreign investment wasn't beneficial, in which case some form of performance requirements etc could be justified, the logic still holds. If I am correct in the above, then it is only from the point of view of the *investors* that the MAI disciplines have a theoretical justification. Any corrections, comments? Bill Rosenberg /-----\ | Bill Rosenberg, Acting Director, Centre for Computing and Biometrics, | |P. O. Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand. | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone:(64)(03)3252-811 Fax:(64)(03)3253-865 | \-/
[PEN-L:11131] Re: Capital and the State
Eric Nilsson wrote: If this is true, then IF international capital is to control national states they must succeed in taking over control of the hegemonic processes with a nation away from purely national capital. This is likely hard to do. The more international capital attempts to do this, the more national capital will tend to organize hegemonic processes around the notion of "our nation versus others". Or, perhaps nationalist thinking is so well ingrained within national cultures due to past hegemonic processes (via a path dependency sort of process) that international capital will likely be unable to overcome this key fact. This assumes the continued existence of independent national capital. That may be possible in (for example) the US and the EU, but in smaller nations like New Zealand, it is increasingly either taken over or becomes dependent on international capital. Dependence is either specific through contracting to one or more transnational, or general through dependence on international trade. To the extent locally based capital perceives some remnant of distinctly national interest, they may be attracted to the technocratic "rule-based" jurisdiction of the WTO and the like because that gives a slight hope of neutralising the arbitrary power of international capital wielded through the likes of the US and EU. What this emphasises again is the disappearance of the former possibility of a degree of common interest (a la Keynes) between working class and national capital. Bill Rosenberg /-----\ | Bill Rosenberg, Acting Director, Centre for Computing and Biometrics, | |P. O. Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand. | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone:(64)(03)3252-811 Fax:(64)(03)3253-865 | \-/
[PEN-L:10682] (Fwd) Top NEWSPEAK Stories of the Week #72 (
--- Forwarded Message Follows --- Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 09:52:11 +1200 (NZST) X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Paul Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Top NEWSPEAK Stories of the Week #72 ( Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AMERICAN NEWSPEAK. Inflicted weekly at http://www.scn.org/news/newspeak Celebrating cutting edge advances in the exciting field of Doublespeak! Written by Wayne Grytting Employees Gain Recognition A survey of 900 corporations by the American Management Association found that employers are taking a keen interest in the work of their employees. In fact, 67% of the firms were so interested in their workers that they practiced surveillance. The most widespread practice was monitoring phone calls, practiced by 37% of the firms. Growing in popularity are the practices of videotaping employees at work (16%) and reading e-mail and computer files (15%). Many companies (23%) assist their workers by not informing them of the surveillance and thus not adding to their information overload. Critics of these management tools say it amounts to spying. But this is a simple misunderstanding according to Eric Greenberg, author of the AMA study, who "bristled" at the use of the term "spying". "The focus here is on security and employee performance," Greenberg said, "not on spying." He suggests the term "monitoring" be used instead. Or you may prefer Bellsouth Corp.'s more delicate "observations". (AP 5/22, WP 5/24) Big Brother Comes to the Washroom Corporations can now insure their employees have clean hands thanks to an invention called Hygiene Guard. For a mere $1,500, Hygiene Guard can be installed in any washroom. Employees need only wear a small badge. When they enter the restroom an infared sensor is triggered. A second sensor at the washstand is triggered if the employee stands in front of it for at least 15 seconds. This information is then relayed to a computer. Failure to use the soap dispenser causes the badge to blink, alerting all to the unhygenic condition. NetTech International says this system will alert employers to "miscreants who don't enter the lavatory all day or use it too much." Obviously this is just the beginning. The mind reels at the possibilities, like monitoring coffee consumption or the use of toilet tissues. NetTech CEO Glenn Cohen defends their invention on public health grounds, actually declaring, "Our belief is its time for Big Brother to be concerned." Well, he is. (WSJ 5/20, AP 5/20) Union Relations, Northwest Style How does a hip, post-therapy aged Seattle latte company view employees who protest working conditions? Starbuck's has been facing an "unstrike" by employees in the province of British Columbia. Unionized workers have continued on the job but have been handing out leaflets to customers and wearing union buttons. Senior vice-president Wanda Herndon says, "It is very disappointing that we have a fraction of our partners who want to have a third party that would come between our relationship." The "partners", as Starbuck's calls its employees, earn the minimum wage in British Columbia, $5.15 an hour in U.S. money. The shameless homewrecker is the Canadian Auto Workers, who now organize service workers and have even threatened Starbuck's with a strike. In words that reportedly caused Henry Ford to roll over in his grave, Ms. Herndon responded, "(Starbuck's Chairman) Howard Schultz is heartbroken that this has occurred because we have a really wonderful and unique relationship with our partners." Stay tuned to Oprah and Geraldo for future developments. (Seattle Times 5/25) States Rights Rises Again Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Ted Kennedy teamed up to sponsor what should have been a no-brainer bill to raise tobacco taxes to fund health insurance for children. But they didn't count on the keen analytical mind of Sen. Jesse Helms. The bill was killed after Helms pointed out that not only would this tax against the "politically incorrect" discriminate against the working poor, a perennial Republican concern, but it would interfere with states rights. The proposed tax increase from 25 cents a pack to 67 cents would create a funding shortfall for states because it would decrease the sales of nicotine sticks. The Republican Policy Committee estimates it would cost states more than a $1 billion in lost revenue each year .Concluded the RPC, "Even if one believes that decreased demand for tobacco is positive from a societal view, it still has negative fiscal aspects for the states." Letting the "Even if..." pass, maybe we could mandate a certain level of cigarette consumption to protect states rights to sponge off tobacco. (Cong. Rec. 5/21, NYT 5/21) The Global Competitiveness Dept. Singapore is once again the winner in the World Economic Forum's annual ratings of the world's most competitive economies (in the nation-state division). Hong Kong finished second followed by the U.S. and Canada. Singapore and countries like Indonesia
[PEN-L:10432] Getting The Big Picture
This New Zealand newsletter on the WTO, trade etc may be of interest to list members. Bill Rosenberg Getting The Big Picture The Big Picture is the quarterly bulletin of GATT Watchdog. Articles in Issue 10 of The Big Picture (May 1997) : Dr Jane Kelsey (Associate Professor of Law, Auckland University) - "A Charter of Rights and Freedoms for Transnational Corporations" on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI). RMALC (Mexican Action Network on Free Trade) - "The Civil Movement Against Neoliberalism in Mexico" on the Mexican people's movement against neoliberalism. Dennis Small (Author of "The Cost of Free Trade: Aotearoa/New Zealand at Risk") - "Globalisation and the Corporatisation of New Zealand Agriculture" on NZ agriculture, producer boards, the free market, and the erosion of democratic control of the world's food supply.. Joyce Green (University of Alberta) - Canada, From Colonialism to Neoliberalism on colonialism, indigenous rights and Canada's embrace of free market economics And much more! Next issue out in August A year's subscription costs NZ $15. Cheques should be made payable to GATT Watchdog. Send to: The Big Picture, GATT Watchdog, PO Box 1905, Christchurch 8015, Aotearoa (New Zealand) Fax: 64 3 3668035 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] /-\ | Bill Rosenberg, Acting Director, Centre for Computing and Biometrics, | |P. O. Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand. | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone:(64)(03)3252-811 Fax:(64)(03)3253-865 | \-/
[PEN-L:10319] US-New Zealand Free Trade agreement?
FYI: from the New Zealand Press Association (24/5/97) The United States has confirmed its interest in setting up a free trade agreement with New Zealand, Trade Minister Lockwood Smith said yesterday. Dr Smith met US trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky yesterday on the possibility of pursuing a free trade agreement similar in style to the Closer Economic Relations Agreement between New Zealand and Australia. Bill /-\ | Bill Rosenberg, Acting Director, Centre for Computing and Biometrics, | |P. O. Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand. | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone:(64)(03)3252-811 Fax:(64)(03)3253-865 | \-/
[PEN-L:10206] Globalisation, socialist utopias, EU
Some thoughts on the last few days' discussion: 1. I see no contradiction between nationalism and internationalism - though I do between chauvinism and internationalism, and between nationalism and "transnationalism" in the sense of international capitalism. I call myself an internationalist nationalist without blushing. I take nationalist to mean "if we don't look after ourselves, no-one else will", rather than "bugger the rest of the world". The most important way to support other people's causes is to fight for your own cause. The reality of "internationalism" is not some vague monolithic international revolution: it is that local struggles around the world support each other. 2. Isn't the conclusion of my free trade and investment analogy the crux of the argument between Max and Sid regarding the nature of the EU? That is, the EU can be socially progressive only if its "federal" government has the power and will to redistribute incomes and resources between EU regions. Does it do so significantly now? If not, is that for structural reasons (as the "Ecologist" article and I think Sid would suggest) or for short-term political reasons (as I think Max would suggest)? 3. What has changed in capitalism? Bill Burgess gives the answer that it used to be able to afford some concessions but can't now because of falling profitability etc. I can't accept that: it is some of the most profitable companies that are laying off the most staff. And it was during the 50s and 60s when those concessions were being made that we had some of the most vicious industrial attacks and socially reactionary governments. An alternative explanation is that the *interests* of capitalism have changed. Keynes pointed out a congruence of interests between worker and employer in a closed economy: that workers were also the employer's only customers. (There remained plenty of differences in interests of course!) That gave capitalists (as a class) a vested interest in the welfare state, higher wages etc. To the extent the closed economy has opened up (the beginning of this whole debate!), their interest in these "concessions" has declined. That will only change again if they saturate the labour resources of the world economy - and haven't found another planet full of labour to exploit by then! Or if we find some way to limit the openness of national economies - which incidentally applies whether they are capitalist or socialist. 4. I found the debate between Terry and Ken on how to create a (New Zealand sized!) Socialist Utopia in the world economy interesting. I'd interpret the outcome of the discussion to be that it would be very difficult for a socialist (let alone communist) economy to retain its nature while remaining at least partly open to trade and investment in the current world economy. I'd broaden that to make a similar statement about relatively progressive capitalist economies. Such economies were at least thinkable in the 1950s and 60s, but apparently aren't now. What's changed? Bill Rosenberg /-\ | Bill Rosenberg, Acting Director, Centre for Computing and Biometrics, | |P. O. Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand. | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone:(64)(03)3252-811 Fax:(64)(03)3253-865 | \-/
[PEN-L:10205] Re: influence?
