question

[Ellen Frank]

Does anybody know who coined the term "supply-side economics"
(or who takes credit for it, anyway)?
Thanks in advance. 

Ellen Frank

question

[Ellen Frank]

Does anyone know of a (preferably on-line) source that
compares social programs across countries -- like unemployment,
pensions, health care?

Ellen Frank

Question

[Tim Bousquet]

Where do I find information on quarterly growth rates?

Thanks,

tim

=
Check out the Chico Examiner listserves at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DisorderlyConduct
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChicoLeft

Subscribe to the Chico Examiner for only $40 annually or $25 for six months. Mail cash 
or check payabe to "Tim Bousquet" to POBox 4627, Chico CA 95927

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

Question

[Gil Skillman]

Here's something that's been puzzling me:  it has been said that the U.S.
state governments are in their worst fiscal crisis since the 1930s.  And
yet the US is not in the middle of its worst recession since the
Depression; the Reagan-Volcker recession of the early 1980s, for example,
was much worse in terms of lost GDP and raised unemployment rates.  So what
accounts for the disproportionate severity of the state-level fiscal crisis
relative to the condition of the national economy?  Is it that the Federal
government offers so much less support for services and income supports
that states provide?  Or because state tax rates are often tied to federal
rates, which have been dramatically cut back for the rich?  Some
combination of both, and if so, with what relative weights?  Or is some
other factor involved?  And is there some book or article that spells this
out clearly? Thanks in advance--
Gil

Question

[Ellen Frank]

I have to write a short piece on rent control and 
remember that the Journal of Economic Perspectives
did an overview of the literature a few years (maybe even
more than a few years) back.  Does anyone happen to
know when that was, so I can save myself some 
search time?  Thanks in advance.

Ellen 

Question

[Thomas Kruse]

A while ago someone posted a NYT commentary on the level of consumer debt in
the US -- around $5.4 trillion.  I am interested in finding literature on
how endebtedness shapes/limits political action.  The assumption is that
carrying loads of debt would lead to lower levels of collective action,
political risk-taking, etc., and is in effect a form of social control.  Any
leads would be appreciated.

Tom


Tom Kruse
Casilla 5869
Cochabamba, Bolivia
Tel/Fax: (011-591-42) 48242 (h)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Question

[Peter Bohmer]

Is there a recent book you would recommend as a good recent left analysis on 
the causes of the growing inequality of income and wealth in the United 
States for an undergraduate program in political eocnomy.

Thanks, peter Bohmer 

sociological question

[Michael Perelman]

Does anyone here know of a relatively straightforward study of the sort
of social characteristics that are typical of people who managed to
catapult themselves from poverty to affluence?

--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901

Ian's question

[Michael Perelman]

The comedy central story was in the paper of record.  Here is the URL

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/16/world/16NATI.html
-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bankruptcy Question

[michael perelman]

I asked David earlier if he would teach us about bankruptcy.  Here is my
question.  As Doug Orr has written discussed, bankruptcy is often used
as a strategic act to eliminate obligations -- such as to break union
contracts.  How common is that sort of bankruptcy?

--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

data question

[Michael Perelman]

I'm having a devil of a time finding a time series on net and gross
investment for the United States.  Is there and obvious source?
-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

research question

[Michael Perelman]

The following appears in the 3rd ed. of Jevon's Coal Question.  If
anyone has the first ed. available, I would like to know if it is in the
first ed.  The citation is interesting in its own right.

411: "The plains of North America and Russia are our corn fields;
Chicago and Odessa our granaries; Canada and the Baltic our timber
forests; Australia contains our sheep farms, and in Argentina and
on the Western prairies of North America are our herds of oxen;
Peru sends her silver, and the gold of South Africa and Australia
flows to London; the Hindus and the Chinese grow our tea for us,
and our coffee, sugar and spice plantations are all in the Indies.
Spain and France are our vineyards and the Mediterranean our fruit
garden; and our cotton grounds, which for long have occupied the
Southern United States are being extended everywhere in the warm
regions of the earth."
412: "While other countries mostly subsist upon the annual and
ceaseless income of the harvest, we are drawing more and more upon a
capital which yields no annual interest, but once turned to
light and heat and motive power, is gone for ever in space."



--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901

Australian question

[Michael Perelman]

Why do the Aussies make such wierd Internet laws?

E-MAIL SHARING BANNED BY LAW IN AUSTRALIA
Forwarding e-mail to friends, family or colleagues without permission
from
the sender is now illegal in Australia, thanks to a new law that took
effect yesterday. Penalties for violation could be as much as five
years'
jail time or fines of AU$60,000 (US$31,400). The motivation behind the
law
is copyright protection for the sender of the original e-mail. But in
addition to material that already has copyright protection, such as
excerpts from books or song lyrics, the new measure also affects
personal
messages. "It's quite possible that the forwarding of an e-mail could be
a
technical infringement of copyright," says a legal advisor for
Australia's
attorney general. "E-mailing something is a 'communication' under the
Digital Agenda Act and so is putting something up on a Web site." This
new
interpretation means a simple e-mail about office gossip or holiday
plans
also carries personal copyright protection. It is estimated that 5
million
or more e-mail messages are forwarded around Australia every day. (The
Sunday Telegraph 4 Mar 2001)
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,1768268%5E421,00.html


--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901

NASDAQ Question

[Seth Sandronsky]

Hi Penners,

A Mar. 21 MSNBC report says "Since March of 2000, when NASDAQ prices peaked, 
the tech sector collapse has wiped out an astonishing $4.7 trillion from 
investment portfolios."

Is this accurate?

Thanks in advance,
Seth Sandronsky
_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

NASDAQ Question

[Charles Brown]

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/22/01 10:56AM >>>
Tom wrote:
>No. Assuming the calculation is right, the $4.7 trillion would represent a
>value that could never be realized because if investors tried to liquidate
>their portfolios, prices would come down and they would "lose" the $4.7
>trillion that they never had in the first place. Likewise, if everyone on
>pen-l promised to given everyone else a million bucks, we'd all be
>fabulously rich until we tried to spend it. The astonishing thing is not
>the "wipe out" but the illusion that there was anything there to be wiped
>out.

the problem arises to the extent that the $4.7 trillion was perceived as 
real and used as collateral for loans, etc.

((

CB: Was it counted in GDP ?

Economic question

[michael]

I'm still trying to get a handle on the direction of the economy.  I see
tremendous overcapacity in many sectors, leading in the direction of
deflation together with a stock market bubble, based on God knows what.
At the same time, some sectors, such as steel, having gone through
serious capacity contractions are now facing enormous shortages.
Metals, in general, as well as lumber and natural gas are showing signs
of inflation.

I get the feeling that the international financial system is perhaps the
weakest link in the whole world economy.

When I have raised this question in the past, Doug has suggested that we
have a creaky mini-recovery.  I don't have the sense of an underlying
stability that I would associate with the recovery -- even a very weak
one.

Any thoughts?


--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901

good question

[Dan Scanlan]

Title: good question


Subject: News from sister Lynne


REPUBLICANISM SHOWN TO BE GENETIC IN ORIGIN

The discovery that affiliation with the Republican Party is
genetically determined was announced by scientists in the current
issue of the journal NURTURE, causing uproar among traditionalists
who believe it is a chosen lifestyle. Reports of the gene coding for
political conservatism, discovered after a decades-long study of
quintuplets in Orange County, CA, has sent shock waves through the
medical, political, and golfing communities.

Psychologists and psychoanalysts have long believed that Republicans'
unnatural disregard for the poor and frequently unconstitutional
tendencies resulted from dysfunctional family dynamics -- a
remarkably high percentage of Republicans do have authoritarian
domineering fathers and emotionally distant mothers who didn't teach
them how to be kind and gentle. Biologists have long suspected that
conservatism is inherited.

"After all," said one author of the NURTURE article,
"It's quite common for a Republican to have a brother or sister
who is a Republican."

The finding has been greeted with relief by Parents and Friends of
Republicans (PFREP), who sometimes blame themselves for the political
views of otherwise lovable children, family, and unindicted
co-conspirators.

One mother, a longtime Democrat, wept and clapped her hands in
ecstasy on hearing of the findings. "I just knew it was
genetic," she said, seated with her two sons, both avowed
Republicans. "My boys would never freely choose that
lifestyle!" When asked what the Republican lifestyle was, she
said, "You can just tell watching their conventions in Houston
and San Diego on TV: the flaming xenophobia, flamboyant demagogy,
disdain for anyone not rich, you know."

Both sons had suspected their Republicanism from an early age but did
not confirm it until they were in college, when they became convinced
it wasn't just a phase they were going through.

The NURTURE article offered no response to the suggestion that the
high incidence of Republicanism among siblings could result from
their sharing not only genes but also psychological and emotional
attitude as products of the same parents and family dynamics.

A remaining mystery is why many Democrats admit to having voted
Republican at least once -- or often dream or fantasize about doing
so. Polls show that three out of five adult Democrats have had a
Republican experience, although most outgrow teenage experimentation
with Republicanism.

Some Republicans hail the findings as a step toward eliminating
conservophobia. They argue that since Republicans didn't
"choose" their lifestyle any more than someone
"chooses" to have a ski-jump nose, they shouldn't be denied
civil rights which other minorities enjoy.

If conservatism is not the result of stinginess or orneriness
(typical stereotypes attributed to Republicans) but is something
Republicans can't help, there's no reason why society shouldn't
tolerate Republicans in the military or even high elected office --
provided they don't flaunt their political beliefs.

For many Americans, the discovery opens a window on a different
future. In a few years, gene therapy might eradicate Republicanism
altogether.

But should they be allowed to marry?

book question

[Michael Perelman]

Has anyone looked at Capital Resurgent: Roots of the Neoliberal
Revolution by Girard Duminil and Dominique Levy
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu

anthony's question

[Michael Perelman]

Anthony asked about overcapacity in automobiles.  This article will be useful.  It
also illustrates the power of the ratings agencies.

http://www.economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2515212

--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu

China question

[Michael Perelman]

How is China able to export fruits and nuts?  Where do the farmers find the land to
grow such crops?  Are they cutting back on the production of grains?


--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu

research question

[Michael Perelman]

Does anybody have access to the article where Thatcher is quoted as saying

"Economics are (sic) the method, the object is to change the
soul." London Sunday Times, 13 May 81.


--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu

quick question

[Michael Perelman]

What is a good source for the share of HMO dollars that goes to care rather than 
profits or
overhead?
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu

Chavez question

[Michael Perelman]

Thank God he won!  Still, I have a question.  If 70% of the people are poor, how did
the opposition get so many votes?
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu

weather question

[Devine, James]

It seems to me that in previous years, I never heard of
Atlantic/Caribbean  hurricanes or tropical storms whose names started
with letters as high as "L." (Of course, the names follow alphabetical
order.) This year, I've heard of one whose name starts with "N." Are
there more tropical storms this year than in the past? (due to global
warming?) or are the media reporting them more? 

Previous meterologists have only interpreted hurricanes. The point is to
change them!


Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Economics question

[Michael Perelman]

Has there ever been a sustainable job-loss recovery?  I see a number of
signs of recovery, but they seem relatively superficial.  Business week
says that the positive earnings is deceptive.  Is this apparent recovery
going to be sufficient to give Bush a second term?
 --
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

insurance question

[Michael Perelman]

Does anybody know of a nice thumbnail history of insurance?
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

China question

[Michael Perelman]

I am reading all sorts of reports about soaring Chinese demand
pushing up commodity prices.  Has anybody thought abut the extent
to which this effect undo the the beneficial effects of cheap
Chinese imports??

--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question

[Waistline2]

In a message dated 11/30/03 3:34:19 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I did not call you an FBI agent on LBO-talk, though I did say you have penisenvy regarding Doug Henwood.  Meanwhile, I assume you're too embarrassed byyour own argument that "urban life is unsustainable" to answer my question
 
 
Nothing wrong with envy. Jealously is the sin - evil, and carving to posses that of others. Lust is a material force and it has nothing to do with p. 
 
"Urban life is unsustainable" is not an abstraction but means the urban life we have and are living. 
 
Urban life emerges before commodity production becomes dominate and simply indicates what will later become a separation between property in the form of land and property in the form of non-land or symbols of exchange - gold. Urban indicates exchange and means towns. Exchange is the transfer from one person or part of society of something to someone else. 
 
No one disputes the unsustainable of our form of industrial Urban logic. 
 
The dispute is its meaning and ramifications. 
 
Melvin P. 

Savings question

[michael]

Michael Dawson had an interesting figure on the depletion of savings
after World War II.  Like Carroll yesterday, the figures seemed to
extreme to be credible.  I went to the source that Michael mentioned.
But Kolko gave no references.

Kolko, Gabriel. 1976. Main Currents in Modern American History (NY:
Harper & Row).
 317: By 1947 the huge reserve of personal savings was virtually spent,
dropping in two years from $37 billion in 1944 to less than $5 billion
in 1947."


--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901

Investment question?

[joanna bujes]

Why is it that financial pundits are saying that fixed income funds are
a bad idea going forward? If the current decade 2000-2010 is similar to
the 1970-1980 decade, which it seems to me it kind of is, why wouldn't a
fixed income fund do well?
Joanna

investment question

[michael]

I got this response to Joanna's question offlist.


This is not investment advice!

Mr. Coyle is correct in his response but I also wanted to expand on two
possible negatives facing fixed income.

1 - Fast approaching over supply of US Debt - 375B deficit last year,
projected 600B current year, and next year  This would imply over
15%
increase on gvt debt of close to 6 trillion in two years, nearly 10%
this
year alone.  I don't know where the oversupply point will come, depends
on
global hunger for the green back.

2 - The greenback has declined 20% against the Euro in 2 years.  If this

trend were to continue, there is a point at which foreign holders will
bail
on US debt.  It hasn't started as yet, due mostly to the fact that the
loss
in currency was offset by the gains in the last 10 years in the bonds
themselves - decreasing interest rates = increasing values as Mr. Coyle
pointed out.  If (big if) it does happen that foreign holders decide
there
is too much risk (currency or other) and start to sell holdings, look
out
below, as it would snowball into fiscal disaster for the US.

Here is an article that explains how the f/x interventions of late have
actually helped bonds -

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=reutersEdge&storyID=4126469






Now, if holders decide to sell both dollars and bonds watch out.

http://pacific.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2004/01/05/daily78.html
Shows Japan owns 673.5B in foreign reserves, mostly US denominated.
That
is a massive holding - although they wouldn't sell for fear of invasion.

China, on the other hand, doesn't give a @#$% about what the US thinks
and
has stated their intention to buy Euros openly.

 http://fpeng.peopledaily.com.cn/200201/07/eng20020107_88188.shtml

The real trouble would start if other central banks decide to do the
same.
The same would happen as back in the 80's when global central banks
decided
to sell gold holdings in favour holding US Treasuries.  Gold has yet to
recover and may be 5 - 10 years before the prices start to move up (when

viewed from the Euro perspective)


The above chart is from
http://www.kitco.com/weekly/paulvaneeden/jan122004.html  and implies
that
the "surge" in the price of gold is nothing more than a decline in the
value of the US dollar

Again, this is by no means investment advice!

--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901

korea question

[Michael Perelman]

How much influence was Japan able to exert over Korea on the basis of its
relatively short control of that country (1910-45)?
--
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu

Simple question

[Mark Laffey]

One of my students asked me yesterday what is the difference between a
company and a corporation?  To my discomfort, I didn't know the answer.  I'd
be very grateful if someone could offer a simple definition.

Cheers,
Mark


At 12:39 02/07/02 -0700, you wrote:
>http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/02/opinion/02KRIS.html
>
>The NY Times had an interesting editorial blasting the FBI for not
>arresting the anthrax suspect, who the author seems to think is the guilty
>party.  In the course of the story, the author asks:
>
>Have you examined whether Mr. Z has connections to the biggest anthrax
>outbreak among humans ever recorded, the one that sickened more than
>10,000 black farmers in Zimbabwe in 1978-80? There is evidence that the
>anthrax was released by the white Rhodesian Army fighting against black
>guerrillas, and Mr. Z has claimed that he participated in the white army's
>much-feared Selous Scouts.
>
>I don't recall this incident, but it suggests a US connection.  Any
>comments?
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
>Michael Perelman
>Economics Department
>California State University
>Chico, CA 95929
>
>Tel. 530-898-5321
>E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
Dr. Mark Laffey
Department of Political Studies
School of Oriental and African Studies
University of London
Thornhaugh Street, Russell Square
London WC1H OXG
0171 898 4744 (w) 0117 969 8438 (h)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: question

[Michael Perelman]

And Why did Ellen not tell us to watch the Donahue show?  Ian told me she
was on.

On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 05:41:37PM -0400, Ellen Frank wrote:
> 
> Does anybody know who coined the term "supply-side economics"
> (or who takes credit for it, anyway)?
> Thanks in advance. 
> 
> Ellen Frank
> 

-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: question

[Louis Proyect]

Ellen Frank wrote:

>Does anybody know who coined the term "supply-side economics"
>(or who takes credit for it, anyway)?
>Thanks in advance. 
>
>Ellen Frank
>
Journal of Commerce 

March 30, 1987, Monday 

SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGES, Pg. 15A 

LENGTH: 809 words 

HEADLINE: JUDE'S GUIDE TO THE MEDIA 

BYLINE: STANFORD ERICKSON 

Journalist/economist Jude Wanniski has come out with his new "MediaGuide." 

Mr. Wanniski published his first "critical review" of national U.S. publications and 
journalists last year to somewhat mixed reviews. We liked the effort last year and 
find this year's 374-page evaluation of the national print edia much better organized 
and a whole lot better written. 

A former associate editor with The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Wanniski is known for 
having coined the term "supply-side economics." To our way of thinking, as economists 
go, he's somewhat of a poor man's version of John Maynard Keynes. Not that he or Mr. 
Keynes might agree on many things economically speaking, but both he and the late Mr. 
Keynes are sort of renaissance types as much interested in the art of writing and 
politics as economics. Mr. Wanniski's book dealing with economics - "The Way the World 
Works" published in 1978 - was acclaimed by none other than the supply-side guru 
himself, Arthur Laffer, as "the best book on economics ever written." If Arthur really 
believes that, he should change his name to Laugher rather than Laffer. 

-- 

Louis Proyect
www.marxmail.org

quick question

[Ellen Frank]

Can anyone tell me the maximum earnings subject to SS tax
for 2002?  I've searched the SSA website and can't seem to 
find it.  Thanks.

Ellen

another question

[Michael Perelman]

Ian's article on GE capital says that the division earns 40
percent of the profits of GE.  Robert Manning gave a similar
statistic for the interest that Circuit City earns.  Microsoft
and Dell supposedly earned considerable profits playing option
markets.

When profits are shown for financial and non-financial
corporations, how do they break out the profits for non-financial
corporations' financial profits.