Doug Henwood asked Can anyone tell me how much influence the End of Work/Jobless Future thesis has within organized labor - U.S. and the rest of the world? Note sure about this specifically, but the Council of Trade Unions (CTU) here, which is the main central TU body, seems to take a lot of the Reich-like stuff to heart. One of its main arguments against the likes of the anti-union, anti-collective Employment Contracts Act, and government policies in general is that they are aimed at forcing low wages. Instead, it says, they should be aiming for a high-wage high-skill economy. All sounds nice and plausible to the public but tends to be an excuse for inaction and leave the unions representing the lower-skilled in the lurch. Several of them have left the CTU to their own Trade Union Federation (TUF) which has a more activist, protectionist - though very internationalist - view. Bill /-\ | Bill Rosenberg, Acting Director, Centre for Computing and Biometrics, | |P. O. Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand. | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone:(64)(03)3252-811 Fax:(64)(03)3253-865 | \-/
[PEN-L:10182] Re: (Fwd) Progressive web sites; NZ Web page
This is in reply to a specific message from Paul about New Zealand Web sites, and to his general request for progressive Web sites. The reply below comes from a Librarian at Lincoln University, where I work, who has put together what is widely acknowledged as one of the most useful general Web sites in New Zealand, called Ara Nui. It is at http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/libr I'd add to his list the following local one here in Christchurch which has pages for a number of community groups and pointers to others. http://canterbury.cyberplace.org.nz For an excellent one on mining in one part of New Zealand (the Coromandel) see http://binbro1.bitz.co.nz/watchdog/ Bill --- Forwarded Message Follows --- From: "Andrew White" KEA/WHITEA1 Organization: Lincoln University To: "Rosenberg, Bill" WHIO/ROSENBER Date sent: Fri, 16 May 1997 14:36:05 +1200 Subject:Re: (Fwd) NZ Web page Bill I can't think of any one useful site, but would suggest a few from my "Politics" page in Ara Nui at: http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/libr/nz/nzpolit.htm especially: NewsRoom http://www.newsroon.co.nz for excellent political news coverage, including press releases from MPs and parties Alliance http://www.alliance.org.nz Labour Party http://www.labour.org.nz The best online newspaper (but hardly "progressive") is The Press at http://www.press.co.nz As far as lists go, I don't know of any. There is a list of NZ Social Science related email lists at: http://www.massey.ac.nz/~NZSRDA/nzsorigs/elists.htm Hope this helps, Andrew --- Forwarded Message Follows --- Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 10:21 -0500 (CDT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: NZ Web page To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill, At a progressive dinner last night I was asked by a local retired minister (United Church) who is a member of a collective of progressive clergy who edit a newsletter devoted to social issues, including what has been happening in New Zealand. I did a short piece for them last year but they want to keep up on a continuing basis. To make things short, he asked me if there was a progressive web page in NZ where he could keep himself current on what is going on downunder so I said I would contact you and ask your if you know of any such site. If not, is there any electronic bulletin board or list that he could subscribe to? Thanks, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill Rosenberg, Acting Director, Computer Services Centre, Centre for Computing and Biometrics, room Hilgendorf H182, Ext 8010. PC network: WHIO/ROSENBER. Vax: W.Rosenberg@Ono Andrew White Library kea/whitea1 ext 8542 /-\ | Bill Rosenberg, Acting Director, Centre for Computing and Biometrics, | |P. O. Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand. | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone:(64)(03)3252-811 Fax:(64)(03)3253-865 | \-/
[PEN-L:10117] EU, globalization and all that
An analogy I like to use when thinking about the effects of free trade and investment is to the region of a country. I'd appreciate any comments on this approach. It goes like this. We have plenty of examples of the effect of free trade and free movement of investment on different areas of the world. Every country is a free trade and investment zone internally and has its relatively depopulated and/or underserviced and/or poor areas and its booming wealthy ones. Some are effectively denuded of their population. There is no guarantee of equal sharing of wealth and development between regions within a country as small as New Zealand or as large as the US. (Those disparities are on top of the class aspects of wealth distribution.) What stops or slows that happening internationally? Regulation (such as trade and investment controls), tariffs, exchange rates, geography. Geography won't change (though technology does) but regulation has been virtually outlawed, tariffs are being phased out, and capital mobility and the financial markets are gutting the usefulness of exchange rates. So we are heading towards the regional extremes of poverty and privilege that we know occur within a country. Some countries may effectively die. What allows people to tolerate these extremes within a country? Partly it is free movement of people, but that can become part of the problem. Principally it is the power of a central government to redistribute resources and income - to the degree that is exercised. For example, paying welfare benefits and building social services at a level a depressed region could not afford, compensation for environmental disasters or sacrifices, or explicit regional development assistance. So in the international context - either in a regional zone such as the EU or NAFTA - or globally, free trade and investment policies can be socially tolerable only under a central authority with the power to redistribute. That implies a degree of democracy to which that cental authority responds: difficult in the EU, non-existent with NAFTA, almost impossible to imagine globally. Any comments? Bill
[PEN-L:10042] Re: globalization
Doug Henwood wrote
A question, though: aren't second-tier OECD countries like Australia and
New Zealand as rich as they are because of their participation in an
imperial system, of which "globalization" is one manifestation or
interpretation?
Well, I can't answer for them all but ...
The New Zealand colony was at one time described as "a glorious
country for a working man" ("working" and "man" no slip of the pen
I'd imagine). In other words it was orginally accepted by the British
as a settler colony and only later with refrigeration did it become a
source of cheap food. The function of the settler colony was to
attract the poor and huddled masses - hence it had to pay them enough
to attract them away from Britain. Much of this was actually paid for
out of the proceeds of the colony itself - robbing land from the
(indigenous) Maori, and developing it. But yes, New Zealand did
become rich due to the fact that Britain wanted it to be rich. Which
doesn't mean Britain didn't happily rip us off when it suited.
However we are well past that stage now as I think my earlier
statistics indicate. We may be again (arguably, still) a (neo)colony
but we are benefitting from imperialism only to the extent that
(a) we have most of the trappings of a developed country and can
therefore compete internationally on some high-added-value goods and
on agricultural and forest products on the basis of high efficiency
and thus appropriate a share of the imperial income. Arguably parts
of the economy benefit from the imperial (i.e. WTO) trade
rules, etc.; and
(b) there are perhaps a few trade advantages we have
with Europe that descend from colonial preferences; and
(c) New Zealand is a minor imperial power in the South Pacific.
That we aren't much liked for that in the Pacific is I think true,
but to ascribe a significant part of our wealth to it is not. New
Zealand companies also have $20-$30 billion invested abroad - much
less than inward investment; and
As to (a), our per capital income and competitiveness is now lower
than for example Singapore which began life as a colony of the
exploited sort (though perhaps not a typical one). (I would also
guess that Singaporean investors own significantly more of New Zealand
than New Zealand investors do of Singapore.) An argument that we
are benefitting from imperialism on these grounds thus gets into
murky waters. Our local rulers do think they get a net benefit from
the WTO, but I would contest that - and certainly as far as benefit
to working class people goes - as in my previous posting. Therein
lies the crunch.
(b) is a pretty small part of New Zealand's exports now and is
gradually being absorbed into the systems set up by the WTO
agreements.
So I don't think your suggestion still holds for New Zealand, other
than that trading is participating in the imperial system. For other
countries, such as Canada, perhaps their net international investments
give a different answer. Does the UK still have a large surplus on
invisibles? I think so.
Can't people be accused of happily playing the imperial game when
it makes them richer, and complaining when that same system
threatens that privilege?
Yes naturally, though as always, you do have to distinguish which
"people" you mean. If the "people" are the capitalists who benefit
directly, the answer is a pretty unequivocal yes, given the demise of
national capitalism. If the "people" are the working class (et al)
then there is always a struggle to obtain their share of these
benefits, so "happily" might not be quite the word. It would take a
stupendous and probably pointless feat of international solidarity
to turn away (or rather decline to struggle for) the fruits of the
imperial game.