--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: question

[Mohammad Maljoo]

A Conference Summary paper summarizing some background papers on the status 
of the philanthropic and nonprofit sectors in ten societies throughout Asia 
Pacific:

http://www.asianphilanthropy.org/appc/appc_conference.pdf





>From: "Ellen Frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [PEN-L:28752] question
>Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 10:08:22 -0400
>
>
>Does anyone know of a (preferably on-line) source that
>compares social programs across countries -- like unemployment,
>pensions, health care?
>
>Ellen Frank




_
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

NASDAQ question

[michael perelman]

Someone sent this factoid to the list, but I was unable to locate it. 
The county library is missing a few issues for this year.  If anyone can
send it an the source that Harpers used, I would be grateful.

Harpers index states that the total of NASDAQ listed firms' profits
'95-'00 was Zero
-- 

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
 
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Michael's Question

[Carrol Cox]

Michael Perelman wrote:
> 
> 
> Let me ask a different question: a revolution has broken out in a poor
> economy, without the ability to confront the imperialism powers head on.
> Clandestine operations can do great damage to the society.  Less committed
> citizens can be bribed.  Misinformation can confuse people, creating factional
> divisions.  Suppose further that the society is divided among different ethnic
> groups?
> 
> How far will an open society get?
> 

It seems to me the answer is "An Open Society will only get them a
bloodbath" (Chile is paradigmatic here).

For revolutionaries under such conditions to create an "open society"
can be rephrased: They would do so only on the basis of trusting the
United States. Juan Bosch, who attempted to build an open society in
Santo Domingo, commented later that all patriotic Latin American leaders
who trusted the U.S. ended up dead or in exile.

Carrol

political question

[Michael Perelman]

Is it too late to have Mel Carnahan run instead of Gore? 
-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Privatization question

[Lisa & Ian Murray]

Does anyone know what year Chile privatized it's Social Security system?

Ian

Techie Question

[Michael Perelman]

I need a laptop computer.  I can get a very good price on one now --
several hundred dollars below the regular price on a fairly high-end
laptop.  Here is the question: given the slowdown would you expect the
price of laptops to come down substantially in January?  Sales
predictions are already shrinking with the recent Gateway news.

--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

War Question

[Michael Perelman]

I read that Dick Army, Sen. Lugar & Hagel are questioning the war.  What
Dems. have spoken up?
-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

question answer

[Dan Scanlan]

Now THERE'S a question that is it's own answer!



>How would a US professor do coming on like that?
>
>On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 07:38:48PM -0700, Dan Scanlan wrote:
>>  Professor Richard Dawkins, the Oxford biologist, said in response to
>>  the report that the British "have every right to feel degraded and
>>  humiliated at our government's cringing subservience to the
>>  illiterate, uncouth, unelected cowboy in the White House."
>>
>>
>  > 
><http://www.harpers.org/weekly-review/>http://www.harpers.org/weekly-review/

election question

[Michael Perelman]

Did any Democrat suffer any harm in the election from moving the teeniest
smidgen to the left?  Did any do any better than expected from moving to
the right?
 -- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Militant question

[Devine, James]

Title: Militant question





I read in a column by Frank Field in the _Guardian_ that a few years ago, the British Labour Party expelled a group called the Militant tendency, which allegedly was trying to take over the Labour Party. I'd be interested in hearing a short description of this event. Why wasn't an effort made to kick out Blair's "New Labour" tendency when they were taking over the Party? 

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

historical question

[Michael Perelman]

During the early 70s, we used to go to a wonderful vegetarian restaurant
on Folsom or Howard in San Francisco.  The people were spiritual.  They
required absolute silence and only charged a dollar or two for the meal.

It was shut down after the owners were found to have subsidized their
restaurant by bank robberies.  I was trying to find something about the
restaurant for my daughter.
 --
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question

[Doug Henwood]

Gil Skillman wrote:

Here's something that's been puzzling me:  it has been said that the U.S.
state governments are in their worst fiscal crisis since the 1930s.  And
yet the US is not in the middle of its worst recession since the
Depression; the Reagan-Volcker recession of the early 1980s, for example,
was much worse in terms of lost GDP and raised unemployment rates.  So what
accounts for the disproportionate severity of the state-level fiscal crisis
relative to the condition of the national economy?  Is it that the Federal
government offers so much less support for services and income supports
that states provide?  Or because state tax rates are often tied to federal
rates, which have been dramatically cut back for the rich?  Some
combination of both, and if so, with what relative weights?  Or is some
other factor involved?  And is there some book or article that spells this
out clearly? Thanks in advance--
Lots of taxcutting during the boom, the effects of which were hidden
by cap gains collections.
Doug

Re: Question

[Max B. Sawicky]

State income taxes that piggyback on the Feds have
automatic revenue reductions due to the cuts in
Federal taxes.  (For instance, if they use the Federal
definition of taxable income.)

Reduction of Federal marginal tax rates makes
deductions for state income & property taxes less
valuable (i.e., lower Federal tax savings)

Federal grants in aid stagnate (excluding Medicaid)

State-local tax exempt debt is less attractive due
to lower Federal marginal rates and greater attractiveness
of equities

Federal mandates lay new costs on the states (in welfare
reform and education, most recently).

Failure of Feds to pay for homeland security at the
'front lines' (fire-fighters, etc.)

Biggest item on the cost side is Medicaid, which grows
at unsustainable, double-digit rates.

Having said that, state spending tracked GDP in the 90s,
which means it grew very fast.  Meanwhile they were cutting
taxes rather than banking enough for a rainy day.  So to some
extent they put themselves out on a limb.

The last two are the most important factors, IMO.

mbs




-Original Message-
From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gil
Skillman
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 4:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Question


Here's something that's been puzzling me:  it has been said that the U.S.
state governments are in their worst fiscal crisis since the 1930s.  And
yet the US is not in the middle of its worst recession since the
Depression; the Reagan-Volcker recession of the early 1980s, for example,
was much worse in terms of lost GDP and raised unemployment rates.  So what
accounts for the disproportionate severity of the state-level fiscal crisis
relative to the condition of the national economy?  Is it that the Federal
government offers so much less support for services and income supports
that states provide?  Or because state tax rates are often tied to federal
rates, which have been dramatically cut back for the rich?  Some
combination of both, and if so, with what relative weights?  Or is some
other factor involved?  And is there some book or article that spells this
out clearly? Thanks in advance--

Gil

Re: Question

[Eubulides]

- Original Message -
From: "Gil Skillman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> Here's something that's been puzzling me:  it has been said that the
U.S.
> state governments are in their worst fiscal crisis since the 1930s.  And
> yet the US is not in the middle of its worst recession since the
> Depression; the Reagan-Volcker recession of the early 1980s, for
example,
> was much worse in terms of lost GDP and raised unemployment rates.  So
what
> accounts for the disproportionate severity of the state-level fiscal
crisis
> relative to the condition of the national economy?  Is it that the
Federal
> government offers so much less support for services and income supports
> that states provide?  Or because state tax rates are often tied to
federal
> rates, which have been dramatically cut back for the rich?  Some
> combination of both, and if so, with what relative weights?  Or is some
> other factor involved?  And is there some book or article that spells
this
> out clearly? Thanks in advance--
>
> Gil

==


http://www.nga.org/
National Governors Association:

Office of State Federal Relations

David Quam
Director of State/Federal Relations

Suzan Weihofen
Senior Staff Associate

National Governors Association, Hall of States, 444 N. Capitol St.,
Washington, D.C. 20001-1512
Telephone (202) 624-5300

quick question

[Eubulides]

Penner's, who baptized the term mercantilism?



One entry found for mercantilism.


Main Entry: mer·can·til·ism
Pronunciation: -"tE-"li-z&m, -"tI-, -t&-
Function: noun
Date: 1873
1 : the theory or practice of mercantile pursuits : COMMERCIALISM
2 : an economic system developing during the decay of feudalism to unify
and increase the power and especially the monetary wealth of a nation by a
strict governmental regulation of the entire national economy usually
through policies designed to secure an accumulation of bullion, a
favorable balance of trade, the development of agriculture and
manufactures, and the establishment of foreign trading monopolies
- mer·can·til·ist  /-list/ noun or adjective
- mer·can·til·is·tic  /"m&r-k&n-"tE-'lis-tik, -"tI-, -t&-/ adjective

Trade Question

[Max B. Sawicky]

Int'l accounts were never my cup of tea.  Can
someone tell me how to answer this question
(pls keep it simple; I'm not writing a
dissertation on this) using the nat'l/int'l
BEA data:

how much of profits of U.S. firms earned from
offshore operations are invested in plant and
equipment in the U.S. of A.?

thanks.

taxation question

[Devine, James]

Title: taxation question





[was RE: [PEN-L:33226] Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush Administration On The Poor: Pay More Taxes!]


> Ellen Frank wrote:
> >But shouldn't living standards be determined by
> >what people contribute?  And shouldn't people who
> >contribute more get more?  Rather than being
> >penalized for their hard work and success?


Doug asks:  
> Are you channelling your students, or your own inner thoughts here? 
> I'm guessing the former, because I can't believe you think there's 
> much relation between "contribution" and reward, or hard work and 
> success.


from what Ellen has said before, it's the former.


> I'll bet lots of your students work their butts off, and 
> come from families that do too. And what do they have to show for it? 
> Though I suppose there's a psychological angle here - they're 
> ambitious, want to join the upper ranks, and think that they'll be 
> able to someday by virtue of their hard work, since virtue is 
> rewarded. But it isn't. Most people die in the same income quintile 
> they were born into, or very close to it.


another thing: my students are post-adolescents who are still rebelling against -- or definng themselves as different from -- their parents. This encourages a very individualistic perspective (at least in the US during the last century or so, where individualism reigns), rejecting notions of community and standards of justice, while rejecting the alleged paternalism of the government. That they tend to do so in the same way as all of their peers indicates a contradiction in their world-view.

in a separate message, Ellen writes:>
What people deserve is exactly the issue the right wing will
raise -- the rich deserve their luxuries and the poor have no
right to take what others have earned fairly (I guess they'll
want to leave Ken Lay out if it).  How do supporters of 
a progressive tax respond unless they are willing to say the 
existing distribution of income is fundamentally unjust? <


how about the fact that those with lots of wealth benefit most from the government's activities, which mostly involve the protection of established property rights? 

Jim

Re: Question

[Michael Perelman]

Time for Revisionism on Rent Control? Arnott, Richard 
Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(1), Winter 1995, pages 99-120.

On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 04:54:49PM -0500, Ellen Frank wrote:
> I have to write a short piece on rent control and 
> remember that the Journal of Economic Perspectives
> did an overview of the literature a few years (maybe even
> more than a few years) back.  Does anyone happen to
> know when that was, so I can save myself some 
> search time?  Thanks in advance.
> 
> Ellen 
> 

-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question

[Louis Proyect]

Time for Revisionism on Rent Control?
Richard Arnott
The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 9, No. 1. (Winter, 1995), pp. 
99-120.


At 04:54 PM 1/13/2003 -0500, you wrote:
I have to write a short piece on rent control and
remember that the Journal of Economic Perspectives
did an overview of the literature a few years (maybe even
more than a few years) back.  Does anyone happen to
know when that was, so I can save myself some
search time?  Thanks in advance.

Ellen


Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org

Stability question

[Sabri Oncu]

soula avramidis:

>> "Blair stuck to a radical view that after
>> Sept 2001 no unstable state could be allowed
>> to have weapons that could fall into the hands
>> of terrorists. "
>
> did anyone ask: is it not inevitable that weapons
> of mass destruction will fall in the hands of terrorists"
> and should it not be that the class system of international
> relations should be revamped to preempt violent oppisition
> at a time when only it is a matter of months before the
> inevitable happens?

Fair question. But I think the following question is probably
more important:

Is there any state out there that is more unstable than the US at
this point in history?

Of course, before answering this question, defining stability
would be helpful.

Any takers?

Best,

Sabri

economics question

[Ellen Frank]

Can anyone point me to a good book, article or 
other source for data illustrating the extent/increase in
economic globalization.  I'm not looking for trade data
(which is easy enough to find) but things like FDI, percent
of MNC sales/revenues/profits earned abroad, etc.  I
figure someone has put together some figures like this!
Thanks for any help.

Ellen Frank 

ICANN question

[Michael Perelman]

If anybody here following what's going on with ICANN.  I have a
question.  Suppose I have a web site that the something that ICANN
doesn't like.  Can they make it possible for someone to reach my IP
address?

How much of the threat are they to the absolute commercialization of the
Internet?

--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re:Doug's question

[gburgess]

The question Doug H. originally posed is very worthwhile, and I hope more
PEN-Lers will take it up. 

Doug noted that J. Devine's account relied on a notion of productivity and
profit-led recovery. Is there anyone who can comment on the record of
productivity gains (especially macro-level) in the US and other leading
countries in the recent period? For example, has anyone brought up to date
the kind of long-term series Dumeniel and Levy (sp?) produced for the US?

It seems to me that unless this is really a different kind of capitalism,
any notion we are heading into a *long* upswing has to demonstrate
there have been significant gains in (broadly applicable) productivity, 
(combined with the 'extra-market' means to prevent workers from shifting those
gains from profits to wages). I hear lots about computers and robots and
biotechnolgy, but are they really translating into broadly-based capital
investment and productivity growth? My understanding is that even the US data 
doesn't really show this. Or does it?   

Bill Burgess

Re:Doug's question

[Doug Henwood]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>Doug noted that J. Devine's account relied on a notion of productivity and
>profit-led recovery. Is there anyone who can comment on the record of
>productivity gains (especially macro-level) in the US and other leading
>countries in the recent period? For example, has anyone brought up to date
>the kind of long-term series Dumeniel and Levy (sp?) produced for the US?
>
>It seems to me that unless this is really a different kind of capitalism,
>any notion we are heading into a *long* upswing has to demonstrate
>there have been significant gains in (broadly applicable) productivity,
>(combined with the 'extra-market' means to prevent workers from shifting those
>gains from profits to wages). I hear lots about computers and robots and
>biotechnolgy, but are they really translating into broadly-based capital
>investment and productivity growth? My understanding is that even the US data
>doesn't really show this. Or does it?


No there has been no productivity boom. I'm in a bit of a hurry now; I'll
provide some numbers tomorrow. Overall productivity in the U.S. in the
1990s is about the same as the 1980s. There's been a burst for the last 2
quarters, but over the whole decade, or even the whole post-91 expansion,
the record is pretty mediocre. There has been a pickup in manufacturing
productivity, but this seems to be more the result of contracting out
services and shutting inefficient plants than of improvements to the
production process overall.

Gross investment is up, yes, but an awful lot of it is concentrated in
quickly depreciating computers, and a lot of that is going into security
trading rooms.

Doug

Doug's question

[James Devine]

Doug Henwood asks: >... With the strong U.S. employment report released
this morning - payroll growth of over 400,000, a drop in the unemployment
rate to 4.6% (the lowest in 24 years), and real wage growth approaching 2%
- I'll try it again. Most Keynesians... would have predicted several years
ago that a policy mix based on deficit reduction and sustained high real
interest rates would provoke stagnation, and not what we've seen over the
last 3-4 years. Why have things turned out the way they have?<

I can't speak for the Keynesians of any stripe, but I would point to the
stagnation of  wages relative to productivity, which has boosted the profit
rate, and thus capitalist expectations of future profitability ("the
marginal efficiency of capital"). This has boosted investment, more than
counteracting the fiscal tightening. This has allowed the falling official
unemployment rate. My impression is that alternative "real jobless rate"
statistics usually move in step with the official rate, so those rates have
likely fallen too. (In other words I agree with Doug, as opposed to Shawgi.) 

As a percentage of GDP, fixed investment has risen from roughly 14 per cent
in the late 1980s (before the last official recession) to 15.5 per cent in
the last two years. Government purchases as a percent of GDP has fallen
from roughly 20 percent in the late 1980s to 16.5 per cent in the last two
years. Consumption has increased a little, but it's the same percentage of
GDP now (the first three quarters of 1997) as it was during 1987; this
ratio has fallen in the last year or so. Net exports have fallen from about
2.8 per cent of GDP in 1987 to about 2 percent in 1997 (first three
quarters). BTW, the residual seems to be rising as a percent of GDP.

Monetary policy hasn't been that tight has it, except for the episode a few
years ago when Greenspan et all braked the Clinton expansion? Nominal
interest rates haven't risen much or at all. In Dec. 1992, the Moody's Aaa
corporate bond yielded 7.98 per cent, whereas they yield 6.85 per cent now.
Inflation has slowed a bit, but it's hard to see this as causing a hike in
the expected real interest rate.

Why hasn't the economy hit up against the usual barrier as unemployment
falls that causes inflation to take off before the economy can reach full
employment? I've talked about this before: the unemployment is associated
with a higher cost of job loss nowadays than it used to be (due to fears of
losing medical insurance, etc.) Labor's institutions are mostly on the run,
while the economy is more competitive, partly due to globalization. The
relatively high trade-weighted dollar exchange rate (97.84 at the end of
November, compared to 87 in 1996 and 84 in 1995) helps fight inflation,
just as a high exchange rate discouraged inflation in Mexico prior to the
deluge. 

The high exchange rate also suggests that US foreign trade will tank soon;
maybe that will spark the recession that all of the establishment is hoping
will never happen.

In general, I agree with what Dennis R writes, until he gets to:>... we're
at the end of the Long Depression, and that we're going to see
significantly higher growth rates worldwide over the next twenty-five
years; call it a Kondratiev upswing ... or whatever, but it's pretty clear
that information technology, software, telecoms, multimedia, biotech,
aerospace, and the medical industry are going to be the growth poles of the
early 21st century. Most of these industries are indeed overrepresented in
the USA...<

I think the upswing is focussed mostly on the supply-side, in productivity
growth. It reminds me of the fact that a similar upswing began circa 1919
in the US. That allowed the US to enjoy a profit-abundant upswing for a few
years, but not forever. The supply growth was there, but not the
institutional system (call it a regulation regime, if you will) to ensure
sufficient demand wasn't there. This instability was made worse because the
US was one of the few bright spots in a very dull world economic picture.
Eventually, the US fell more in line with the rest (helping to pull the
rest down). 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that the world economy will recover (if it
does) when there's a global regulation regime in place. There may be some
bright spots, but a few bright spots do not make a roaring fire. 

in pen-l solidarity,




Jim Devine  [EMAIL PROTECTED] &
http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html
"Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let
people talk.) 
-- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.

Re: Question

[Patrick Bond]

Come to Johannesburg and learn some tactics of resistance to debt.