Actually, you could say the same about the U.S., couldn't you?
Yes, even more so, since the proceeds of imperialism are direct. But
the same provisos about who you are talking about are important. It
seems to me that part of the "globalisation" debate vis a vis the
U.S. is that its companies used to "bring home the bacon" but are now
are leaving home and treating home just like the colonies.
Bill
[PEN-L:10024] Re: globalization
Amidst all the debate on details of how and whether economic trends have changed I suspect we have forgotten where this current discussion started: the new proposed MAI. From the perspective of a small economy let me put a few points that tie this together: * As Doug Henwood pointed out, small economies are naturally more dependent on international trade investment than the large economies (let's say the Triad of US/European Union/Japan) * therefore they are more susceptible to trade and investment being used as leverage for political, commercial and economic purposes. They also have chronic problems in trying to manage their balance of payments while maintaining development and full employment. * for most of them, the 50s to 70s were years of considerable progress in that, while they almost certainly traded more (in absolute and probably in relative terms) they also gained more control of their economies through the demise of colonialism and the use of various measures such as import controls, tariffs, exchange and capital controls. The world economic institutions (IMF, GATT, OECD, World Bank etc) while perhaps not benign, allowed such controls. * what is happening now is that those international institutions are now becoming instruments of control - effectively international regulatory bodies. The crucial question is: control in whose interests? The evidence from the nature of negotiations and the ruling directorates - and the resulting treaties - is that they are almost entirely dominated by the Triad, and primarily by the US. But these are not only government representatives, but increasingly direct and indirect representation from the TNCs. * thus the dependence on trade and investment by small economies now forces them into accepting the loss of control these bodies dictate (such as WTO and the proposed MAI), but without appreciable influence in setting the rules. It is a return to [neo-]colonialism which is no longer so directly related to exploitation by a single nation - though certain nations still dominate. It is directly related to the needs of TNCs who now see the utility in central (i.e. global) government (!). * These institutions deliberately put such economies into a position where (whether or not they trade more or less than they did in the past) the benefits of their economies cannot be targeted to benefit primarily their own populace. The benefits are targeted at corporations and their hangers-on. This is the reality of "globalisation" in New Zealand. * this state of affairs has not come about simply because those institutions grew of their own accord: they grew because of the increasing power of international capital, and (because of the growth in size of the corporations, aided in part by international communications and computers) their need to expand their markets even further than before. That has been aided by similar internal developments in the small economies (companies "outgrowing" their own economies and demanding they be opened) as well as from the Triad. The success of the relatively controlled growth of the 50s-70s has bred its own demise. So what I see from here as "globalisation" is - yes - in many ways a return to the colonialism of the past. But saying that is not to say "don't worry, it's nothing new". It is to say we've got back to where we never wanted to go again. While the developments of the 50s- 70s were far from utopian, they were in many ways *heading* in the right direction: towards an independence that allowed a country (internal politics permitting) to manage its economy for the benefit of its people. I suspect the problems in the Triad economies are related but somewhat different in nature. Another way to view this is to ask the question: if you were to design your own socialist utopia(!), assuming the rest of the world is as it is now, how would you deal with international trade and investment? Could you under the current rules? If the answer is "no", then how do we bring about global change when most of us are struggling to bring about local change? By the way, Ed Herman mentioned a paper by David Felix. Another by Felix is "Financial Globalization versus Free Trade: the Case for the Tobin Tax", David Felix, UNCTAD/OSG/DP/108, Nov 1995, where he tries to quantify some of the effects of reducing currency controls and of the intense financial activity on economic policy since the 40s. He includes a good collection of data on the magnitude of currency trading. Though I'd like to agree with him, I didn't find the case he put entirely convincing, but there's lots of technical stuff I don't understand. I put together a summary but then thought it wasn't worth posting: I can post it if anyone's interested. Bill Rosenberg
[PEN-L:9941] Re: Tavis, you're *still* wrong
I agree with Sid on this. Some examples in New Zealand: - a life insurance company recently taken over by a UK one will now have all its investments managed from in Australia - the local office is closing. Presumably they still have agents here. - as with Canada, dozens of bank branches are closing weekly, with associated redundancies of tellers. This is immediately due to ATMs and Point of Sale (EFTPOS) and the like. But the newest competitor in the mortgage market has no branches and works only by phone - and offers interest rates about 0.5% less. That phone could answered here or in Australia (it's run by one of the biggest Australian life insurance companies) - if I ring for service from Digital Equipment for our computers here I'm as likely to get answered from Australia (I can tell by their accents - they do speak a kind of English) as from somewhere in New Zealand - all Telecom operator and directory services are centralised into a couple of locations nationwide. - even Police 111 (your 999) calls are being centralised - a matter of considerable controversy because Auckland cops don't know where a street is in Hamilton Isn't the point that workers in those industries are feeling these encroachments at the margins? There may be lots of them working in those industries still, but their bargaining power is determined by the steady loss of jobs, and threat of more, rather than what is left. Bill Rosenberg Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 17:14:53 -0700 (PDT) From: D Shniad [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:9939] Tavis, you're *still* wrong Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tavis: My contention is that service markets aren't as globalizable as manufacturing markets. Sid: I don't think this is anything more than a contention. Tavis: The same types of jobs you describe in telecommunications (operator services) have their analogues in many other sectors: Claims processing in health care, credit card and loan processing in banking, catalog sales in retail trade. They can all be moved anywhere around the country (though I suspect that language difficulties at least would make it hard to move them across borders). Sid: The work doesn't necessarily involve speaking. If it does, English is spoken by folks across Canada, the U.S. and Britain, as well as by a great many educated folk around the world; Spanish is spoken in Europe, Mexico and South America, as well as across the U.S., etc. But the key thing is that a great of this work is computer-based and doesn't involve speaking at all. The maquila-based postal sorting (by Spanish- speaking workers sorting mail that's located in Chicago) is prototypical of what I'm describing. By the same token, remote trouble analysis of the phone system can be done in the same locale as where the trouble is or across the world. It's not just low end jobs that we're talking about, either. The Indian software industry is state-of-the-art in sophistication, but it pays wages that are a fraction of those paid software writers in Europe and North America. This is what makes Robert Reich's promotion of education, training and skills such a meaningless response to capital's restructuring of work; capital doesn't have to choose between high skills and high wages on the one hand and low skills and low wages on the other. It can have *both*. Tavis: However most jobs in health care (nursing and assistance, hospital clerical and mainaintance work), banking (teller and sales work), and retail trade (person-to-person sales, service) are much harder to move very far. Sid: You're over generalizing here, Tavis. Hospital clerical work can be handled in exactly the same manner as what I described in the phone industry. It can easily be provided at the end of a phone line or by forcing people signing in or out of hospital to provide their personal information via a computer screen. Banking tellers are going the way of the dodo bird. At least in Canada, their numbers are dropping precipitately (I doubt this is unique to this country) as their ranks are replaced by computerized tellers and ATMs. You keep pushing examples of face-to-face contact. But the point is that this is exactly what is being targeted and reduced, replaced by the use of computerized services. Sid /-\ | Bill Rosenberg, Acting Director, Centre for Computing and Biometrics, | |P. O. Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand. | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone:(64)(03)3252-811 Fax:(64)(03)3253-865 | \-/
[PEN-L:9923] Re: Whole Language