There's something here called a "bond boycott" (bond = mortgage in our
adopted Brit parlance), which entails groups of often hundreds of
township residents collectively telling the bank that they won't pay the
approx. $15,000 mortgage because a) the house was made of kleenex and
spit and is falling apart; b) the interest rates doubled during the late
1980s when most bonds were granted in townships; c) the stagnant economy
is exhaling formal sector jobs; and/or d) the banks have victimised the
borrowers in some other way. The banks' solution, foreclosure, works
only as far as the law operates, which still in many tough urban South
African ghettoes is not far. If the banks get their lawyer (who
incidentally is also Nelson Mandela's personal lawyer, and is a sleazy
sort of chap) to foreclose, they will nevertheless have trouble getting
occupancy, because the civic association street committee will tell any
newcomers not to dare move into the foreclosed house. Indeed the strong
version of this grassroots message is that many civics have actually
burned down houses just after they were foreclosed upon and people were
booted out, as a signal to the banks not to waste their time and money
doing it to anyone else. Two hundred townships with many millions of
people were literally no-go areas from 1990-96 or so because of this
latent threat to property capital. You can get background in Mzwanele
Mayekiso's 1996 book, Township Politics:  Civic Struggles for a New SA
(Monthly Review Press).

This isn't as large-scale a resistance phenomenon as, say, El Barzon in
Mexico or your typical IMF riot, but it is as strategic and powerful a
tactic as has been available, and often leads to millions of dollars in
bank concessions on lower rates, fixing the cracks in the houses,
forgiving non-payment for several years, etc etc. Several dozen of these
negotiations from a position of real strength have been successful, and
many hundreds more bond boycotts threatened.

(I did an academic write-up of the bond boycott, along with reviewing
Afrikaner opposition to imperial banks, and anti-apartheid financial
sanctions and some other social movement struggles, in a book called
Money, Power and Space, edited by Corbridge, Martin and Thrift and
published by Blackwell in 1994.)

The interesting US parallel is social struggle around the Community
Reinvestment Act, which on a good day can be a wonderful citizens' foray
into the inner workings of redlining and other debt-related phenomena. 

Thomas Kruse wrote:
> 
> A while ago someone posted a NYT commentary on the level of consumer debt in
> the US -- around $5.4 trillion.  I am interested in finding literature on
> how endebtedness shapes/limits political action.  The assumption is that
> carrying loads of debt would lead to lower levels of collective action,
> political risk-taking, etc., and is in effect a form of social control.  Any
> leads would be appreciated.
> 
> Tom
> 
> Tom Kruse
> Casilla 5869
> Cochabamba, Bolivia
> Tel/Fax: (011-591-42) 48242 (h)
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question

[Doug Henwood]

Robin Hahnel wrote:

>June 1997 article by
>Peter Gottschalk and Timothy Smeeding "Cross-National Comparisons of
>Earnings and Income Inequality."

Where?

Doug

Re: Question

[Robin Hahnel]

Doug Henwood wrote:
> 
> Robin Hahnel wrote:
> 
> >June 1997 article by
> >Peter Gottschalk and Timothy Smeeding "Cross-National Comparisons of
> >Earnings and Income Inequality."
> 
> Where?
> 
> Doug

Sorry. Journal of Economic Literature, JEL, pp. 633-681.

Re: Question

[Robin Hahnel]

Peter Bohmer wrote:
> 
> Is there a recent book you would recommend as a good recent left analysis on
> the causes of the growing inequality of income and wealth in the United
> States for an undergraduate program in political eocnomy.
> 
> Thanks, peter Bohmer

Not for your students, but for you, look at the June 1997 article by
Peter Gottschalk and Timothy Smeeding "Cross-National Comparisons of
Earnings and Income Inequality." It is by no means radical, but chuck
full of data and with excellent references on the debate concerning the
relative importance of different casues -- which he lists as: changes in
industrial structure, increased foreign trade, increased immigration,
skill-based technical changes, and the decline in institutions that
limit the market such as the fall in the real minimum wage and the
decline in unionization.

Re: Question

[Thad Williamson]

David Gordon's latest and unfortunately last book, Fat and Mean, should do
the trick.

For the trends and some analysis, Edward Wolff's latest paperback (I forget
the title now.) Or the EPI annual, state of working america, of course.

thad

At 09:26 PM 11/15/97 -0800, Tom Walker wrote:
>Peter Bohmer wrote,
>
>>Is there a recent book you would recommend as a good recent left analysis on 
>>the causes of the growing inequality of income and wealth in the United 
>>States for an undergraduate program in political eocnomy.
>
>Simple. The rich are getting richer and poor are getting poorer. That's the
>cause of the growing inequality. Who needs a book to tell 'em that? Of
>course, I'm no eocnomist.
>
>Regards, 
>
>Tom Walker
>^^^
>knoW Ware Communications
>Vancouver, B.C., CANADA
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>(604) 688-8296 
>^^^
>The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
>
>
Thad Williamson
National Center for Economic and Security Alternatives (Washington)/
Union Theological Seminary (New York)
212-531-1935
http://www.northcarolina.com/thad

Re: Question

[Dollars and Sense]

Peter, mayube Holly Sklar's book, CHAOS OR COMMUNITY?. Marc Breslow,
Dollars and Sense.

Re: Question

[Doug Henwood]

On the causes of growing inequality... Williamson & Lindert argue in their
history of American inequality that the driving force between polarization
and de-polarization has been the skill premium on wages. That's the
conventional explanation for what's been happening recently, too. Any
thoughts from PEN-Lers on this?

Doug

Re: Question

[Shawgi A. Tell]

Greetings,

On Sun, 16 Nov 1997, Doug Henwood wrote:

> On the causes of growing inequality... Williamson & Lindert argue in their
> history of American inequality that the driving force between polarization
> and de-polarization has been the skill premium on wages. That's the
> conventional explanation for what's been happening recently, too. Any
> thoughts from PEN-Lers on this?
> 
> Doug
> 
> 
The root-cause of inequality is the fundamental contradiction of
capitalism: social labor, private ownership.  This is the essential cause
of the economic crisis at the base of society.  So long as the
contradiction is not resolved, inequality will increase.

Shawgi Tell
Graduate School of Education
University at Buffalo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question

[Tom Walker]

Doug Henwood wrote,

>On the causes of growing inequality... Williamson & Lindert argue in their
>history of American inequality that the driving force between polarization
>and de-polarization has been the skill premium on wages. That's the
>conventional explanation for what's been happening recently, too. Any
>thoughts from PEN-Lers on this?

Lurking beneath the "skill premium" explanation is the private expropriation
of social expenditures. How so? The skills are largely the result of huge
social expenditures on education but they are compensated *as if* they were
the private property of the beneficiaries of those social expenditures.
Scratch any conventional explanation and what you get is expropriation. 

The interesting thing to me is that you couldn't have this private
expropriation now if you didn't first have the large social expenditure.
Speaking of "ripening contradictions", how about this as the great
contradiction of the Keynesian welfare state. The rich are busy
congratulating themselves for grabbing the commonwealth at the same time as
they're making sure there won't be anymore where that came from.

Regards, 

Tom Walker
^^^
knoW Ware Communications
Vancouver, B.C., CANADA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(604) 688-8296 
^^^
The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/

Re: Question

[Peter Dorman]

This skill business really needs some serious deconstructing.  A few
general observations:
1. "Skill" is an inherently nebulous and even ideological term.  Daycare
teachers require (or should require) vast amounts of skills, as also
many other low-paid service workers, etc.  From a conventional economic
viewpoint, what ought to matter most are *scarce* skills.  (Scarce
relative to demand.)
2.  Economically relevant skill is imperfectly correlated with whether
one has a college degree, the main proxy used by economists studying
"skill".  This is particularly obvious when the issue of computers comes
up.  Most college educations provide little training relevant to the use
of computers.  My liberal arts students are unable to figure out most of
the functions of their software and regularly lose work because they
don't back up.  Most repair and support work at local computer shops is
done by community college kids and non-college grads, as far as I can
tell.
3. The question of how much of the wage premium to a college degree is
due to human capital and how much to credentialing remains open.  The
correct answer is certainly not 100% on either side.  The "sheepskin
effect" (wage bump associated with last semester completed) argues for
credentialing, although any teacher who thinks credentialing is
everything is a candidate for depression.  And a very important question
is whether the balance between the two effects has changed over time,
and in which direction.  (The difference is important because, under a
regime of pure credentialing, extending education to more people
provides no net economic benefit.)  (This last point should not be
interpreted as saying that I recognize only economic benefits to
education.)
4. The econometric literature on the role of skill broadly contradicts
the sociological literature which, when I last surveyed it (early 90s),
said that technological change was primarily skill polarizing, but not
on balance skill intensive.  Thus, according to this, there should be
more demand at the low end as well as the high end, but this is hardly
reflected in the wage distribution.
5. But the econometric literature itself is powerfully governed by the
lamppost effect.  The evidence is that inequality has increased on
almost every dimension: within most categories as well as between them. 
(Here some of the gender and racial categories may qualify as
exceptions.)  To exclude any variable that accounts for other factors
(or even an appropriate set of dummy variables to control for detailed
industry composition, etc.) and then proclaim that the technology-skill
nexus is the main force at work is self-imposed blindness.  It's as if
you painted two dots on a balloon, blew it up, and then said that the
increasing distance between the two dots "explains" the larger size of
the balloon.

In my opinion, we hardly know anything about increasing wage
inequality.  Does anyone out there have a pot of gold, so that
open-minded empirical economists (who listen to the other social
sciences) can have a go at this?

Peter Dorman

Re: Question

[Tom Walker]

Peter Bohmer wrote,

>Is there a recent book you would recommend as a good recent left analysis on 
>the causes of the growing inequality of income and wealth in the United 
>States for an undergraduate program in political eocnomy.

Simple. The rich are getting richer and poor are getting poorer. That's the
cause of the growing inequality. Who needs a book to tell 'em that? Of
course, I'm no eocnomist.

Regards, 

Tom Walker
^^^
knoW Ware Communications
Vancouver, B.C., CANADA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(604) 688-8296 
^^^
The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/

literary question

[michael]

Where did Balzac write: "Behind every fortune lies a grand crime."?

Thanks.
-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

dumb question

[Ellen Frank]

Dear Penners -  
I have two questions I hope someone can
answer quickly.  
(1)  In what year did Milton Friedman become
president of the AEA? 
(2)  In what year did Lucas publish the first of
his articles laying out the theory of rational expectations?

Thanks, Ellen

dumb question

[Ellen Frank]

Can someone tell me where on the web I can easily find
historical data on the Dow Jones index.  Back to 1950?
Thanks.

Ellen

anthropology question

[Michael Perelman]

I have a question for anyone with a passing knowledge of anthropology.
The speaker on our campus made these two statements that some very
interesting.  Are they true?

cuneiform was only used for business transactions 800 years before
   people realized that it could be used for other purposes.
Early humans only sharpened one side of a stone by chipping it for
   800,000 years before they began to chip the other side.

--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question for the Lefties -- II (Max's market question)

[charlie]

Max Sawicky wrote:
>
Is there any other person on this list who has espoused market
economics? 
Doug is the only one of you who has evinced anything but utter, total, 
absolute, nauseated rejection,

Hey I'm still here.
<


Yes, I espouse market economics -- without the profit motive,
either capitalist or market socialist. Society can retain sites
of activity (firms) that are a source of initiative. They must
face the test of selling their products and services -- a market.
Society can involve firms in overall planning at the same time.

So please stay here. You continually show us that the progressive
arena right now is the Nader-Green movement.

If you're reading Capital vol. I, you might also like From
Capitalism to Equality (http://www.LaborRepublic.org), which also
expands on the market idea above.

Re: sociological question

[Joel Blau]

Michael:

You might try Charles C. Harrington and Susan K. Boardman, Paths to
Success: Beating the Odds in American Society (Harvard University Press,
2000).

Joel Blau

Michael Perelman wrote:

> Does anyone here know of a relatively straightforward study of the sort
> of social characteristics that are typical of people who managed to
> catapult themselves from poverty to affluence?
>
> --
>
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Chico, CA 95929
> 530-898-5321
> fax 530-898-5901

A silly question

[Sabri Oncu]

Frieds,

What are these IMO and IMHO that I keep seeing in many posts?

Best,
Sabri

RE: Enron question

[Davies, Daniel]

almost certainly yes.  My screen tells me that they won out over Citigroup
in a "hotly contested auction", so presumably some payment will be
forthcoming to the bankruptcy trustees.  NB that what they've bought is the
trading platform ie the computers, and probably first dibs on some key
staff.  They didn't take over any of Enron's old positions.

dd

-Original Message-
From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 12 February 2002 01:03
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:22723] Enron question


Can anybody explain how Enron was able to give its trading operation to
UBS Warburg for a share of its profits?  Did the creditors have to agree?
-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]


___
Email Disclaimer

This communication is for the attention of the
named recipient only and should not be passed
on to any other person. Information relating to
any company or security, is for information
purposes only and should not be interpreted as
a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security.
The information on which this communication is based
has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable,
but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness.
All expressions of opinion are subject to change
without notice.  All e-mail messages, and associated attachments,
are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business purposes.
___

Question to Miyachi

[Hari Kumar]

MIYACHI TATSUO wrote:
"I explain shortly Japanese new left movement. In pre-war and post-war
to 1962, Japan communist party ruled left movement.But its strategy was
under Komintern order. In 1950', Komintern ordered
armed struggle from rural area modeled after China's revolution."
QUESTION: I am confused. Which Komintern was in existence in 1950 that
would have "ordered" this?
Hari

the god question

[ravi]

http://www.michaelkelly.fsnet.co.uk/exis.htm

French Intellectuals to be Deployed in Afghanistan To Convince Taleban 
of Non-Existence of God

The ground war in Afghanistan hotted up yesterday when the Allies 
revealed plans to airdrop a platoon of crack French existentialist 
philosophers into the country to destroy the morale of Taleban zealots 
by proving the non-existence of God.

Elements from the feared Jean-Paul Sartre Brigade, or 'Black 
Berets', will be parachuted into the combat zones to spread doubt, 
despondency and existential anomie among the enemy. Hardened by numerous 
intellectual battles fought during their long occupation of Paris's Left 
Bank, their first action will be to establish a number of pavement cafes 
at strategic points near the front lines. There they will drink coffee 
and talk animatedly about the absurd nature of life and man's lonely 
isolation in the universe. They will be accompanied by a number of 
heartbreakingly beautiful girlfriends who will further spread dismay by 
sticking their tongues in the philosophers' ears every five minutes and 
looking remote and unattainable to everyone else.

   Their leader, Colonel Marc-Ange Belmondo, spoke yesterday of his 
confidence in the success of their mission. Sorbonne graduate Belmondo, 
a very intense and unshaven young man in a black pullover, gesticulated 
wildly and said, "The Taleban are caught in a logical fallacy of the 
most ridiculous. There is no God and I can prove it. Take your tongue 
out of my ear, Juliet, I am talking."

   Marc-Ange plans to deliver an impassioned thesis on man's nauseating 
freedom of action with special reference to the work of Foucault and the 
films of Alfred Hitchcock.

   However, humanitarian agencies have been quick to condemn the 
operation as inhumane, pointing out that the effects of passive smoking 
from the Frenchmens' endless Gitanes could wreak a terrible toll on 
civilians in the area.

   Speculation was mounting last night that Britain may also contribute 
to the effort by dropping Professor Stephen Hawking into Afghanistan to 
propagate his non-deistic theory of the creation of the universe.

   Other tactics to demonstrate the non-existence of God will include 
the dropping of leaflets pointing out the fact that Michael Jackson has 
a new album out and Oprah Winfrey has not died yet.

   This is only one of several Psy-Ops operations mounted by the Allies 
to undermine the unswerving religious fanaticism that fuels the 
Taleban's fighting spirit. Pentagon sources have recently confirmed 
rumours that America has already sent in a 200-foot-tall robot Jesus, 
which roams the Taleban front lines glowing eerily and shooting flames 
out of its fingers while saying, 'I am the way, the truth and the life, 
follow me or die.' However, plans to have the giant Christ kick the crap 
out of a slightly effeminate 80-foot Mohammed in central Kabul were 
discarded as insensitive to Muslim allies.

One more question

[Sabri Oncu]

Friends,

I read Nader, left, public ownership, etc., discussion with great
interest and hope that it doesn't end here. But now, I would like
to ask an unrelated question that you may want to discuss in
paralel.

Here is that unrelated question, not necessarily for our American
friends only: Is there a real estate/housing buble in the US and
if there is, what are its potential implications for the
"ongoing"  US recovery?

Again, let me give the credit to where it is due: I became aware
of the article below through Ergin Yildizoglu's Monday column at
Cumhuriyet, as well as, got the motivation to ask this question.

As you see, "little brothers" are watching you, I being one of
them,

Sabri

+++


THE ECONOMY
Is Housing the Next Bubble?
Sure, there's some pretty scary stuff going on. But things aren't
as crazy as the last time the property market heated up.
FORTUNE
Monday, April 1, 2002
By Anna Bernasek

The signs of recovery are so obvious that only an Olympics
figure-skating judge could miss them. The manufacturing sector
rebounded in February after an 18-month-long tailspin. Activity
in the all-important services sector has now accelerated to its
fastest pace in more than a year. Productivity growth has just
been revised up to 5.2% for the fourth quarter, a level that's
causing 1990s flashbacks. And on the jobs front, employment grew
for the first time in seven months. Even capital spending, a
longtime trouble spot, seems to be reviving. In fact, the news
has been so good that Alan Greenspan, our famously cautious,
usually indecipherable Federal Reserve chief, recently proclaimed
in plain English: "An economic expansion is already under way."

So is that it? Have we just had something like a 15-minute
recession, and is it all smooth sailing from here? Not so fast,
says a chorus of economists--plenty can still go wrong. Leaving
aside such nightmare scenarios as further terrorist attacks,
all-out war in the Middle East, or an oil embargo, the thing that
spooks some economists the most is housing. That's because while
the economy has been on the down escalator over the past several
months, the property market has been going in the opposite
direction, and that's just not supposed to happen.

In fact, housing didn't just hold its own during the slump. It
zoomed. Activity has been so strong that sales of new and
existing homes hit all-time records last year. Not exactly what
you'd expect when around two million people were losing their
jobs, is it? What's more, we've seen record growth in mortgage
refinancing, and annual home-price increases between 6% and 8%
nationally for three years in a row. "That's unsustainable by any
measure,'' says David Levy, chairman of the Jerome Levy
Forecasting Center. "Especially now that mortgage rates are on
the rise." And that's the problem, according to Levy and others.
The one sector we've relied on to keep the economy afloat is
unlikely to hold up much longer. Worse still, housing could even
turn out to be the next bubble--and we all know how that usually
ends.