On 4 May, Ellen Dannin wrote Today's Los Angeles Times has a long piece criticizing NZ's reading methodology -- whole language v. phonics. The article says that employers are complaining that they can't get literate workers. Periodically groups like the NZ Business Roundtable have advocated privatizing public education or making moves in that direction. Could you provide any context for the current debate, the relatively declining international test figures, and how it fits in other aspects of the liberalisation of NZ's economy? I asked Liz Gordon, the author of the article Ken Hanly referred to (6 May), to commment. Liz is a former lecturer in Education at the University of Canterbury and now Alliance Member of Parliament and their spokesperson on education. She says: Bill - I don't know about expert comment but there's quite a lot to say. The declining standard of educational achievement in New Zealand - in language and other areas - has nothing to do with specific teaching methods, which have remained unchanged for a number of years. The evidence from the IEA comparative studies of literacy show that New Zealand is declining in comparison to other countries because the performance of our lowest-achieving students is declining. Why is that happening? The main reason is that increased social inequalities always impact on educational outcomes. We have much wider disparities of wealth and income in new Zealand now, and that is necessarily reflected in our educational outcomes, just as it does in the United States, where falling educational standards have also been experienced as inequalities increased. The right have opportunistically (is that a word) hung their own conservative views of how language and literacy should be taught onto the achievement figures, and have come up with quite he wrong explanation. I am not, by the way, defending how we teach literacy to children - I don't know enough about that debate. But that is irrelevant to current circumstances. Must go - there's politics to do. Love, Liz /-\ | Bill Rosenberg, Acting Director, Centre for Computing and Biometrics, | |P. O. Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand. | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone:(64)(03)3252-811 Fax:(64)(03)3253-865 | \-/
[PEN-L:9908] Re: Whole Language
Today's Los Angeles Times has a long piece criticizing NZ's reading methodology -- whole language v. phonics. The article says that employers are complaining that they can't get literate workers. Periodically groups like the NZ Business Roundtable have advocated privatizing public education or making moves in that direction. Could you provide any context for the current debate, the relatively declining international test figures, and how it fits in other aspects of the liberalisation of NZ's economy? That's a big question! I don't have much on this other than general knowledge. As far as I am aware, international comparisons with our junior classes put their reading skills at number one. Maths and other skills fare less well, but by no means badly. I'll see if I can get some expert comment. Bill Rosenberg
[PEN-L:9907] Re: MAI and Foreign Control in Canada, Glo
Doug Henwood wrote New Zealand politics is very conscious (perhaps hyper- conscious) of the ability of financial dealers to manipulate the economy, and it has been used as a scare tactic frequently during recent elections. And since it's used as a scare tactic, that makes it especially important to understand the mechanisms of damage. Maybe Krieger did NZ a favor: growth was 0.6% in 1986, 0.7% in 1987, and 2.3% in 1988. Maybe we need him again: Goldman Sachs (among many others) reckon our currency is overvalued by about 15% meaning exporters are going out of business or moving their operations overseas. But seriously, is that the way to run an economy in the interests of its people? The threat is something like - each devaluation increases New Zealand's foreign debt (in March 1996 79.1% of GDP and recently increased again) - it will be more difficult to renew debt, or higher interest rates will be paid, and political prices will be (attempted to be) exacted - implications for the Balance of Payments (mitigated by improved export competitiveness) - therefore threat of company closures and job losses etc In present circumstances some devaluation would probably be a net improvement; however if devaluation continued because of deliberate action by investors, the company closures are a real threat. As for the globalization issue. A small country like NZ, or even Canada, has no choice but to trade extensively with the outside world. NZ couldn't maintain a First World standard of living on the basis of internal demand alone. So the question isn't really "globalization" vs. its still-unspecified opposite, but the terms on which the country engages with the outside world. Which is yet another reason I'd like to see a moratorium on the term globalization: it's a mystifying term best left to publicists, whose business is mystification. Yes we must trade, but that isn't the same as submitting to globalisation. New Zealand traded at the same level in 1960 as it does now (exports/GDP) but was higher in the international standard of living ranks than it is now. It has fallen in the ranks as the economy has been opened to imports and foreign investment - i.e. more exposed to the "global" economy. So the distinction between then and now is the degree to which a capitalist economy can filter out the bad effects of the world economy while still allowing the beneficial ones to come through. The filters were never perfect, but it appears that now they are not possible to maintain. But it is indeed the fact that we must trade, and the fact that the major industrialised nations are the main source of capital and so don't have the same problems associated with foreign debt and investment, that distinguishes the fate of smaller industrialised countries. Bill Rosenberg
[PEN-L:9876] Re: MAI and Foreign Control in Canada, Globaloney
My posts on this are going to be constrained by this
being a out-of-worktime activity for me (see my
signature) despite the topic being close to my heart.
Here's a few comments on the messages that have flown by
since my last. Sorry if it's a bit long - it's quicker
for me that way!
1. Doug Henwood wrote (2 May) "I agree that financial
activity can be destructive, but I don't think that case
can be made simply by citing figures about turnover. I
think it has to be made a lot more carefully than that
"
An interesting example from New Zealand: a U.S. Bankers
Trust dealer, Andrew Krieger, claimed that in late 1987
he "played" several hundred million - possibly as much as
a billion - New Zealand dollars against New Zealand's
currency, leading to a fall by 10% of the value of the
New Zealand dollar ("The Money Bazaar - inside the
Trillion-dollar world of Currency Trading", Andrew J.
Krieger with Edward Claflin, Times Books N.Y., 1992,
p.93ff).
New Zealand politics is very conscious (perhaps hyper-
conscious) of the ability of financial dealers to
manipulate the economy, and it has been used as a scare
tactic frequently during recent elections.
2. Doug also wrote (4 May) in reply to my comments that
the recent changes in the New Zealand economy were due to
opening it, i.e. globalisation: (mentions Jane Kelsey's
book and Bruce Jesson) "... But I thought that one reason
the New Zealand economy developed problems in the 1970s
was that Britain stopped buying butter and lamb, causing
tremendous dislocations. Was that relation to Britain pre-
globalized?"
In fact it was. (The problems of the 1970's actually were
a mixture of the above and the oil "crisis" but that
distinction probably doesn't matter here.) Until WWII,
New Zealand's exports were almost entirely meat and dairy
products to Britain under privileged trade arrangements
which suited Britain because they provided cheap food.
From the 1940's until the 1960's the rest of the New
Zealand economy was heavily protected - most
distinctively by import controls. That had two purposes:
to protect developing industry, and to prevent a current
account blowout due to the demand generated by
(genuinely, believe it or not) full employment. Not your
6% NAIRU this - only a few thousand out of work at any
time.
This protectionist policy (developed by one of the few
genuine nationalist settler New Zealanders that New
Zealand has ever had, Bill Sutch, later falsely accused
of being Soviet spy in order to discredit him) was
developed very consciously to counteract the
"globalisation" effects of unpredictable farm produce
prices - the aim was to balance the reliance on farm
produce with industry in order to achieve full
employment.
One reaction to the entry of Britain to the EEC (which
stopped the privileged arrangements) could have been to
continue with the protectionist policies while new
markets were found (as markets have been). Instead the
then (Labour) government borrowed abroad, and that policy
continued, in the end being one of the pressures for
fully opening the economy in 1984. So in a sense, Doug
you are right: there always have been globalising
pressures. But in the past we've been able to resist the
worst effects of them.
Then Doug says in response to my comment that the
Keynesian revolution of the 1930s was to try to protect
against earlier forms of globalisation, at least in New
Zealand, "Wasn't one of the most characteristic features
of the 1930s the collapse of world trade? That is, wasn't
`de-globalization' both a cause and a symptom of crisis?"
Certainly a symptom, but in New Zealand's case (and more
generally) there were national solutions found. Isn't the
fact that national economies are no longer able (or
allowed) to find such solutions an indication that
globalisation has intensified? And sure WWII is a
confounding factor here, but again, I think in the case
of New Zealand-sized countries that wasn't necessary for
recovery.
3. Colin Danby (4 May) wrote regarding Foreign Ownership,
that "the claim seems to be that foreign owners are less
rooted and less vulnerable to local pressure, and that
previously-existing worker-capitalist compacts, overseen
by social-democratic states, are thereby jeopardized." He
suggested that required an industry-by-industry analysis,
and that foreign competition may be just an excuse for
recessionary policies. Bill Burgess (4 May) makes a
similar point.