So are the worrywarts right? Probably not, but it's certainly
worth hearing them out, because even if they're a little right, a
weak housing market could help make this recovery pretty darn
anemic. There are already signs that housing activity is starting
to cool. For the first time in seven years, national home prices
fell in the last three months of 2001, by 1.9%. The market for
second homes has also weakened since the end of last year. And
some banks are tightening up on their mortgage lending. Ken
Hackel, chief fixed-income strategist at Merrill Lynch, says one
major bank has admitted to recently changing the rules on
refinancing, requiring appraisals on every application regardless
of whether one had been done in the past year--a telling sign
that some lenders expect home values to soften. True, January
sales remained incredibly strong, but economists argue that those
numbers were probably exaggerated by the unseasonably warm winter
across much of the nation.

Certain regional markets may already be in trouble. According to
data from Case Weiss Shiller, home prices in San Francisco have
been dropping precipitously. In the first quarter of 2001 the
average price of a single-family home there rose 4%, but by the
end of the year had fallen 7%. "We're seeing a bubble bursting
right now in San Francisco," says Robert Shiller, an economics
professor at Yale University and partner at Case Weiss Shiller.
"We've never seen such a sharp drop, and we're expecting it to
fall even more." Shiller, who warned of a stock market bubble in
the late 1990s and coined the phrase "irrational exuberance,"
believes there's the risk of a housing bubble in other major
cities. At the top of his watch list are Portland, Ore., Seattle,
Denver, and N

One more question

[Charles Brown]

One more question
by Sabri Oncu
01 April 2002 03:42 UTC 



Here is that unrelated question, not necessarily for our American
friends only: Is there a real estate/housing buble in the US and
if there is, what are its potential implications for the
"ongoing"  US recovery?






Economy's Rock: Homes, Homes, Homes
By DANIEL ALTMAN
 March 30, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/30/business/30HOUS.html

Don Standing for The New York Times
Mimi Weisinger, the listing broker for Friedberg Properties in Cresskill, N.J., at a 
house in Tenafly, N.J., listed at $1.8 million. Housing prices accelerated in recent 
months to their fastest real rate of gain in decades.

 The housing market has remained strong and resilient. Arthur Tassaro of Friedberg 
Properties shows a client and her daughter a house for sale in Haworth, N.J., listed 
for $635,000. 



 
Amid the shaky economy of the last couple of years, housing has emerged as the central 
pillar of support. The market for housing has become less volatile and less prone to 
oversupply than before; it has also become the Federal Reserve's main lever for 
reviving the economy.

"Housing has been a key stabilizer," said Robert V. DiClemente, chief United States 
economist at Salomon Smith Barney.

>From the very beginning of the downturn last year, the housing market has been 
>strong. And that remains true today. In February, sales of new homes grew 5.3 
>percent, to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 875,000, thanks to good weather and 
>low mortgage rates. Sales of existing homes in February fell only slightly from the 
>record annual pace in January of 6.05 million.

Housing prices have been increasing faster than general inflation for several years, 
and they have accelerated in recent months to their fastest real rate of gain in 
decades.

All this has bolstered consumer spending and helped salve the wounds that the falling 
stock market inflicted on households.

In trying to explain the resilience of the housing market in the face of rising 
unemployment, shrinking stock portfolios and a soft economy, economists start with the 
Federal Reserve. The Fed's sharp cuts in short-term interest rates supported the 
demand for housing by helping to push mortgage rates down further.

Mortgage rates had already started to fall in late 2000. "The Fed began cutting 
interest rates aggressively back in January of 2001," said S. Lawrence Yun, a senior 
economist at the National Association of Realtors in Washington. "The long-term rates 
pretty much anticipated that move. By that time, mortgage rates had already hit 7 
percent."

With help from the Fed all through 2001, rates moved even lower for a time. "Last year 
mortgage rates were the second lowest on record," Dr. Yun said. According to his 
calculations, the additional drop in mortgage rates meant that three million more 
households could afford to pay a mortgage on a new home.

"That's a big cushion" for the housing market, he said, enough to largely allay the 
effects of more than a million job losses last year.

At the Fed, top officials were clearly aware of the importance of the housing market 
in countering Wall Street's fall. Alan Greenspan, the Fed chairman, told monetary 
policy experts at a forum in Jackson Hole, Wyo., last summer: "Movements in the prices 
of some other assets in the economy — changes in house prices, for example — have been 
steadier, less dramatic, but perhaps no less significant."

The strong housing sector supported the economy in two ways. First, it added $2 
trillion to $3 trillion to homeowners' wealth, according to calculations by Karl E. 
Case, a professor of economics at Wellesley College and a co-author of "Comparing 
Wealth Effects: The Stock Market Versus the Housing Market," with John M. Quigley of 
the University of California at Berkeley and Robert J. Shiller of Yale University. 
This greater wealth from their real estate holdings encouraged consumers to spend 
more, Professor Case said.

Second, the rise in housing wealth — combined with low interest rates — made last year 
an especially tempting time to refinance a mortgage and arrange for home-equity loans 
and lines of credit, which are often priced these days as low as the prime rate.

"People took advantage of the lower rates not just to lower their debt service but to 
take out equity to support a lifestyle," Mr. DiClemente said.

Was taking on more debt dangerous in the midst of record levels of outstanding 
consumer credit? Not according to Mr. DiClemente. The debt that is reflected in home 
equity loans, he said, "is pitted against the most durable type of asset that people 
have."

As it turned out, the housing market responded so well to the lower rates that it 
became the mai

Re: Ian's question

[Jeffrey L. Beatty]

Here's the last paragraph of the NYT story, which may place the membership
of the panel appointed by Secretary-General Annan in a little different light:

>Also serving on the panel will be Abdulatif al-Hammad, president of the
>  Arab Fund for Economic Development; David Bryer, director of Oxfam;
>  Mary Chinery-Hesse, a former deputy director general of the
>  International Labor Organization; Rebeca Grynspan, former vice
>  president of Costa Rica; Majid Osman, a commercial banker who was
>  formerly finance minister of Mozambique; and Manmohan Singh, former
>  finance minister of India and a major architect of its economic
>  liberalization policies. 



--
Jeffrey L. Beatty
Doctoral Student
Department of Political Science
The Ohio State University
2140 Derby Hall
154 North Oval Mall
Columbus, Ohio 43210

(o) 614/292-2880
(h) 614/688-0567

Email:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
__   
If you fear making anyone mad, then you ultimately probe for the lowest
common denominator of human achievement-- President Jimmy Carter

Gulf War question

[Seth Sandronsky]

Pen-l,

Can anybody remind me how many days it took for the US to force Iraq out of 
Kuwait during the 42-day Gulf War?

Thanks,
Seth
_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Re: Bankruptcy Question

[Eugene Coyle]

 Continental Airlines used bankruptcy to break unions at the beginning of
airline deregulation.  It seemed to be the main objective of Continental's
first bankruptcy.  Other airlines might have done so as well, but my memory
is dim.

Gene Coyle

michael perelman wrote:

> I asked David earlier if he would teach us about bankruptcy.  Here is my
> question.  As Doug Orr has written discussed, bankruptcy is often used
> as a strategic act to eliminate obligations -- such as to break union
> contracts.  How common is that sort of bankruptcy?
>
> --
>
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Bankruptcy Question

[David Shemano]

<>

--

Happy to answer, but first you have to learn some bankuptcy law.

One of the most important tools a reorganizing debtor has is the ability to
"reject executory contracts."  To simplify a rather complex area of
bankruptcy law, an executory contract is a contract in which both parties
have remaining material obligations.  For instance, if I enter into a
contract with you in which I agree to paint your house on Saturday, and you
promise to pay me $100 when I do it, that is an executory contract (i.e. I
have to paint your house and you have to pay me $100).  Once I paint your
house on Saturday, and you owe me $100, the contract is no longer executory,
because I no longer have any material obligations under the contract.

Anyway, a reorganizing debtor can "reject" executory contracts if they are
"burdensome".  Think of it this way.  Imagine that Pacific Gas & Electric
has a supply contract to purchase X number of kilowatts of electricity from
a supplier each month at $.50 a kilowatt.  Imagine that the current market
rate was $.10.  The supply contract is an executory contract, because both
parties have remaining material obligations (supplier has to supply the
electricity and PGW has to pay for it).  If PGW filed for bankruptcy, it
could "reject" the contract.  This means that PGW no longer has an
obligation to perform under the contract, and all that the supplier will
have is a pre-bankruptcy claim for damages.  This is of critical importance
to PGE, because PGE can now go in the marketplace and pay for electricity at
$.10 per kilowatt.  The supplier may have a large claim for damages, but PGE
doesn't care, because the claim simply goes into the pot with other
pre-bankruptcy unsecured claims and will be dealt with later as part of the
negotiation of a plan of reorganization.  The important fact is that, on a
going forward basis, PGE is not bound by the uneconomical contract.

Back in the early 1980s, a number of corporations had the bright idea to
treat collective bargaining agreements as executory contracts (most famously
by Frank Lorenzo of Continental and Eastern Airlines).  In effect, the
corporations argued that the bargaining agreements were burdensome and
should be rejected, so that the corporations would not be bound on a going
forward basis.

Initially, the tactic worked, and a number of agreements were rejected.
However, the unions mobilized politically and in 1984 were able to
successfully amend the Bankruptcy Code to obtain special treatment for union
contracts.  In summary, before a bargaining agreement can be rejected, the
corporation must propose a modification of the agreement to the union based
upon the most complete and reliable information available, which information
must be provided to the union.  If the union reject the modification and
negotiations are unsuccessful, the corporation can then request that the
Bankruptcy Court order the contract rejected.  If the Bankruptcy Court finds
that "the balance of the equities clearly favors rejection of such
agreement," then the Bankruptcy Court may approve the rejection of the
bargaining agreement.