What most distinguishes "foreign" owners is not their
foreign-ness but their footloose-ness. Locally owned
transnationals have the same characteristic: that they no
longer depend for their own workers (to oversimplify) for
demand for their products. Even where they do (in
service industries) they can still credibly threaten to
move somewhere more profitable. The same logic applies to
an extent to exporters, though what moderates that is the
degree to which they also supply the domestic market
(their own workers). Thus both FDI and increasing
dependence on
[PEN-L:9866] Re: MAI and Foreign Control in Canada, Glo
Bill Burgess wrote Just to clarify: the figures I quoted for Canada were for foreign **control** (ownership of more than one half of voting equity or its equivalent (or one-third if this voting block is more than the next two ownership block combined). These figures do **not** capture **portfolio** investment. e.g. there is large portfolio investment in Canadian hydroelectric companies, but control remains "Canadian resident". and the New Zealand figures are for the legal definition of "overseas company" - i.e. more than 24.9% foreign. Some of those are arguably not foreign-controlled (e.g. 58% of shares of companies listed on the NZ Stock Exchange are foreign owned), but the great majority are. That is, the great majority by number - probably 105 out of the 118 "overseas companies" in the Top 200 in 1995. By turnover or assets, about 2/3 or 1/2 (resp) of overseas companies in the 1995 Top 200. To that extent the 1982-83 figures I quoted and my more recent figures overstate the comparative situation. ... By this measure, the ratio of inward FDI to GDP was 14.4% in 1989 and 46.7% in 1995. Outward FDI to GDP was 1.3% in 1989 and 13.4% in 1995, though one wonders whether some of these increases are simply because Statistics New Zealand have got better at measuring. The data in front of me, which does not include portfolio investment (it is taken from the UN World Investment Directory) yeilds an inward FDI/GDP ratio of about 7.8% and outward FDI/GDP of 5.6% in 1992 for New Zealand, i.e. considerably less than Canada's 19.5% and 14.1%. So by this standard, Canada is more foreign dominated than New Zealand. I can't reconcile these two sets of figures for New Zealand! Using Statistics New Zealand's International Investment Position figures, in 1992 the ratios were 31.1% inwards in 1992 and 15.8% outwards (we're talking stocks here, not flows aren't we?). Why should we protect national capitalists via opposing the MAI, etc, asked Bill Burgess. In New Zealand's case, primarily to reduce dependence on foreign capital, which is demonstrably leading government policy. I don't disagree with your analysis of the effects on the "national" economy, balance of payments, etc. But I don't think it is workers or socialists responsibility to solve the problems of capitalist economies. Isn't the point that we **can't** do this, that there **is no real solution** under capitalism? I don't mean this in an ultra-left sloganeering fashion, but as the analytical framework for our policy interventions, which I should focus on protecting working people today while aiming towards the socialist alternative. I don't fundamentally disagree with your analysis either. But (1) recent experience has shown that policies favoured by foreign capital are considerably more brutal towards workers, and less susceptible to pressure, even than the previous reactionary regime. There are logical reasons for this to be so. Hence these policies are important for the protection of working people. They are a necessary but not sufficient condition. (2) As a matter of their self-interest, I don't think (what remains of) the New Zealand national capitalist class can survive under these conditions: they become simply compradore capitalists with a very shakey future. There are contradictions between the policies being followed. That provides some evidence for the old arguments that less dependence on foreign capital could be used to improve employment, wages, and government services, and with less risk of a current-account blow-out. As I suggested in a previous post, most FDI occurs in fairly large scale and capital intensive forms, so naturally employs relatively less labour. How would changing the citizenship of its owners alter this? I said "could be used to improve ..." which is essentially a political message to those used to thinking "there is no alternative" (and believe me, that is the mood in New Zealand). You're right that it wouldn't necessarily be. But as a matter of record, foreign ownership of our large privatised corporations like Telecom and New Zealand Rail has led to dramatically falling employment in them, despite them having previously been "rationalised" by the government in processes designed to get them ready for sale. In addition, firms have been taken over and their production moved to another country, losing jobs in New Zealand. So in practical terms, foreign ownership *has* reduced employment. But I think the the main point is that there is a very real political cost in countries like Canada and New Zealand to nationalist ideology and protectionist measures. To put it in blunt terms, it is a **bigger** problem than foreign investment or control. This I don't follow. Solving the problems of foreign control are a prerequisite to solving the other problems: to repeat, they are necessary, but not sufficient. It is a delusion to attempt a
[PEN-L:9861] Re: Globalization
Michael Perelman wrote: I want to thank everyone involved in this debate. It may be unique in the history of pen-l, since I see us moving toward an agreement. Let me pose a few questions. 1) We probably have to distinguish between the colonial, semi-colonial (Latin American, eg), small independent (New Zealand, eg) and major industrial countries. I suspect that we are not making absolute statements about globalization that pertain to all economies. This is an absolutely essential point that I was going to make myself. Even the progressive view from the heights of capitalist economies is different from those lower in the food chain! I think almost everyone in New Zealand would agree that the changes of the last 13 years (and in fact earlier) have been due to opening of the economy - globalisation. Where they differ is whether it's good or bad. The pressure for change came from within as well as without: big New Zealand companies outgrew the local market. 2) We know of many cases in which companies either moved offshore or threatened to do so for concessions. Also, many others outsourced some of the work abroad. How important are these incidents? I can't quantify this for New Zealand, but it is happening continuously and hence is a constant and conscious threat to workers negotiating contracts as well as to some of their employers. It is also a threat to New Zealand's intellectual capital: there is a perceivable trend towards innovative startup companies being bought up and (often) moved off shore. Research and development is done largely by local companies (a little) and public institutions (most). 3) If globalization is occuring very rapidly, we know that the corporate sector seems enthusiastic about pursuing it. (Evidence: Witness Clinton, a weather vane for the corporate winds). How much of an effect would globalization have? 4) If globablization is not an important factor, by overestimating it, have we underestimated other aspects of corporate power. The argument that globalisation is not an important factor seems to be built on two main observations: no increase in international trade as a proportion of output, which I accept; and reflecting on classical colonialism and the likes of the Dutch East India Company, etc a century or more ago. Is it relevant that we saw similar waves of globalisation a century or two ago? Surely a large part of the Keynesian revolution of the 1930s was to try to protect against earlier forms of globalisation (at least it was here in New Zealand). To some degree it was successful, and it is the loss of that degree of success that we are bemoaning. That is, without saying Keynesianism is the answer, we would like to build on previous successes and lessons learned, rather than return to the bad old days. 5) Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we must distinguish between the flows of goods and services and movements of finance. The threat of capital flight seems to be sufficient to hog tie any government that spooks financial markets. This aspect certainly seems to have at least great potential importance. Yes! Bill Rosenberg -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9843] Re: MAI and Foreign Control in Canada, Globaloney
Sid Schniad's and Doug Henwood's figures on speculation and foreign investment in the world economy, and Bill Burgess's on Canada were interesting. I'd always had the impression Canada was more neo-colonised than New Zealand. However you might like to consider these figures for New Zealand: A New Zealand Reserve Bank survey in 1996 [1] showed *daily* New Zealand foreign exchange market turnover in 1992 of US$4.2 billion, which had risen to US$7.2 billion by 1995. In 1995 only 56% involved the NZ$. By way of comparison, New Zealand's GDP in the March 1993 year was about US$41 billion and in the March 1996 year about US$59 billion. The *annual* New Zealand Stock Exchange turnover is about US$8.5 billion. Merchandise exports in the year to March 1993 were about US$10 billion, and to March 1996 about US$13 billion, so exports accounted for about 0.9% and 0.7% of currency turnover in the two years. The New Zealand dollar is said to be the 7th most traded currency in the world! To add to Doug's table, New Zealand exports have gone from 24.8% of GDP in 1980 to 23.8% in 1994. The ratio rose more or less steadily from 1961 to 1980 and 81, then began falling until 1990, when it began rising again, peaking in 1993. However, the picture is considerably different in foreign investment, to the extent it can be estimated. The last official figures for foreign ownership of assets (a la Bill Burgess) were in 1982-83, which indicated foreign companies had 25.6% of the paid-up capital of the companies in the survey (which was not complete). 36.8% of tax-assessable income and 32.4% of dividends paid went to these foreign companies. In a paper I completed recently [2], using data from the New Zealand Top 230 companies (including financial institutions) and elsewhere, I concluded that in 1995, over half of company operating surplus (earnings before interest and tax) went to foreign companies in New Zealand. There are no asset figures available for such a comparison. However it appears there has been a substantial increase in foreign control of the New Zealand economy in that period. Since 1989 there have been official statistics on New Zealand's International Investment Position, which shows assets held in New Zealand by foreigners and overseas assets held by New Zealand residents. Foreign investment in New Zealand (including portfolio) has risen from NZ$51 billion to NZ$97 billion from 1989 to 1995 and New Zealand investment abroad from NZ$7.2 billion to NZ$23.4 billion. The net position has gone from -NZ$44.1 billion to -NZ$73.3 billion. By this measure, the ratio of inward FDI to GDP was 14.4% in 1989 and 46.7% in 1995. Outward FDI to GDP was 1.3% in 1989 and 13.4% in 1995, though one wonders whether some of these increases are simply because Statistics New Zealand have got better at measuring. Almost the entire New Zealand financial sector is foreign owned. In 1996, 24 out of the "Management" magazine top 30 institutions, including almost all the biggest ones, were foreign, as were 122 out of the top 200 non- financial companies. Some of the effects: - when the economy "booms" to the extent that company profits increase, the current account goes worse into deficit because of the increasing dividend and interest payments abroad. - a dysfunctional exchange rate. It is set by interest rates attracting foreign investors and foreign investor "confidence" in the New Zealand government rather than "real" transactions. - hence New Zealand has a chronic, worsening, current account deficit (currently 4.2% of GDP) and steadily increasing foreign debt. Private foreign debt has risen from 9.8% to 54.6% of GDP between 1983 and 1996, though government foreign debt has fallen, offsetting the rise. Total foreign debt has risen from 46.7% to 79.1% of GDP in the same period. - funnily enough, it wrecks the monetarist Reserve Bank's attempts to control inflation using the exchange rate (encouraging it to rise to reduce internal prices) and interest rates. Higher interest rates increase the exchange rate because they attract foreign investors, threatening inflation targets and damaging exporters. Importers of course don't reduce their prices when the exchange rate rises. - craven foreign-investor-friendly policies by New Zealand governments, with which you'll be familiar. Why should we protect national capitalists via opposing the MAI, etc, asked Bill Burgess. In New Zealand's case, primarily to reduce dependence on foreign capital, which is demonstrably leading government policy. But a few other figures I calculated from the Top 200 are interesting: - after-tax profit per employee was $20,000 for New Zealand companies, and $29,800 for foreign companies - though they took half the operating surplus, they employed only 18% of the full-time workforce. - turnover per employee was lower for foreign than New Zealand companies in most industrial classifications. New Zealand's overall rate of growth in labour productivity has fallen since
[PEN-L:8930] Re:Marilyn Waring
In general I agree with Bill Cochrane's comments on Marilyn Waring. She was after all elected as a National Party member of Parliament. At that stage in its life, National was Tory in the most traditional way: socially and economically reactionary, though not yet globalist or anti-interventionist. However I wouldn't be quite as dismissive as Bill C. She does have useful and thoughtful things to say about issues such as feminism and of course the feminist economics that started this discussion. I suppose my view is partly coloured by the fact that New Zealand is currently a desert when looking for people who are willing to speak out with anything significantly different from the current market-is-god form of political correctness. I wouldn't go as far as Bill C. on Helen Clark, leader of the Labour Party. She is undoubtedly intelligent and hard working. But she is also willing to put up with central aspects of her party's policy which would negate any remnants of social democratic conscience. She was, after all, a prominent figure in the Lange/Douglas cabinet. There are equally hard working but more principled women in the Alliance I'd nominate in her place. And of course Jane Kelsey. Marilyn Waring certainly wasn't the only woman in Parliament. It's a very long time, 60 years or so, since there was only one woman in the New Zealand Parliament. She may well have been the only woman in the National Party caucus though, and being a radical woman amongst a bunch of dyed-in-the-wool tory chauvinists of the old school would have been an alienating experience to put it mildly. Bill Rosenberg Comrades I write this with some trepidation, given the view in many quarters that Marilyn Waring should be elevated to the status of at least saint, perhaps a medium league deity. Marliyn Waring is and always has been a tory, albeit of a liberal kind. She is no friend of unions or a number of other traditional "left" progressive organizations and IMHO it would be ill advised to expect much in the way of progressive, in the left wing sense, thought from this individual and even less in the way of deed, despite what some of her apologists might say. As an aside it is inaccurate to state that Ms Waring was the only women member of parliament at the time of her election and I would be interested in the source of this particular statement. If one wanted to single out a women in NZ politics who is both intelligent, capable, hard working and has at least a residual commitment to social democratic principles I would nominate the current leader of the Labour party Helen Clark. If you like academics then try Jane kelsey. I say this largely because when tory scum masquerade as progressives it makes me want to vomit. Cheers Bill Cochrane Centre for Labour and Trade Union Studies University of Waikato Hamilton New Zealand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8794] Re: capital mobility restrictions
Mike Got the article on capital mobility - many thanks. Bill
[PEN-L:7198] Re: Marilyn Waring
Ken Hanly wrote ... Waring was an MP for three terms in New Zealand. From the video it seemed as if she were more or less retired to a small farm where she appreciates the lifestyle. She had travelled throughout the world doing time studies of women's versus men's work. As she points out in many societies the work done by most women would not be counted since it does not produce income. She's currently a lecturer (in Political Science I think) at Massey University's Auckland (Albany) campus as far as I know. She was previously at Waikato University and left there with a very public blast at the quality of her colleagues. Did she play any role in criticising neo-liberal policies in New Zealand during the eighties and nineties or has she more or less retired from the fray? Is she well regarded as a feminist economist? I found her at times a bit simplistic but then this was a video after all. I now have her book IF WOMEN COUNTED. Have others opinions on this book? I don't know if it's the same book as "Counting for nothing: what men value and what women are worth", Allen and Unwin, Wellington New Zealand, 1988. This is a critique of how the GNP is put together, much on the lines of the video. As a non-economist I found it excellent for what it was, though its main weakness as I recall it was that it barely recognises the existence of classes: the analysis is largely feminist and "developed vs undeveloped" world. I think it has been reasonably influential on the left here in New Zealand, with the Alliance Party calling for alternative definitions of the nation's wealth as part of its political platform. She hasn't been particularly vocal about neo-liberalism per se as far as I am aware, but she has spoken widely on the issues in the book and would I think be counted as an opponent of neo-liberalism. She has considerable public respect because she was one of the few Members of Parliament of the National (conservative) government who stood up to its leader, Robert Muldoon, a noted bully. He called a snap election in 1984 blaming it on her because she was threatening to vote against her party on an opposition measure banning nuclear warships in New Zealand. There are a number of deep ironies in this. The Muldoon government was a conservative government in the 1970's interventionist, socially reactionary sense. It was replaced by the Lange/Douglas led neo-liberal Labour Party which, without a mandate, effectively took the country even further to the Right. The nuclear-free legislation Waring supported was promoted by Richard Prebble who was then in the Labour Party and is now the leader of ACT (Association of Consumers and Taxpayers!) Party which won eight seats in our recent election with a purist policy that the Douglas neo-liberal policy had yet to be completed. Bill Rosenberg /-----\ | Bill Rosenberg, Systems Manager, Centre for Computing and Biometrics, | |P. O. Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand. | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone:(64)(03)3252-811 Fax:(64)(03)3253-865 | \-/
[PEN-L:6853] Re: New Zealand living standards
Bill The data is hard to interpret. Could you append it with some distributional data? Sorry - I've only got news media reports at present. Bill Rosenberg /-\ | Bill Rosenberg, Systems Manager, Centre for Computing and Biometrics, | |P. O. Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand. | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone:(64)(03)3252-811 Fax:(64)(03)3253-865 | \-/
[PEN-L:6823] New Zealand living standards
For those followers of New Zealand on the list, the following NZ Press Association item will be of interest, particularly since the period covers most of the economic restructuring which began in 1984. (Note that Statistics New Zealand (SNZ) is the semi-commercialised, but still state-owned, Department of Statistics.) Average weekly household spneding fell 12% in real terms between 1986 and 1995, according to a book published by Statistics New Zealand yesterday. At the same time, the proportion of households renting rather than owning their own homes had been increasing; the number renting rose from 26% 10 years ago to 27% last year. Of those living in their own homes, fewer had a mortgage in 1986, SNZ said. An increasing proportion of the smaller household budget went on food, power, telephone rental, health, and education services during the period, "Consumer Expenditure 1995" shows. However, spending on food dropped 3% after adjusting for inflation, in part due to a fall in the size of the average household from 2.9 to 2.7 people over the 10 years. Spending on clothing and transport declined over the decade. Outlay on clothing represented 4.5% of household budgets in 1995, compared with 5.5% in 1986, and the proportion for transport fell to 17%, from 19%. The reduced cost of imported clothing and cheaper imported used cars was likely to have contributed to these changes, SNZ said. The proportion of household spending on services such as finance, health and education showed the greatest increases. Spending on health rose to 2.25%, from 1.25% 10 years ago. For education, the jump was from 0.5% in 1986 to 1.5% last year. University fees accounted for 0.42% of houshold spending in 1995. (From the Christchurch "Press", 19 October 1996.) Bill /-\ | Bill Rosenberg, Systems Manager, Centre for Computing and Biometrics, | |P. O. Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand. | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone:(64)(03)3252-811 Fax:(64)(03)3253-865 | \-/
[PEN-L:6659] Re: NZ Elections - Early News
Bill is largely right, but it is not quite that simple. The result (before counting special votes) is On the Right Association of Consumers and Taxpayers (ACT - the rump of the New Rightists thrown out of the 1984-1990 New Right Labour govt) 8 National (ruling conservative party) 44 United (a National stooge party with no known policies) 1 -- 53 In the middle New Zealand First (initially a breakaway from National, but has moved somewhat to the left with strong Maori support and a populist policy against immigration, big business and foreign investment)17 On the Left Labour (has moved its social policies leftwards since the 1980's but still with a monetarist-based economic policy) 37 Alliance (alliance of left-breakaway from 1980's Labour with various minor centre-left parties including the Greens) 13 -- 50 - Total seats in parliament 120 Clearly a minority or coalition government is necessary, and everyone here is waiting for NZ First to show its hand. So far it has said it is willing to look at a coalition with anyone. If it goes with National it's policy is not to repeal the Employment Contracts Act - just make minor changes to it. It seems unlikely that it will go with National as many of its supporters (particularly the strong Maori vote it got) would feel betrayed. But its leader, founder, and its chief raison d'etre, Winston Peters, being an ex-National cabinet minister, is somewhat (and deliberately) unpredictable. National has not conceded defeat and is hoping for either a coalition with NZ First or to encourage defections from NZ First or Labour, or to be able to form a minority government. We're in for an interesting few weeks - or months. However, the outcome whichever way it goes is unlikely to have any radical changes to economic policies because Labour's and National's have no radical differences. Their differences are their spending priorities. It is a significant rejection of National's anti-welfare, anti- worker, privatisation policies but not necessarily of the underlying economic policies (unfortunately!). Bill Rosenberg To all those who thought that the Presidential election was the only show in town this year, i can tell you that a major swing in right-left sentiment has occured in NZ today. The latest news is that a firm trend is now apparent and the privatising, welfare-raping, public-sector destroying, employment-contracts act criminals - The National Party which has ruled over the last 7 or so years will lose power. The Labour Party (much changed since the Rogernomics days) will form a coalition with the Alliance (a combination of rather left group - which was formed from people who left the Labour Party when they were last in power acting like conservatives; maori groups, women's groups and green groups). The alliance has vowed to scrap the Employment Contracts Act, buy back some of the privatised enterprises, restore free health and open up education again. NZ First (a centre party made up largely of the better nationals who couldn't hack the destruction that the Nationals were guilty of) will also be in the Coalition. The leader of the Labour Party, Helen Clark will be the first woman PM. NZ can look forward to a better future now especially the poor. The rich who have eaten greedily at the expense of the poor over the National period will now face the judgement day.if Alliance can keep Labour to their promises. Brings a smile to my face. even though it is a small countrythis is a much more significant event that whether clinton or dole wins. kind regards bill -- ## William F. Mitchell ### Head of Economics Department #University of Newcastle New South Wales, Australia ###* E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ###Phone: +61 49 215065 # ## ###+61 49 215027 Fax: +61 49 216919 ## http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/~bill/billyhp.html "only when the last tree has died and the last river has been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money." (Cree Indian saying...circa 1909) /-\ | Bill Rosenberg, Systems Manager, Centre for Computing and Biometrics, | |P. O. Box 84, Lincoln
[PEN-L:3790] Re: Training's not the answer
There was a very interesting article in the New York Review of Books, 29 Feb, p47-52, "The New, Ruthless Economy", by Simon Head. It gave considerable detail on how earnings of non-supervisory workers in the U.S. have fallen while productivity has risen, relating that to "lean production", "reengineering" and TQM/Denning type techniques. The main theme was that higher productivity has not been rewarded with higher wages, but Head also concludes that "Retraining programs are certainly necessary to help discharged workers aquire new skills, often skills involving some form of computer processing. But the requirements of the new mass-production economy make themselves felt most strongly among the younger people entering the labor market. The economy of lean production has no need for a large and growing supply of younger workers who have had the kind of German-style training for technically advnaced production work that so attracts Clinton and Reich" Bill /-\ | Bill Rosenberg, Systems Manager, Centre for Computing and Biometrics, | |P. O. Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand. | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone:(64)(03)3252-811 Fax:(64)(03)3253-865 | \-/
[PEN-L:3595] Re: State of the New Zealand economy
Hugh Radice wrote: I asked Mayes about the effect on the distribution of income and wealth; he did not know, or would not say. Here are some better figures on income distribution in New Zealand - this comes largely from Jane Kelsey's book, p.256ff. Real disposable incomes, full-time wage and salary earners 1984-90 (i.e. before the Employment Contracts Act was introduced): 1st quintile 3rd quintile 5th quintile June 1984 973 974 1052 June 1990 937 952 1081 % change -3.69-2.26 +2.76 (March 1981=1000) This of course doesn't include some of the worst hit: part-timers, beneficiaries, nor those at the other end on unearned income. It has got worse than this since 1990. For example "the Infometrics agency in September 1993 reported the top 20 percent of households currently received 45% of all gross income, up from 35% in the late 1970s. It predicted that their share would increase to 50% by 1997/98. This left 3% of the total income for the poorest 20% of households in 1993. The real spending power of those in employment between 1987 and 1992 rose by 7% for the wealthiest 20% and fell by 2.9% for the poorest quintile." Compensation of employees as a percentage of GDP, adjusted for changes in the working age population, fell from 50% in 1986 to 47% in 1993. The Department of Social Welfare reported to the re- elected National government in 1993 that the gap between the top household incomes and the bottom was widening with the lowest 40% of household groups receiving only 16% of total household income and 76% of all benefit income. This compared with 19% and 47% in 1988. In real dollar terms the middle 50% of household incomes slipped from a $23,106-$62,335 range in the early 1980s to $17,777-$52,085 in the 1990s. Economist Brian Easton, one of the best informed on such matters, said in 1994 that "the number of people below whatever poverty line you choose increased about 40% from 1990 to 1992". He laid much of the blame for growing inequality at tax and benefit cuts. Tax cuts benefited the rich in 1988 and benefit cuts hitting the poor in 1990. Commenting on the widening disparities when pointed out by the "Economist", the Minister of Finance, Bill Birch: income disparities "are widening and they will widen more. That doesn't worry me." There's lots more, but that'll do for now. Bill /-\ | Bill Rosenberg, Systems Manager, Centre for Computing and Biometrics, | |P. O. Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand. | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone:(64)(03)3252-811 Fax:(64)(03)3253-865 | \-/
[PEN-L:3612] Information please
The NZ Business Round Table which consist of the top Executives and Directors from most of NZ big business and is a major lobbiest for deregulation, privatisation etc, currently has a Dr David G. Green touring the country. They commissioned him to write a report on social welfare etc. It conclusions are (wait for it) that it (along with education etc) should be privatised: "the civil society" he calls it, without any sense of irony. Does anyone know anything about Dr Green? They have not told us much, but we do know: 1976-1981: Labour councillor in Newcastel upon Tyne 1981-1983: Research fellow at ANU 1983-1986: No information 1986- : Director of Health and Welfare Unit at the Institute of Economic Affairs in London. Anyone fill in any gaps or know what his training is? Thanks Bill /-\ | Bill Rosenberg, Systems Manager, Centre for Computing and Biometrics, | |P. O. Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand. | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone:(64)(03)3252-811 Fax:(64)(03)3253-865 | \-/
[PEN-L:3589] Re: State of the New Zealand economy
On Tue, 02 Apr 1996,Ellen Dannin wrote: When asked to account for the declines under deregulation, its proponents gave the "dog-tag" explanation. That is, they would say that their policies would finally succeed once the next bit of deregulation was done. With success still eluding them, the last bit to be done is deregulating the dog tags. Yes, and that is continuing. With the current failure of monetary policies to keep inflation under control without severely penalising exporters (it uses the exchange rate as a major weapon) the exporters are now calling for further action: further deregulation of local bodies and their services, privatising workers' Accident Compensation, tariff cuts, cuts in government charges (which given their previous enthusiasm for "user pays" means either further attacks on public service employees or privatisation) etc Bill /-\ | Bill Rosenberg, Systems Manager, Centre for Computing and Biometrics, | |P. O. Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand. | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone:(64)(03)3252-811 Fax:(64)(03)3253-865 | \-/
[PEN-L:3590] Re: State of the New Zealand economy
Hugh Radice wrote:
I was recently at a workshop in Budapest on foreign direct investment
in the Visegrad countries (btw, that's Hungary, Poland, Slovakia,
Czech Rep], and to my surprise one of the papers was on "The role of
FDI in structural change: the lessons from New Zealand's
experience". The paper was given by David Mayes, a Brit who is now
at the Reserve Bank of NZ (he was previously at the National
Institute of Econ and Social Research in London, which co-sponsored
the workshop). The paper was 100% supportive of the change to
neo-liberalism in NZ.
No great surprise - the only surprise would be that the RBNZ was
doing this for nothing. Former Ministers in the Labour and National
Governments - Roger Douglas, Richard Prebble, Ruth Richardson and
others - have made their fortunes since defeat (or resignation) by
acting as consultants and travelling guru on such matters: a sort of
"do it yourself privatisation" road show.
On FDI, the stats in the paper show net FDI - inward minus outward -
running at NZ$2m in 1992, 4m in 1993 and 3.5m in 1994. However, even
more striking has been the inflow of portfolio and loan capital,
linked to privatization. Offshore ownership of NZ stocks has risen
from 19% at 31/12/89 to 56% at 31/8/95. Total foreign debt,
according to Mayes, "still amounts to 70-80% of GDP", the difference
being that this is now mostly private (including 40% foreign holding
of domestic debt in the form of NZ$-denominated government stock].
I presume thes are $b, not $m. Offshore ownership of NZ stocks are
now (1996) at 58%. All these figures relate to publicly listed
shares on the Stock Exchange. However a feature of these years is
the loss of companies from the Share Market - they are being
privatised in another sense. I looked at the 1994 top 200 non-
financial companies (ranked by turnover), which includes listed, non-
listed, and state-owned enterprises, and probably accounts for the
great majority of New Zealand's non-financial, non-agricultural
commerce. Of the 200, 45% are o/s owned, accounting for 52% of the
turnover, 66% of profits, 57% of tax paid, 61% of total assets, 55%
of shareholders funds, and 62% of the employees. ("O/s owned" is
defined by the legislative cut-off of at least 25% overseas
ownership.)
15 of the top 20 financial institutions are o/s owned, including all
but one of the main banks (community trust-owned Trustbank) which is
currently subject to a takeover bid, rumoured to be by Lloyds.
In all, state-owned enterprises, cooperatives and the like are
heavily represented in the remaining major NZ-owned companies:
privatisation (in either sense) almost always means overseas
ownership.
The figures for overseas debt sound right. It is grown several times
since 1984, and has been significantly privatised. To the
slight extent that it is reducing in absolute terms it is largely due
to our appreciating exchange rate. Relative to GDP it is falling.
Anyhow, in this capitalist paradise,according to Mayes, " [FDI]
contributes to long term economic growth, because it increases
efficiency by encouraging local firms to become competitive, because
it facilitates exports through the overseas linkages the investor
possesses, because it brings an inflow of knowledge, skills and
technology and lastly because it generates employment both in itself
and through the forward and backward linkages through the economy".
Elsewhere he claims that unemployment has fallen to 6%.
This is standard stuff coming from the Reserve Bank, government
Ministers, Chambers of Commerce, private bank spokespeople etc,... I
recently wrote a rejoinder to Reserve Bank Governor, Donald Brash who
had made speeches on the same lines. Legislation was passed last year
making foreign investment even easier (as if that were possible).
Other than for land sales, the only criteria are that the investor
be of good character, be putting money into the investment, and have
"business acumen", whatever that means. This caused an uproar and the
only real debate New Zealand has had on foreign investment for many
years. To the government's surprise there was considerable
opposition, and there has been a propaganda offensive since then to
reeducate us.
The key thing to note about their arguments are that they are almost
exclusively "micro". All the "good" things Mayes lists are matters
for case by case examination: an argument (at best) for sensible
foreign investment rules. What it deliberately ignores is the macro
effects, the most important of which is that our dependence on
foreign investment (which is always conditional on political
conditions) means these economic policies cannot be changed without
capital flight causing a crisis. On top of that are increasing
balance of payments problems etc.
The unemployment figure is correct - though note that it is still
higher than what it was when this whole experiment started in 1984.
I asked
[PEN-L:3453] State of the New Zealand economy
The following brief item gives some indication of where the New Zealand economy is going at present. The single-minded obsession with inflation (through the Reserve Bank) has led to permanently high, and currently rising, interest rates and a rising exchange rate. This both encourages and is worsened by enormous inflows of foreign investment, including takeovers, government securities and speculative flows, which are now the dominant influence on the value of the currency. Domestic demand is weak as a result of falling real incomes for most of the population over several years, and tax cuts due in July (paid for in large part by welfare and government service cuts of the last five years) are forecast to offer only minimal increases in real incomes after the rises in interest rates and inflation that are likely to result. Unemployment, though having fallen considerably from its peak of two or three years ago, is still above the level at the beginning of the "Rogernomics" neo- liberal experiment in 1984 and seems likely to begin to rise again or at best stagnate. While politicians and transnational businessmen praise outward signs of health such as a strong exchange rate, government surpluses, and rave reviews from the credit rating agencies, the hollowness seen in this item is leading farmers and manufacturers to call for further cuts in wages, government spending, social welfare, accident compensation, and what little tariffs remain. From the Christchurch "Press", 25 March 1996, p.6: "Growth in manufactured-goods exports halts", by Jeremy Kirk, in Wellington. Growth in the sale of New Zealand manufactured goods has stopped after five years of steady increases and no sign of a new growth phase is evident, the Manufacturers' Federation says. Federation president Colin Martin said yesterday a Trust Bank-BERL analysis of the December quarter showed, for the first time in five years, no over-all growth in manufactured goods sales. While domestic sales were slightly ahead of the previous period, export returns dropped to 2.3% below the level of a year before as companies struggled with the high value of the New Zealand dollar, the slowing of the major export market, Australia, and manufactured-commodity price falls. Export-led growth had ended but it would be a mistake to think the sector was about to contract, he said. "The signs are that domestic demand should improve as the year progresses, but export growth is going to be tough indeed." While manufacturing profits were under pressure they were unlikely to collapse because of relatively high equity levels that were minimising interest-rate costs and strong recent investment in staff training and plant. Many Manufacturers were caught out by the rapid rise of the kiwi dollar, but were trying to improve productivity to offset this, he said. "The imminent tax cuts must contribute to growth in domestic demand in the second half of the year." Bill Rosenberg /-\ | Bill Rosenberg, Systems Manager, Centre for Computing and Biometrics, | |P. O. Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand. | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone:(64)(03)3252-811 Fax:(64)(03)3253-865 | \-/
[PEN-L:2284] Re: Official: NZ is the model
People interested in a thorough (critical!) description and analysis of what has happened in New Zealand over the last decade may like to read the recently published: The New Zealand Experiment: A World Model for Structural Adjustment? Jane Kelsey Auckland University Press with Bridget Williams Books 1995 It was also published in 1995 as "Economic Fundamentalism: The New Zealand Experiment - A World Model for Structural Adjustment?" in the International Labour Series by Pluto Press, London and East Haven, Connecticut. Bill Date sent: Sat, 06 Jan 1996 16:40:57 -0800 From: Robert Peter Burns [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[PEN-L:2281] Official: NZ is the model Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Heard on the radio, Republican congressman saying that the battle over reducing the public sector is now worldwide. New Zealand has done it, quoth he, and other countries are doing it, and if the US doesn't do it, we'll be left behind Yeah, left behind in the race to the bottom. Uugh!! Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] /-\ | Bill Rosenberg, Systems Manager, Centre for Computing and Biometrics, | |P. O. Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand. | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone:(64)(03)3252-811 Fax:(64)(03)3253-865 | \-/
[PEN-L:356] re: Brian Easton's essay on responsibility
For those interested in Easton's essay... (500 lines) Bill Rosenberg. THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF AN ECONOMIST Brian Easton, Economic And Social Trust On New Zealand, 18 Talavera Terrace, Kelburn, Wellington, New Zealand. Phone NZ (4) 472 8950; Fax NZ (4) 4725305; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Address to "Economics, Unemployment, and Social Justice", a lecture series sponsored by the Tertiary Christian Studies Program of the Combined Chaplaincies, V.U.W. 9 April 1991. Published in "Towards a Just Economy", edited by Raymond Pelly, published by the Combined Chaplaincies, Victoria University of Wellington, 1991, ISBN 0-473-01358- 4. Just over a year ago, on my birthday, I visited Majdanek, near the Polish city of Lublin, 160 kilometres south east of Warsaw and 80 kilometres from the Soviet border. Majdanek was a concentration camp. Its dead - from starvation, infection, and execution - included 150,000 Poles, 125,000 Jews, 70,000 Russians, plus those of other nationalities, a total of 360,000 souls - the population of today's Christchurch or greater Wellington. The main memorial at the camp is a giant urn containing 7.5 tonnes of human ashes. The inscription reads "Los Nasz Dla Was Przesthorga" - our fate is a warning to you. The previous birthday, in 1989, I had been up on the Perry Saddle, and while that night the rain had beaten through the windows of the tramping hut - a hut more substantial than those at Majdanek - one never felt the weather on the Heaphy Track was evil. Nature is extraordinarily powerful and can be extremely destructive, but to the modern mind it is not malevolent. That is something reserved, apparently, for humankind. I will not detail the obscenity of Majdanek; that must be an experience reserved for each of us when we visit a concentration camp. But I want to share with you the path that I was led down, as I mused about personal responsibility, particularly my own. It is very easy to observe the terrible things at concentration camps like Majdanek, to condemn those directly involved in the atrocities, and to stop there. It is equally unsatisfactory to generalise vaguely that it shows all mankind is capable of committing atrocities, and we are all guilty. My concern was where actually does the responsibility stop? Let me begin by saying that I am not concerned to blame the German nation as a whole, particularly those who were born or came to the age of responsibility after 1945. I do not believe that sin is inherited, and in that Germans stand with me and as vehemently condemn such behaviour as an abomination, they are no more guilty than I. The line of thought began because the town of Lublin was so close that on an infamous day in November 1943, when 18,000 Jews were rounded up, herded into pits and machine gunned, loud music was played so the locals could not hear the execution. But over the years the citizens must have known, broadly, what was going on. How compliant were they? And in that they were compliant were they as guilty as the camp guards? I cannot answer such questions because I do not know the specifics. But I began to wonder who else were involved. It is easy enough to condemn the guards, but what about - say - the administrators back in Berlin? They presumably did not know much about the details with what happened, but did they understand the import of their involvement, did they try to find out? Of course ones' response to Majdanek was not solely an intellectual one. I wanted a prayer or a karakia. Lines of poetry ran around inside me not quite saying it. I was reading Frank McKay's biography of James K. Baxter, and I came across Baxter's response to his visit of Hiroshima, an even greater oven. Having seen an ocean of fire and then An ocean of ashes, her mother's head On the ground in the pumpkin field, Eioka lies Under a stone in Akai. Not yet ten She liked bean jam. You guardians of the dead, Comfort this child, so young in your mysteries. (Thank you James, for saying it for me but better, again.) And so my thoughts turned to an even greater oven of extermination, the bombing of Hiroshima. You will recall it was done by `our' side, on people who were not of `our' ethnicity. Again I do not feel personally responsible for the dropping of the atomic bomb, but I have pondered on where that responsibility stopped. For instance did it include the refuellers of the B29s which dropped the bombs? Did it include those in the airbase cafeteria who fed the refuellers? One helpful answer, albeit from a much less significant instance, was told to me by a friend whose brother had been in a partnership with a lawyer who embezzled his clients. When the Law Society investigated the brother, it being necessary to do this because lawyers can be liable for the debts of their professional partners, it was shown that the brother had conscientiously and regularly attempted to check on the partnership's financial integrity. Being deceived himself the brother was found not liable for
[PEN-L:4585] Information please: AXA
One of the recent trends in New Zealand (and Australia) appears to be the beginning of the "privatisation" of the large mutual life insurance companies which have for many years dominated that industry here. The first is the Australian-based National Mutual Life Association which is the second biggest life insurance company in Australasia (Australia + New Zealand). In February it announced it has sold a 51% controlling interest to the French insurance group AXA for $A1.1 billion. The remainder will go to the 1.3 million policy holders as conventional shares. NMLA has assets of $A26b. Has anyone any information on AXA they can give me? The publicity material says that AXA has assets of $A330b covering 16 counties in Europe, North America and Asia. It claims to be the third largest insurer in Europe. It has a 60% interest in The Equitable Life Assurance Society, the sixth largest life insurer in the US. It says its main interest in NMLA is its Asian business. NMLA will become AXA's Asia- Pacific branch and hand NMLA its existing Asian business. Bill