My sense is that the amendment to the Bankruptcy Code has worked as
intended.  Rarely, if ever, do corporations file bankruptcy merely to reject
collective bargaining agreements.  Any such attempt would likely be
unsuccessful, because it would be almost impossible to prove to a Judge that
the proposed rejection was in good faith.  On the other hand, where
corporations are suffering severe financial problems, and labor costs are a
major contributor to the problem, unions are willing to enter into
negotiations and to modify existing agreements.  Rarely are the parties so
far apart that the negotiations fail completely and the corporation actually
requests that the agreement be rejected entirely.

There probably are empirical studies of the issue.  But the fact that the
amendment has remained unchanged since 1984 is fairly good evidence that
both the corporate and union communities are satisfied with the status quo.

David Shemano





--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bankruptcy Question

[Michael Perelman]

I found this by Gene Coyle's old friend,

Joskow, Paul L. 1976. "Commercial Impossibility, the Uranium Market, and
the Westinghouse Case." MIT Working Paper 186
-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Fwd: prison question

[Jim Devine]

from SLATE:
>USA [Today] ... tops its front with the capture yesterday at a Colorado RV 
>park of four of those Texas prison escapees. Rather than also surrender, a 
>fifth shot himself, and the remaining two convicts are still at large. The 
>cops got their key tip from a viewer of
>America's Most Wanted. The WP and NYT also front the story.

does anyone know, did those guys escape from a government-run or a 
privately-run prison?

In the past, some people have escaped from privately-run prisons, with the 
government paying to cost of recapture, etc.

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine

Question for Penners

[Stephen E Philion]

Pen folk, 
COuld someone help me refute this stuff. I take it to be part of the right
wing hype about the 'failure' of social security? But the thing about the
senators throws me. I wonder if this isn't an internet scam mailing?


Fwd: Want to get pissed?". [2001/02/01 19:46]


Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 3:37 PM Subject: Want to get
pissed? Pensions and Social Security Perhaps we are asking the wrong
questions in this election year. Our Senators and Congressmen do not pay
into Social Security, and, of course, therefore they do not collect from
it. Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare
elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for
themselves. Many years ago they voted in their benefit plan. In more
recent years, no congress person has felt the need to change it. After
all, it is a great plan.

For all practical purposes their plan works like this. When they retire,
they continue to draw their same pay until they die, except it may be
increased from time to time by the cost of living adjustments. For
example, former Senator Bradley, and his wife, may be expected to draw
$7,900,000.00, with Mrs. Bradley drawing $275,000.00 during the last year
of her life. This is calculated on an average life span for each. Their
cost for this excellent plan is $"0", nada, zilch. This little perk they
voted in for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for
this plan. This fine retirement plan is funded directly from the General
Funds. Our tax dollars at work! Social Security, which you and I pay into
every payday for our own retirement, with an equal amount matched by our
employer, we can expect to get an average of $1,000.00 per month from our
Social Security plan. Or, we would have to collect our benefits for 681
years and 1 month to equal the Bradley's benefits.

Imagine for a moment that you could structure a retirement plan so
desirable that people would have extra amounts deducted from their pay to
enhance their own personal retirement income. A retirement plan that
worked so well, that Railroad Employees, Postal Workers, and others who
were not in the plan would clamor to be included. This is how good Social
Security could be, if only one small change were made. That change would
be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan out from under the Senators
and Congressmen. Put them into the! Social Security plan with the rest of
us. Then watch how fast they would fix it !!! If enough people receive
this, maybe a seed will be planted, and maybe good changes will
evolve. How many people can YOU send this to?


 


Stephen Philion
Lecturer/PhD Candidate
Department of Sociology
2424 Maile Way
Social Sciences Bldg. # 247
Honolulu, HI 96822

Re: data question

[Jeffrey L. Beatty]

At 08:34 PM 2/8/01 -0800, michael perelman:

>I'm having a devil of a time finding a time series on net and gross
>investment for the United States.  Is there and obvious source?
>-- 
>Michael Perelman
>Economics Department
>California State University
>Chico, CA 95929
>
>Tel. 530-898-5321
>E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>


You might want to check out the OECD National income accounts--or try OECD
Online at http://www.oecd.org.






--
Jeffrey L. Beatty
Doctoral Student
Department of Political Science
The Ohio State University
2140 Derby Hall
154 North Oval Mall
Columbus, Ohio 43210

(o) 614/292-2880
(h) 614/688-0567

Email:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
__   
If you fear making anyone mad, then you ultimately probe for the lowest
common denominator of human achievement-- President Jimmy Carter

Re: data question

[Doug Henwood]

Michael Perelman wrote:

>I'm having a devil of a time finding a time series on net and gross
>investment for the United States.  Is there and obvious source?

You want NIPA table 5.02, which is one of the annual only tables at 
 (scroll about 1/3 of the way 
down).

Doug

Re: research question

[Louis Proyect]

>The following appears in the 3rd ed. of Jevon's Coal Question.  If
>anyone has the first ed. available, I would like to know if it is in the
>first ed.  The citation is interesting in its own right.
>
>412: "While other countries mostly subsist upon the annual and
>ceaseless income of the harvest, we are drawing more and more upon a
>capital which yields no annual interest, but once turned to
>light and heat and motive power, is gone for ever in space."
>--
>
>Michael Perelman

Interesting. In Kenneth Pomeranz's newly published "The Great Divergence",
he agrees with Blaut that the rise of the West was attributable to the
pillage of the New World. He also believes that the presence of coal was
crucial as well.

Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/

classroom size question

[Michael Perelman]

Does anybody know anything about this article?

Hoxby, Caroline M. 2000. "The Effects of Class Size on Student
   Achievement: New Evidence from Population Variation." Journal of
   Economics, 115: 4 (November): pp. 1239-85.
She argues that class size does not have much of an effect on
   student achievement.
- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Australian question

[Rob Schaap]

> Why do the Aussies make such wierd Internet laws?

Hey we don't make 'em!  We're a proudly practical bunch, so we hire a
government to do our stuff-ups for us.  And the mob we've had these last five
years is quite simply world-class.  Yeah, I know you've got a gifted clown of
your own now (and, credit where it's due, your last one wasn't bad), but ours
has had the time to hone its art to the razor-sharp edge of hysterical lunacy.

Data streaming is illegal because it doesn't suit the free-to-air television
proprietors who run this country (just ask a fuming Rupert).  Net gambling and
a long list of sex-act representations (and it was fun watching Minister
Alston read out the list) ain't allowed (actually, Im not allowed to swear in
my e-mails either, but Alston's not the sort of chap to read Pen-L, I'm sure)
because the next election, both parties are convinced, depends entirely on the
reputedly social-conservative regional electorates (who are mad as hell, and
have, in Hanson's mob, an even further-right party to vote for), privacy ain't
enforced because it doesn't suit the 'intelligence community' and imposes
draconian costs on business (the primary constituency of the Howard
government) and copyright is enforced to the nth degree because Howard is
every bit as radical a neoclassical 'information economy' zealot (all
communication = commodity) as he is a social conservative (all since 1952 =
corruption of true values).

As Australia had a high profile in net gambling and pornography and a
sophisticated foetal data-streaming sector, this is all quite politically
problematic.  As much of it is impossible to sustain, and constitutes a
national embarrassment, it's also pretty well par for the course.

Cheers,
a proud Australian.

Seth S. question

[Seth Sandronsky]

Pen-l:

A March 8 MSNBC news report says that Japan's public debt ($5.4 trillion) as 
a proportion of GDP is about 130 percent.  What is the U.S. public debt in 
dollar terms and percentage of GDP?

Please reply to me off-list.

With advance thanks,
Seth Sandronsky
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Re: NASDAQ Question

[Timework Web]

Seth Sandronsky wrote,

No. Assuming the calculation is right, the $4.7 trillion would represent a
value that could never be realized because if investors tried to liquidate
their portfolios, prices would come down and they would "lose" the $4.7
trillion that they never had in the first place. Likewise, if everyone on
pen-l promised to given everyone else a million bucks, we'd all be
fabulously rich until we tried to spend it. The astonishing thing is not
the "wipe out" but the illusion that there was anything there to be wiped
out. 


A Mar. 21 MSNBC report says "Since March of 2000, when NASDAQ prices peaked,
the tech sector collapse has wiped out an astonishing $4.7 trillion from
investment portfolios."

Is this accurate?


Tom Walker
(604) 947-2213

Re: NASDAQ Question

[Jim Devine]

At 11:48 AM 3/22/01 -0500, you wrote:


> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/22/01 10:56AM >>>
>Tom wrote:
> >No. Assuming the calculation is right, the $4.7 trillion would represent a
> >value that could never be realized because if investors tried to liquidate
> >their portfolios, prices would come down and they would "lose" the $4.7
> >trillion that they never had in the first place. Likewise, if everyone on
> >pen-l promised to given everyone else a million bucks, we'd all be
> >fabulously rich until we tried to spend it. The astonishing thing is not
> >the "wipe out" but the illusion that there was anything there to be wiped
> >out.
>
>the problem arises to the extent that the $4.7 trillion was perceived as
>real and used as collateral for loans, etc.
>
>((
>
>CB: Was it counted in GDP ?

No, the NASDAQ was not counted as part of GDP, because no real good or 
service was being purchased (only promises). However, the brokers' salaries 
and fees, other costs of that sort, were counted, since the brokers are 
considered to be providing a "service." To the extent that promises are 
printed on pieces of paper, they were counted (at the cost of printing).

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine