Re: Stats & OED: [Was Re: demo fervor]

[dmschanoes]

OK will do.   Still, looking forward to your take on the conditions of
capital using your statistically superior method.  Actually, can't wait.

But enough idle banter.

dms

Re: Stats & OED: [Was Re: demo fervor]

[Sabri Oncu]

> Please go right ahead and do a better analysis
> of the two industries in question using your
> spacecraft.. Challenger or Columbia?

Neighter Challenger or Columbia.

In my language it is called:

Ananin Ami!

If you don't know what it means, go and check a
Turkish dictionary!

Best,

Sabri

Re: Stats & OED: [Was Re: demo fervor]

[dmschanoes]

Please go right ahead and do a better analysis of the two industries in
question using your spacecraft.. Challenger or Columbia?


- Original Message -
From: "Sabri Oncu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 12:15 AM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Stats & OED: [Was Re: demo fervor]


> >> Hey dms!
> >>
> >> Tell me how you are planning to conduct that
> >> concrete analysis?
> >>
> >> Sabri
> >___
> > Ask and you shall receive...
>
>
> And I just took a look at what you sent.
>
> It is full of "statistical obscurantism" and
> inferences from them, possibly some of which are wrong
> because with your comments you demonstrated your lack
> of understanding of the tools you are using quite
> nicely.
>
> You cannot go to the moon by bike!
>
> You need a space craft for that...
>
> Best,
>
> Sabri
>

Re: Stats & OED: [Was Re: demo fervor]

[Sabri Oncu]

>> Hey dms!
>>
>> Tell me how you are planning to conduct that
>> concrete analysis?
>>
>> Sabri
>___
> Ask and you shall receive...


And I just took a look at what you sent.

It is full of "statistical obscurantism" and
inferences from them, possibly some of which are wrong
because with your comments you demonstrated your lack
of understanding of the tools you are using quite
nicely.

You cannot go to the moon by bike!

You need a space craft for that...

Best,

Sabri

Re: Stats & OED: [Was Re: demo fervor]

[dmschanoes]

- Original Message -
From: "Sabri Oncu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 11:34 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Stats & OED: [Was Re: demo fervor]


 Hey dms!
>
> Tell me how you are planning to conduct that concrete
> analysis?



> Sabri
___
Ask and you shall receive...

A CASE OF CURIOSITIES:



UNSOLVED MYSTERIES OF OVERPRODUCTION



For every capitalist, profit appears as a function of cost-- as the
discrepancy between cost and price. The capitalists as a class speak about
"value added" in production, but that value added doesn't appear as a
material component of the production process itself. Its "materialization"
assumes form as a price bestowed, granted, by the market exchanging all
commodities. It, profit, appears as a "gift," a "blessing," "magic,"
arbitrary, chimerical, a miracle requiring priests, police, and quick hands.

No capitalist can account concretely for the value generated in the
production process. There is no accounting line item for the value of things
obtained without cost, for value expropriated without compensation. There
can't be. The expropriation is concealed within the form of compensation
itself, which is of course, wages. And the value expropriated is the surplus
value from wage-labor.

Everything has its price and everything has a cost. In the confusion of the
two every capitalist experiences glee and misery, triumph and despair, meat
and poison. Cost is the disease and price is the cure. And vice versa.

All of capitalist production tends, by necessity, to become overproduction.
To the individual capitalist, overproduction is an unfortunate byproduct of
attempts to reduce the costs of production, or the misreading of the
markets. In reality, only through overproduction can the surplus value
expropriated through wage-labor be transformed into a relation of profit to
the capital it mobilizes; only the maximum production forcing all surplus
values into the markets provides even a minimum return. The realization of a
portion of the expropriated value requires the circulation of all values.
This process contains the capitalist dream of "value added," sure. And it
contains within the dream a reality of devaluation, of a productive
apparatus "too expensive," not in the costs of production in relation to
market prices, but in the relation of profit to capital as a whole.



Case 1: Steel-- Overproduction in a Down-sized Place.

When confronting a decline in the rate of profit, capital's usual course is
to call on the army to rearrange certain relations of debt, of wages, of the
existing profits themselves. Behind every free market there's a death squad
ready for deployment. But in 1973, the US military was fully occupied
licking its wounds after a ten year tour of Southeast Asia. The military was
in no shape to come to the phone.

So capital turned to the next best thing, oil, to do the rearranging. OPEC
answered on the first ring. Oil prices spiked and all the profits of all the
exchanges in all the markets entered that great pipeline belonging to the
seven sisters. And their banks.

And a funny thing happened on the way home from the bank. The inflated price
of oil took its toll on behalf of the petroleum companies, sure. But the
cascade of petrodollars, the general price inflation accompanying the
inflated price of oil propelled manufacturing industries to accumulate "hard
assets," to expand the fixed asset base of production with the depreciating
dollars realized in the markets. Between 1973 and 1980, the net stock
(measured on the historical cost basis) of manufacturing fixed assets
doubled. Manufacturing profits did not do quite as well in general, peaking
in 1978 at $89.7 billion before falling back to $76.3 billion in 1980, a
gain of 75 percent from 1973. Profits for the durable goods industry
collapsed, rose to a peak of $45.5 billion in 1978, and collapsed again to
$18.3 billion in 1980, below 1973's $25 billion. Profits for the primary
metal industries, i.e., steel , peaked in 1974 at $5.0 billion but dropped
to $2.6 billion in 1980. For the entire period, this sector's profits
averaged $2.4 billion per year, essentially showing no growth from 1973 on a
year to year basis.

The market mechanisms of price had done half a job, on employment levels and
living standards. But half won't do. Capital hit the redial button on its
phone.

The steel industry accounted for, then as now, approximately 3 percent of
total energy consumed in the US. This time, when the phone rang, it was OPEC
2, and it was calling collect. The industry was asset heavy and profit
short; capacity large and utilization small. It wasn't that OPEC caught
steel short. Rather, OPEC 2 caught the industry going long.

In 1980, the US steel industry production capacity was estim

Re: Stats & OED: [Was Re: demo fervor]

[Sabri Oncu]

dms:

> Personally, I think there is much more to be
> gained from the concrete analysis of the concrete
> conditions of exchange, production, overproduction,
> and profit, here and now, then and there, or any
> combination thereof.

Hey dms!

Tell me how you are planning to conduct that concrete
analysis?

I once had a student in my partial differential
equations class who told me that because we were
studying some concrete physical problems, things
should have been much simpler. What that young fellow
did not realize was that what we were studying were
not some concrete physical problems but some
simplified abstractions of them. This was why our
mathematical tools, however difficult they may be to
comprehend, worked. When it comes to real concrete
physical problems, our mathematical tools fare quite
poorly.

Here is another anecdote:

I had a very smart Chinese research brother. That is,
we were the students of the same professor. He once
told me that every year in China thousands of amateur
mathematicians used to submit solutions to the Chinese
Academy of Sciences of Fermat's then unsolved last
problem.

Of course, all those solutions were wrong.

And my Chinese brother concluded his story with this:

You cannot go to the moon by bike! You need a space
craft for that...

Best,

Sabri

Stats & OED: [Was Re: demo fervor]

[Sabri Oncu]

> Q:
> Is this the same as regression to the mean?
> Thx
> H

Hi Hari,

Good to hear from you! How is our mutual friend doing?

It is not the same as regression to the mean.

Regression to the mean is a different concept
associated with that those below the mean will do
better and move up, whereas those above the mean will
do worse and move down, we hope, of course.

Best,

Sabri

Re: Stats & OED: [Was Re: demo fervor]

[dmschanoes]

Haven't we beaten this poor pony to death yet?  Somebody produced an array
of number showing that the Republican Party has consistently had support
from a significant portion of the working class-- at least since 1952.  Big
deal. That's a surprise?  We need statistics for that?

I note in passing that hey, since 1980 or something the trend is downward.
Another non-big deal.  Certainly the observation, not a conclusion, but the
observation is just as meaningful or not as the observation that the
Republicans have had support.

And from that we get X number of transmissions about the validity of
statistical theory, etc.

Personally, I think there is much more to be gained from the concrete
analysis of the concrete conditions of exchange, production, overproduction,
and profit, here and now, then and there, or any combination thereof.

My remark about elections and trends  was a throwaway remark, reflecting, in
my opinion, the throwaway nature of election statistics.

dms

- Original Message -
From: "Hari Kumar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 7:23 PM
Subject: [PEN-L] Stats & OED: [Was Re: demo fervor]


> >Sabri Oncu :
>
> "Heteroskedastic means non-constant variance. If you look at the way the
data varies with time, the
> fluctuations are larger initially and the fluctuations attenuate as the
time progresses, although they appear
> to get larger again towards the end.
> Moreover, you just have 13 observations. I would never reach any
conclusions with that many observations."
>
> Q:
> Is this the same as regression to the mean?
> Thx
> H
>

Stats & OED: [Was Re: demo fervor]

[Hari Kumar]

Sabri Oncu :
"Heteroskedastic means non-constant variance. If you look at the way the data 
varies with time, the
fluctuations are larger initially and the fluctuations attenuate as the time 
progresses, although they appear
to get larger again towards the end.
Moreover, you just have 13 observations. I would never reach any conclusions with that many 
observations."
Q:
Is this the same as regression to the mean?
Thx
H

Re: demo fervor

[Michael Hoover]

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/27/04 1:19 PM >>>
 Benjamin Disraeli referred to
"lies, damn lies and statistics".
Jurriaan

from 'the phrase finder':
Often attributed to Benjamin Disraeli, British Prime Minister. The
source for this view is the autobiography of Mark Twain, where he makes
that attribution. No version of this quotation has been found in any of
Disraeli's published works or letters though. The earliest reference yet
found anywhere is to a speech made by Leonard H. Courtney, (1832-1918),
later Lord Courtney, in New York in 1895 - 'After all, facts are facts,
and although we may quote one to another with a chuckle the words of the
Wise Statesman, "Lies - damn lies - and statistics," still there are
some easy figures the simplest must understand, and the astutest cannot
wriggle out of.'

It may be that Twain thought that in the 'Wise Statesman' Courtney was
referring to Disraeli.

Re: demo fervor

[Jurriaan Bendien]

>if so, we agree.

I cannot think of anytime I disagreed with you. The more I think about this,
the more I think I disagree only with the people I disagree with, but, one
always has to keep that critical inquiry going and not tule out the
possibility you might disagree.

>It's also extremely hard to disprove (or "falsify") a proposition
empirically. Most propositions have "ceteris paribus" clauses which can be
invoked to defend the prop.

This is true, which is another reason why Benjamin Disraeli referred to
"lies, damn lies and statistics". However, statistics are indispensable to
place the problem in proportion, and even it is not possible to conclusively
prove or disprove a theorem, it is often possible to prove a margin of
error, i.e. the limits within which quantitative variation can occur. This
is an important corrective to rootless theorising which attaches enormous
importance to something which, in the wider scheme of things, really just
isn't so important.

>For example, in macro, empirical evidence has seemingly destroyed the
"monetarist" proposition that rapid increases in the money supply always &
everywhere cause inflation (since it turns out that "velocity" is unstable
and the relevant money supply changes over time, often in an
endogenously-driven way). But there are some people who honestly continue to
defend this proposition. (They may be honest despite their politic
positions, which are bad in my perspective.)

Yes, and Imre Lakatos explains why that is the case (showing also that
Popper's idea of "crucial experiments" is strictly speaking false or at any
rate must be relativised). When I was a university, I have a friend and he
wrote a paper on this, applying the Lakatosian interpretation to the history
of economic thought, with a Marxian interpretation of the objective
conditions within which theorising took place. My own interest as Education
student at that time, was in "historical learning", i.e. from the same
historical experience different people can conclude different things
depending on the theories they use to interpret the experience. You have
these historical learning processes and you can say at any time that in
relation to a specific event, people of a particular generation drew a
particular conclusion, maybe influence by their social station in life, but
that conclusion was drawn, and that remains in memory as a basis for present
and future evaluations or orientations.

This is actually a specific problem in Marxian-type political theory,
because we try to get people to draw specific lessons from real historical
experience rationally understood, and not bother with false prophets or
detractors and so on. Another application might be in regard to the fact,
that the PNAC-type people drew particular conclusions from the experience
they had in the past, and this shaped their policies, their thinking, and
that experience also defines the dynamic of their thinking.

Jurriaan

Re: demo fervor

[Michael Perelman]

Please, keep the number down!

On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 06:58:01PM +0100, Jurriaan Bendien wrote:
> > Bush thinks that homoskedasticity is unnatural and is going to ban any
> talk
> > of it in government funded statistical studies. Only observations that are
> > heteroskedastic will be allowed.
>
> Thanks. I'm not actually gay, but I had a lot of sexual harassment in the
> past, you end up doing things you would rather not, because of the
> heartless, racist, unsexy pressure to be something you are not, and of the
> systematic misrepresentation of who you really are by people who see
> themselves as Gods.
>
> Antonov Ovseyenko reports in his book The Time of Stalin that after Joseph
> Stalin had an academic give him private tuition in dialectics during the
> later 1920s, he had the academic killed off, at least the academic
> mysteriously "disappeared". I have never been able to trace the complete
> details of that story though.
>
> J.

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

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

Re: demo fervor

[Jurriaan Bendien]

> Bush thinks that homoskedasticity is unnatural and is going to ban any
talk
> of it in government funded statistical studies. Only observations that are
> heteroskedastic will be allowed.

Thanks. I'm not actually gay, but I had a lot of sexual harassment in the
past, you end up doing things you would rather not, because of the
heartless, racist, unsexy pressure to be something you are not, and of the
systematic misrepresentation of who you really are by people who see
themselves as Gods.

Antonov Ovseyenko reports in his book The Time of Stalin that after Joseph
Stalin had an academic give him private tuition in dialectics during the
later 1920s, he had the academic killed off, at least the academic
mysteriously "disappeared". I have never been able to trace the complete
details of that story though.

J.

Re: demo fervor

[Jurriaan Bendien]

> if the data is poorly measured, then even a case where there are no
empirical counterexamples may be wrong.
> Jim D.

Of course, that's possible, yes.

J.

Re: demo fervor

[Devine, James]

if so, we agree. 

It's also extremely hard to disprove (or "falsify") a proposition empirically. Most 
propositions have "ceteris paribus" clauses which can be invoked to defend the prop. 

For example, in macro, empirical evidence has seemingly destroyed the "monetarist" 
proposition that rapid increases in the money supply always & everywhere cause 
inflation (since it turns out that "velocity" is unstable and the relevant money 
supply changes over time, often in an endogenously-driven way). But there are some 
people who honestly continue to defend this proposition. (They may be honest despite 
their politic positions, which are bad in my perspective.)


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




> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 8:50 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor
> 
> 
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:30:35 -0800, "Devine, James"
> wrote:
> > if the data is poorly measured, then even a case
> >where
> > there are no empirical counterexamples may be wrong.
> > Jim D.
> 
> But Juriaan's point is surely that propositions can
> certainly be *falsified* by empirical evidence and if P
> is falsified, then "it cannot be proved that P" is
> proved.
> 
> ?
> 
> dd
> 

Re: demo fervor

[k hanly]

Bush thinks that homoskedasticity is unnatural and is going to ban any talk
of it in government funded statistical studies. Only observations that are
heteroskedastic will be allowed.

Cheers, Ken Hanly


- Original Message -
From: "Jurriaan Bendien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: demo fervor


> > <http://economics.about.com/cs/economicsglossary/g/heteroskedastic.htm>
> >
> > which tells us that such a beast does exist. and i thought i earned my
> > math degree with higher grades than sonofabush!
>
> I think the definition isn't very good. Heteroskedasticity and
> homoskedasticity really refer to the actual distribution pattern of a set
of
> observations in relation to a norm, as far as I remember. Suppose you
wanted
> to know what would be the best predictor of price movements. Well, you
could
> specify some relevant variables, and then some price vectors, and then you
> could study how actual observed prices deviated from the level or path
which
> you have hypothesised. That is the type of analysis which Anwar Shaikh did
> once in support of the 93% LTV, published in the Robert Langston memorial
> volume.
>
> J.

Re: demo fervor

[dsquared]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:30:35 -0800, "Devine, James"
wrote:
> if the data is poorly measured, then even a case
>where
> there are no empirical counterexamples may be wrong.
> Jim D.

But Juriaan's point is surely that propositions can
certainly be *falsified* by empirical evidence and if P
is falsified, then "it cannot be proved that P" is
proved.

?

dd

Re: demo fervor

[Devine, James]

I wrote:
> strictly speaking, no propositions at all can be "proved" with statistics.
All one can say is that your hypothesis survived a statistical test.<

Jurriaan writes: >True, but it occurs to me that this might be too strongly worded, 
insofar as
SOME propositions could be proved with statistics. For example, take
proposition p which states that y will always greater than x. I go and
measure y and I measure x and by golly, yep, I cannot find any single case
where p is false. Now you could of course say, tomorrow I could encounter an
example which contradicts p, and that is possible. This would demonstrate
what we knew logically anyway, namely that there is no absolute proof of p,
and, any counterexample of p is proof of that theorem. <

if the data is poorly measured, then even a case where there are no empirical 
counterexamples may be wrong.
Jim D.

Re: demo fervor

[dmschanoes]

To avoid over-posting, I conclude by directing all to this post of yours.

There it is.

dms
- Original Message -
From: "Jurriaan Bendien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 1:42 AM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor


> > What are you talking about?  Greenspan's positions of responsibility is
to
> > his class, the bourgeoisie.  I would not be in that position.
>
> Then who would you prefer to be in his position ?
>
> Chairman of
> > the FRB is not a "class neutral" position.  He is the bankers' banker.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > Civility?  What exactly is uncivil about calling a bourgeois scam artist
> and
> > ideologue exactly that?
>
> Because in civil society in the Marxian sense, if somebody is an ideologue
> or bourgeois scam artist, we say that s/he is on the basis of demonstrable
> evidence, and the burden of proof is on the accuser. Indeed Ernest Mandel
> wrote once, real Marxists do not "accuse", they "prove" their case. All
> human moral conduct presumes some kind of "no harm" policy which,
> positively, could be stated "do unto others as you would have them do unto
> you" or negatively, "do not do unto others what you would not like them to
> do unto you". An implication of this type of reasoning is, "take care in
> your judgements and partisanship, it may be better not to judge, lest you
be
> judged alike", and we have to live with the consequences of our actions
and
> utterances. On the basis of this idea, consistent and predictable
behaviour
> is possible, as well as a wellformed human personality. If you start
> demonising, disparaging and writing off government people not simply
because
> of what they do but who they are, then you also have to live with the
> consequences of that.
> >
> > Do you actual believe that there is some "supra-class" component of
being
> > chairman of the FRB?
>
> Yes, absolutely. Karl Marx has no special epistemic privilege or advantage
> over Al Greenspan, purely for being Karl Marx.
>
> Jurriaan
>

Re: demo fervor

[Jurriaan Bendien]

> What are you talking about?  Greenspan's positions of responsibility is to
> his class, the bourgeoisie.  I would not be in that position.

Then who would you prefer to be in his position ?

Chairman of
> the FRB is not a "class neutral" position.  He is the bankers' banker.

Agreed.

> Civility?  What exactly is uncivil about calling a bourgeois scam artist
and
> ideologue exactly that?

Because in civil society in the Marxian sense, if somebody is an ideologue
or bourgeois scam artist, we say that s/he is on the basis of demonstrable
evidence, and the burden of proof is on the accuser. Indeed Ernest Mandel
wrote once, real Marxists do not "accuse", they "prove" their case. All
human moral conduct presumes some kind of "no harm" policy which,
positively, could be stated "do unto others as you would have them do unto
you" or negatively, "do not do unto others what you would not like them to
do unto you". An implication of this type of reasoning is, "take care in
your judgements and partisanship, it may be better not to judge, lest you be
judged alike", and we have to live with the consequences of our actions and
utterances. On the basis of this idea, consistent and predictable behaviour
is possible, as well as a wellformed human personality. If you start
demonising, disparaging and writing off government people not simply because
of what they do but who they are, then you also have to live with the
consequences of that.
>
> Do you actual believe that there is some "supra-class" component of being
> chairman of the FRB?

Yes, absolutely. Karl Marx has no special epistemic privilege or advantage
over Al Greenspan, purely for being Karl Marx.

Jurriaan

Re: demo fervor

[Gassler Robert]

>1.  Heteroskedastic?  What is that? Not in my concise OED.
It means the trend gets weirder after some point in time than before.

The problem is that concepts like heteroskedasticity refer to samples and how well 
they reflect the total population. Here we have the total population of US 
presidential elections, so we do not need statistical inference.
>
> Pleasure,
>dms
>- Original Message -
>From: "Sabri Oncu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 8:26 PM
>Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor
>
>
>> dms:
>>
>> > But the trend since 1980 has been pretty
>> > consistenly down.  And the trend is your
>> > friend.
>>
>> But that data are clearly heteroskedastic. You cannot
>> reach a conclusion like that about the trend since
>> 1980 just by eyeballing.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Sabri
>>
>
>

Re: demo fervor

[dmschanoes]

OK, thanks... but I think I'll stick with concepts like wage-labor, capital,
return on investment, profit, overproduction, etc.

Economics isn't really a dismal science-- unless you're enamored of the
"new" Malthusianism, i.e "too many people, too little oil," as much as it
its concentrated, immediate history, i.e. a real social relation of
production and expropriation. Ergo, "weirder after some point in time than
before,"  is de rigueur.

dms

- Original Message -
From: "Gassler Robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 7:11 AM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor


> >1.  Heteroskedastic?  What is that? Not in my concise OED.
> It means the trend gets weirder after some point in time than before.
>
> The problem is that concepts like heteroskedasticity refer to samples and
how well they reflect the total population. Here we have the total
population of US presidential elections, so we do not need statistical
inference.
> >
> > Pleasure,
> >dms
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "Sabri Oncu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 8:26 PM
> >Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor
> >
> >
> >> dms:
> >>
> >> > But the trend since 1980 has been pretty
> >> > consistenly down.  And the trend is your
> >> > friend.
> >>
> >> But that data are clearly heteroskedastic. You cannot
> >> reach a conclusion like that about the trend since
> >> 1980 just by eyeballing.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Sabri
> >>
> >
> >
>

Re: demo fervor

[Devine, James]

strictly speaking, no propositions at all can be "proved" with statistics. All one can 
say is that your hypothesis survived a statistical test.
Jim D.

-Original Message- 
From: Doug Henwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wed 2/25/2004 9:11 PM 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Cc: 
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor



Sabri Oncu wrote:

>Since "in the long run we are all dead", we have no
>means of collecting enough data

If I'm remembering the literature correctly, there's not enough data
to prove with statistical certainty that stock returns are positive
over the long term.

Doug

Re: demo fervor

[Jurriaan Bendien]

> strictly speaking, no propositions at all can be "proved" with statistics.
All one can say is that your hypothesis survived a statistical test.

True, but it occurs to me that this might be too strongly worded, insofar as
SOME propositions could be proved with statistics. For example, take
proposition p which states that y will always greater than x. I go and
measure y and I measure x and by golly, yep, I cannot find any single case
where p is false. Now you could of course say, tomorrow I could encounter an
example which contradicts p, and that is possible. This would demonstrate
what we knew logically anyway, namely that there is no absolute proof of p,
and, any counterexample of p is proof of that theorem. Nevertheless, in
terms of the most basic tools of human cognition, i.e. stimulus
discrimination and stimulus generalisation, the very fact, that we
statistically established that p holds true as a rule, except in a few odd
cases, is significant, because then we are not just talking logical
entailment but real experience. Of course, I could also argue that p is true
simply because it is true, or because A says so, or because it follows
logically from q, but an appropriate statistical quantification of
observations does I think add to the credibility of the argument.

In general, these days, you get a lot of intellectually lazy people. They
want to skim off the most advanced knowledge around for the purpose of
gratifying their needs and so on, spy on other because they cannot think for
themselves or create anything for themselves. A lot of it just revolves
around a postmodernist spinning-out of concepts undisciplined by any real
experience beyond a bit of screwing around (nothing wrong with a bit of
screwing around, but it's not all of reality, if you know what I mean). In
this situation, I think quantitative empirical inquiry has definite merit
insofar as it limits the amount of waffle people can talk about the
aggregate effects of their individual interactions. I.e. we try to count the
horse's teeth, rather than hypothesise they are there.

Personally, I'm happy to say that I do admire Al Greenspan for his great
personal dedication to "finding out" about economics and his great concern
for the facts of experience, which many economists simply do not have. It's
just that I think that his deregulation policies have different economic
effects and consequences from what he thinks they have. I think the real
evolution of the monetary and credit system since 1981 raises questions
which his theory just cannot answer, and indeed contradicts it.

Regards,

Jurriaan

Re: demo fervor

[ravi]

Carrol Cox wrote:

Sabri Oncu wrote:

heteroskedastic.
WHAT???

yeah, sounds like one of those words bush invents, perhaps this time to
explain his homophobic opposition to gay marriage. but google leads us
to this page:


which tells us that such a beast does exist. and i thought i earned my
math degree with higher grades than sonofabush!
   --ravi

Re: demo fervor

[Jurriaan Bendien]

> 
>
> which tells us that such a beast does exist. and i thought i earned my
> math degree with higher grades than sonofabush!

I think the definition isn't very good. Heteroskedasticity and
homoskedasticity really refer to the actual distribution pattern of a set of
observations in relation to a norm, as far as I remember. Suppose you wanted
to know what would be the best predictor of price movements. Well, you could
specify some relevant variables, and then some price vectors, and then you
could study how actual observed prices deviated from the level or path which
you have hypothesised. That is the type of analysis which Anwar Shaikh did
once in support of the 93% LTV, published in the Robert Langston memorial
volume.

J.

Re: demo fervor

[dmschanoes]

Are you kidding me?  Do you know anything about Greenspan?  His history?
His flacking for every flimflam artist in the 1980s?  His Ayn Randism?

This guy has given a new meaning to the word equivocation.  Deregulation?
What deregulation?  That's total crap. When Long Term Capital Management
collapsed, approximately one month after Greenspan testified that the
markets did a better job of "regulating" hedge funds than any govt. agency
could,   the Fed intervened to arrange the loans and keep the corpse afloat.
Deregulation only exists to the extent that it justifies the terms of
expropriation.

Theory?  This guy has no fucking theory, he has an ideology which he uses
and is used to adapt to the reality he happens to find at any given moment.

Do you remember this clown's response to the emerging Asian currency crises
in 1997?  His smug talking down to Thailand and South Korea and Indonesia
about restraint and budgets blah blah blah...

Guy's a total fucking scam artist, a real hero of his times, with a face
made out of silly putty and a mind to match.

You're happy to say you admire this piece of shit?  Well, as we used to say,
"There it is." Which means...  No sense talking about it.

dms


- Original Message -
From: "Jurriaan Bendien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor


>> Personally, I'm happy to say that I do admire Al Greenspan for his great
> personal dedication to "finding out" about economics and his great concern
> for the facts of experience, which many economists simply do not have.
It's
> just that I think that his deregulation policies have different economic
> effects and consequences from what he thinks they have. I think the real
> evolution of the monetary and credit system since 1981 raises questions
> which his theory just cannot answer, and indeed contradicts it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jurriaan
>

Re: demo fervor

[Jurriaan Bendien]

I have had this argument with you before a few times, and there is a
philosophical difference between us there. I never said I agreed with
Greenspan, but what I am saying is that he does try to investigate real
economic life empirically in a serious way, as a basis for his governmental
responsibility, which many economists do not do. If I abuse Greenspan, it
has nil positive effect. But if I make a good argument which shows why he is
mistaken, that could convince a few people, or even bring them over to my
side.

I stated previously "Basically the bourgeoisie is telling the working class
to go whoring, instead of receive social assistance benefits for which they
were previously taxed by their own elected government." Maybe this seems an
outrageous exaggeration by a sinner like me, certainly Joanna didn't like it
and thought a correction was appropriate, but I think it is an empirically
verifiable corrollary of endless marketisation, because I believe it is true
that more market = more socio-economic inequality between people,
irrespective of whether that is good or bad (for the most part, I think it
is bad).

The ultimate argument of the bourgeois class concerning individual
initiative and the market is, that everybody has something they can sell to
get an income, and thus, if they don't do it, the inquality or disparity
which results is just "natural" (the dispute then is about exceptions to the
rule, such as the disabled and so on). I.e., the rich are rich because they
are rich, and the poor are poor because they are poor. And for the rest,
insofar as the market doesn't enforce a specific morality, it is a question
of fostering a specific individual morality. And I think you can
legitimately question that and argue about it.

But I don't think I get anywhere if I say that people should be arguing
about things completely differently from what they are actually arguing
about, rather, I ought to explain why they are arguing about it, engage with
what's being said, and if I say they're just stupid clowns or scam artists,
I don't think I score many points. I don't claim to have the complete
picture of Greenspan but I have followed him a bit over the years and feel
able to make the comment I did make. I think you are wrong to think that
Greenspan doesn't have a theory, but I think Greenspan is also a politician
or ideologist of sorts, who is fully aware of the "furies of private
interest" to which Marx refers in his comments about the political
economists in the Preface to his magnum opus. I prefer to stick to the norm
of "respect the person, criticise/change the behaviour" if at all possible.

J.

- Original Message -
From: "dmschanoes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 3:39 AM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor


> Are you kidding me?  Do you know anything about Greenspan?  His history?
> His flacking for every flimflam artist in the 1980s?  His Ayn Randism?
>
> This guy has given a new meaning to the word equivocation.  Deregulation?
> What deregulation?  That's total crap. When Long Term Capital Management
> collapsed, approximately one month after Greenspan testified that the
> markets did a better job of "regulating" hedge funds than any govt. agency
> could,   the Fed intervened to arrange the loans and keep the corpse
afloat.
> Deregulation only exists to the extent that it justifies the terms of
> expropriation.
>
> Theory?  This guy has no fucking theory, he has an ideology which he uses
> and is used to adapt to the reality he happens to find at any given
moment.
>
> Do you remember this clown's response to the emerging Asian currency
crises
> in 1997?  His smug talking down to Thailand and South Korea and Indonesia
> about restraint and budgets blah blah blah...
>
> Guy's a total fucking scam artist, a real hero of his times, with a face
> made out of silly putty and a mind to match.
>
> You're happy to say you admire this piece of shit?  Well, as we used to
say,
> "There it is." Which means...  No sense talking about it.
>
> dms
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jurriaan Bendien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 8:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor
>
>
> >> Personally, I'm happy to say that I do admire Al Greenspan for his
great
> > personal dedication to "finding out" about economics and his great
concern
> > for the facts of experience, which many economists simply do not have.
> It's
> > just that I think that his deregulation policies have different economic
> > effects and consequences from what he thinks they have. I think the real
> > evolution of the monetary and credit system since 1981 raises questions
> > which his theory just cannot answer, and indeed contradicts it.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jurriaan
> >
>
>
>

Re: demo fervor

[dmschanoes]

No you said you respect him (and I infer, even admire his intellectual
capacity).

You go right ahead and respect this sycophant who has endorsed and
legitimized embezzlers, felons, con-artists-- talk about whoring.  Everybody
knew, and I mean everybody in the financial world, that you could get
Greenspan to endorse anything if you paid him enough when he had his
consulting business.  In this he is the perfect representative of his class.

You go right ahead, respect this person, criticize his behaviour, while he
impoverishes millions, and laughs all the way to the central bank.

The critical task is to expose him for what he truly is-- a fraud, just as
the bourgeoisie's notions of free markets are fraudulent and are deployed to
justify the imposition of the death squad economy. Remember the Chicago
boys?  Remember that other phony, and psychotic, pseudo rationalist Friedman
and his free markets?  Remember where the Chicago boys got their first real
jobs?  Pinochet's Chile. Should we respect Friedman?

Economics really is concentrated history.  It is class struggle.

You give Greenspan far more credit than he is due, and thus mystify,
fetishize, the social relationship that makes him appear so erudite, so
thoughtful, so dedicated, when in reality, all that is going on is the
determination of the bourgeoisie to further reduce the living standards of
those already on short rations.

The ultimate argument of the bourgeoisie?  It's not about buying and
selling, it's about aiming and firing.


dms



  - Original Message -
From: "Jurriaan Bendien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor


>
> The ultimate argument of the bourgeois class concerning individual
> initiative and the market is, that everybody has something they can sell
to
> get an income, and thus, if they don't do it, the inquality or disparity
> which results is just "natural" (the dispute then is about exceptions to
the
> rule, such as the disabled and so on). I.e., the rich are rich because
they
> are rich, and the poor are poor because they are poor. And for the rest,
> insofar as the market doesn't enforce a specific morality, it is a
question
> of fostering a specific individual morality. And I think you can
> legitimately question that and argue about it.
>
> But I don't think I get anywhere if I say that people should be arguing
> about things completely differently from what they are actually arguing
> about, rather, I ought to explain why they are arguing about it, engage
with
> what's being said, and if I say they're just stupid clowns or scam
artists,
> I don't think I score many points. I don't claim to have the complete
> picture of Greenspan but I have followed him a bit over the years and feel
> able to make the comment I did make. I think you are wrong to think that
> Greenspan doesn't have a theory, but I think Greenspan is also a
politician
> or ideologist of sorts, who is fully aware of the "furies of private
> interest" to which Marx refers in his comments about the political
> economists in the Preface to his magnum opus. I prefer to stick to the
norm
> of "respect the person, criticise/change the behaviour" if at all
possible.
>

Re: demo fervor

[Jurriaan Bendien]

> The ultimate argument of the bourgeoisie?  It's not about buying and
> selling, it's about aiming and firing.

Not sure I agree - it seems often more firing and then aiming, i.e. shoot
first and talk later. I am not immune to lapses of temper or swearing
myself, but I prefer really to restrict that event type to my own quarters,
preferably at times when no one else is around. It's an ideal of civility I
have. If you were in Greenspan's position of responsibility, what would you
do ?

J.

Re: demo fervor

[dmschanoes]

What are you talking about?  Greenspan's positions of responsibility is to
his class, the bourgeoisie.  I would not be in that position.  Chairman of
the FRB is not a "class neutral" position.  He is the bankers' banker.
Civility?  What exactly is uncivil about calling a bourgeois scam artist and
ideologue exactly that?

Do you actual believe that there is some "supra-class" component of being
chairman of the FRB?

dms
- Original Message -
From: "Jurriaan Bendien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 10:42 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor


> > The ultimate argument of the bourgeoisie?  It's not about buying and
> > selling, it's about aiming and firing.
>
> Not sure I agree - it seems often more firing and then aiming, i.e. shoot
> first and talk later. I am not immune to lapses of temper or swearing
> myself, but I prefer really to restrict that event type to my own
quarters,
> preferably at times when no one else is around. It's an ideal of civility
I
> have. If you were in Greenspan's position of responsibility, what would
you
> do ?
>
> J.
>

Re: demo fervor

[Sabri Oncu]

Robert:

> The problem is that concepts like heteroskedasticity
> refer to samples and how well they reflect the total
> population. Here we have the total population of US
> presidential elections, so we do not need
> statistical inference

I don't want to turn this into a pissing contest but
we are talking about time-series data here. Of course
we need statistical inference.

Each cross-sectional population, even when we have the
total population at a given time, is a random draw
from a stochastically evolving process.

By the way,  sticking with concepts like wage-labor,
capital, return on investment, profit, overproduction,
etc, is not in contradiction with also sticking with
concepts such as Hilbert Spaces, Measure Theory,
Probability Theory and the like.

Also, you may complain, as I always do, about the
jargon, or the code, that only those who know the code
can follow but this is no reason to think that it is
obscurantism. I find it difficult to agree with claims
such as that we should disregard the statistical
obscurantism in favor of an historical analysis,
whatever that means. Statistical and historical
analysis can go hand in hand, as long as we are aware
of the limitations of both.

Best,

Sabri

Re: demo fervor

[joanna bujes]

Sabri Oncu wrote:

"What is the rationale behind forcing these Structural
Adjustment Programs down the throats of countries like
mine based on such a highly dubious model?"
Making sure the investors make their profits?

Joanna

Re: demo fervor

[Sabri Oncu]

Doug:

> If I'm remembering the literature correctly,
> there's not enough data to prove with statistical
> certainty that stock returns are positive
> over the long term.

Well!

It depends on what is meant by the long term but I
don't think there exists such a concept as
"statistical certainty".

It is certain however that not only the stock returns
but even the nominal interest rates can go negative,
as both have happened in the past.

The latter is a rare event but the former happens
every day.

I guess I am getting too technical so I stop here.

By the way, someone talked about the IMF Polak Model
on another list and then I read an IMF paper by Polak
from 1997 on that model.

What do my economist friends think about that model?

It looked quite "dubious" to me.

What is the rationale behind forcing these Structural
Adjustment Programs down the throats of countries like
mine based on such a highly dubious model?

Best,

Sabri

Re: demo fervor

[Doug Henwood]

Sabri Oncu wrote:

Since "in the long run we are all dead", we have no
means of collecting enough data
If I'm remembering the literature correctly, there's not enough data
to prove with statistical certainty that stock returns are positive
over the long term.
Doug

Re: demo fervor

[Sabri Oncu]

>Sabri Oncu wrote:
>>
>>  heteroskedastic.
>
>WHAT???
>
>Carrol

Heteroskedastic means non-constant variance.

If you look at the way the data varies with time, the
fluctuations are larger initially and the fluctuations
attenuate as the time progresses, although they appear
to get larger again towards the end.

Moreover, you just have 13 observations. I would never
reach any conclusions with that many observations.

This is why most macroeconomic theories are fucked up.

Since "in the long run we are all dead", we have no
means of collecting enough data, not to mention
potential structural changes, of course.

Best,

Sabri

Re: demo fervor

[Jurriaan Bendien]

> Since you are talking about union member affinity for the Republican
party, how about considering the fact that a growing percentage of present
day union members are actually government employees.  I am willing to bet
that they skew significantly more Democratic than the union members working
in the private sector, and that explains why the percentage of union members
voting Democratic has grown.  And what are the implications of that reality
for Left theory?

In the USA, agriculture and related industries have the lowest unionization
rate - 1.6 percent. Unionisation as such is lowest in North Carolina and
South Carolina.

According to the Bureau of labor Statistics, nearly 4 in 10 US government
workers are union members, compared with less than 1 in 10 workers in
private-sector industries.Of the 1.7 million wage and salary workers
represented by a union on their main job, while not being union members
themselves, about half were employed in government. Ten percent of unionised
workers are parttime workers.

In 2003, 12.9 percent of wage and salary workers were union members, down
from 13.3 percent in 2002. Union membership rates were higher for men (14.3
percent) than for women (11.4 percent). Blacks were more likely to be union
members (16.5 percent) than were whites (12.5 percent), Asians (11.4
percent), or Hispanics (10.7 percent). Union membership rates were highest
among workers 45 to 54 years old.  Full-time workers were more than twice as
likely as part-time workers to be union members.

Full-time wage and salary workers who are union members have median usual
weekly earnings of $760, compared with a median of $599 for wage and salary
workers who are not represented by unions.

In 2003, workers in the public sector had a union membership rate more than
four times that of private-sector employees, 37.2 percent compared with 8.2
percent.  The unionization rate for government workers has held
steady since 1983.  The rate for private industry workers has fallen by
about half over the same time period.

Within government, local government workers had the highest union membership
rate, 42.6 percent.  This group
includes the heavily unionized occupations of teachers, police officers, and
fire fighters.  Nearly two-fifths of workers in education, training, and
library occupations and in protective service occupations were union members
in 2003.  Protective service occupations include fire fighters and police
officers.

Among major private industries, transportation and utilities had the highest
union membership rate, at 26.2 percent.  Construction (16.0 percent),
information industries (13.6 percent), and manufacturing (13.5 percent) also
had higher-than-average rates.

Among occupational groups, education, training, and library occupations
(37.7 percent) and protective service workers (36.1 percent) had the highest
unionization rates in 2003.  Natural resources, construction, and
maintenance workers and production, transportation, and material moving
occupations also had higher-than-average union membership rates at 19.2
percent and 18.7 per-cent, respectively.  Among the major occupational
groups, sales and office occupations had the lowest unionization rate--8.2
percent.

The number of union members is highest in California (2.4 million), New York
(1.9 million), and Illinois (1.0 million).  The states with the highest
union membership rates are .New York (24.6 percent), Hawaii (23.8 percent),
Alaska (22.3 percent), and Michigan (21.9 percent).

 Texas had only about one-fourth as many union members as New York, despite
having 1.2 million more
wage and salary employees.

Faced with the imperative of cutting government spending, a Democratic
government could run into some tough opposition. On the other hand,
unionised government employees could influence Democratic expenditure
reducing ideas.

Jurriaan

Re: demo fervor

[David B. Shemano]

Since you are talking about union member affinity for the Republican party, how about 
considering the fact that a growing percentage of present day union members are 
actually government employees.  I am willing to bet that they skew significantly more 
Democratic than the union members working in the private sector, and that explains why 
the percentage of union members voting Democratic has grown.  And what are the 
implications of that reality for Left theory?

David Shemano



--- Original Message---
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 From: dmschanoes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 Sent:  2/25/2004  6:41PM
 Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor

>> 1.  Heteroskedastic?  What is that? Not in my concise OED.
>>
>> 2.  If we can't reach a conclusion about a trend since 1980 then we can't
>> reacch any conclusion period about the degree, the change in the degreee, of
>> union household affinity for the Republican Party, and the whole discussion
>> is pointless.
>> 3. Number 2 above is exactly the point.
>> 4. So let's just disregard the statistical obscurantism in favor of an
>> historical analysis: In the US, as in all bourgeois societies, the ruling
>> class is able to win and maintain the allegiance of some elements of all
>> other classes, including the working class.  This historical conditions
>> exists not to be interpreted, but to be change.
>>
>>  Pleasure,
>> dms
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Sabri Oncu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 8:26 PM
>> Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor
>>
>>
>> > dms:
>> >
>> > > But the trend since 1980 has been pretty
>> > > consistenly down.  And the trend is your
>> > > friend.
>> >
>> > But that data are clearly heteroskedastic. You cannot
>> > reach a conclusion like that about the trend since
>> > 1980 just by eyeballing.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> >
>> > Sabri
>> >
>>
>>

Re: demo fervor

[dmschanoes]

1.  Heteroskedastic?  What is that? Not in my concise OED.

2.  If we can't reach a conclusion about a trend since 1980 then we can't
reacch any conclusion period about the degree, the change in the degreee, of
union household affinity for the Republican Party, and the whole discussion
is pointless.
3. Number 2 above is exactly the point.
4. So let's just disregard the statistical obscurantism in favor of an
historical analysis: In the US, as in all bourgeois societies, the ruling
class is able to win and maintain the allegiance of some elements of all
other classes, including the working class.  This historical conditions
exists not to be interpreted, but to be change.

 Pleasure,
dms
- Original Message -
From: "Sabri Oncu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor


> dms:
>
> > But the trend since 1980 has been pretty
> > consistenly down.  And the trend is your
> > friend.
>
> But that data are clearly heteroskedastic. You cannot
> reach a conclusion like that about the trend since
> 1980 just by eyeballing.
>
> Best,
>
> Sabri
>

Re: demo fervor

[Carrol Cox]

Sabri Oncu wrote:
>
>  heteroskedastic.

WHAT???

Carrol

Re: demo fervor

[Sabri Oncu]

dms:

> But the trend since 1980 has been pretty
> consistenly down.  And the trend is your
> friend.

But that data are clearly heteroskedastic. You cannot
reach a conclusion like that about the trend since
1980 just by eyeballing.

Best,

Sabri

Re: demo fervor

[dmschanoes]

But the trend since 1980 has been pretty consistenly down.  And the trend is
your friend.


- Original Message -
From: "Michael Hoover" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> although union members are more likely to identify themselves as dems
> than reps and labor organizations are more likely to support dem
> candidates, republicans have captured more than 33% of votes from union
> households in 10 of last 13 prez elections...   michael hoover
>
> union households voting rep  for prez
> 52/eisenhower 44%
> 56/eisenhower 57%
> 60/nixon 36%
> 64/Goldwater 17%
> 68/nixon 44%
> 72/nixon 57%
> 76/ford 36%
> 80/reagan 45%
> 84/reagan 43%
> 88/bush 41%
> 92/bush 32%
> 96 dole 30%
> 00 bush 37%
>

Re: demo fervor

[Doug Henwood]

Mike Ballard wrote:

(I
think every monthly employment report for more
than 40 consecutive months has shown declining
manufacturing employment.)
42, actually.

Doug

Re: demo fervor

[Mike Ballard]

Here's a note from a friend of mine.

Cheers,
Mike B)

*

The Bush economic team is apparently at a loss on how
to stop the erosion of US manufacturing jobs.  (I
think every monthly employment report for more
than 40 consecutive months has shown declining
manufacturing employment.)
Their latest idea: the most recent "Economic Report of
the President" questions whether fast-food restaurants
should continue to be counted as part of the service
sector or should now be reclassified as
manufacturers.

Here's a response from one Midwestern legislator.

-Original Message-

A letter sent from Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) to Council
of Economic Advisors Chairman Greg Mankiw.

No, this is not a parody.  Here's the actual letter:


http://www.house.gov/dingell/Manufacturing_letter_02-23-04.pdf

**

Dr. Gregory Mankiw
Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers
Executive Office of the President
Washington, DC 20502

Dear Dr. Mankiw

I noticed in the recently released Economic Report of
the President that there was some consternation in the
defining of manufacturing. It could be inferred from
your report that the administration is willing to
recognize drink mixing, hamburger garnishing,
French/freedom fry cooking, and milk shake mixing to
be vital components of our manufacturing sector.

I am sure the 163,000 factory workers who have lost
their jobs in Michigan will find it heartening to know
that a world of opportunity awaits them in high growth
manufacturing careers like spatula operator, napkin
restocking, and lunch tray removal. I do have some
questions of this new policy and I hope you will help
me provide answers for my constituents:

- Will federal student loans and Trade Adjustment
Assistance grants be applied to tuition costs at
Burger College?

- Will the administration commit to allowing the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) to fund
cutting edge burger research such as new
nugget ingredients or keeping the hot and cold sides
of burgers separate until consumption?

- Will special sauce now be counted as a durable good?

- Do you want fries with that?

Finally, at a speech he gave in Michigan this past
September, Secretary Evans announced the creation of a
new Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing.
While I understand that it takes a while to find the
right candidate to fill these positions, I am
concerned that five months after the announcement no
Assistant Secretary has yet been named. I do, however,
know of a public official who would be perfect for the
job. He has over thirty years of administrative and
media experience, has a remarkable record of working
with diverse constituencies, and is extraordinarily
well qualified to understand this emerging
manufacturing sector: the Hon. Mayor McCheese.

With every good wish,
Sincerely,
John D. Dingell

=

You can't depend on your eyes when
your imagination is out of focus.
--Mark Twain

http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools

Re: demo fervor

[Michael Hoover]

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/23/04 09:20PM >>>
Maybe I was not clear.  If the Repubs. were clear about what they were,
no working
class people would vote for them.  In fact, many do, including union
workers.
Michael Perelman
<>
although union members are more likely to identify themselves as dems
than reps and labor organizations are more likely to support dem
candidates, republicans have captured more than 33% of votes from union
households in 10 of last 13 prez elections...   michael hoover

union households voting rep  for prez
52/eisenhower 44%
56/eisenhower 57%
60/nixon 36%
64/Goldwater 17%
68/nixon 44%
72/nixon 57%
76/ford 36%
80/reagan 45%
84/reagan 43%
88/bush 41%
92/bush 32%
96 dole 30%
00 bush 37%

Re: demo fervor

[Devine, James]

bad cop/good cop routine...
JD

-Original Message- 
From: Dan Scanlan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Mon 2/23/2004 8:27 PM 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Cc: 
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor



I have often wondered if the difference between a Republican
politician and a Democratic politician wasn't something like this:
The Republican says under his breath, "Screw you," and the Democrat
says, "Sorry fella" as they pass by the hitch-hiker in the desert.
Glee versus guilt at someone else's misfortune.

Dan Scanlan

Re: demo fervor

[Dan Scanlan]

I have often wondered if the difference between a Republican
politician and a Democratic politician wasn't something like this:
The Republican says under his breath, "Screw you," and the Democrat
says, "Sorry fella" as they pass by the hitch-hiker in the desert.
Glee versus guilt at someone else's misfortune.
Dan Scanlan

Re: demo fervor

[dmschanoes]

It is hard to imagine the Republicans being any more clear about what they
are and who they represent.  They are for private property, big private
property, unrestrained private property.  They say it they act it they live
it.

The fact that some workers support that is a fact of historical
circumstance, i.e. a condition-- not the result of obfuscation.

Does anyone think the fact that certain African-American elements support
the Republicans is the result of Republican deception about their true
agenda regarding social equality?


- Original Message -
From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor


> Maybe I was not clear.  If the Repubs. were clear about what they were, no
working
> class people would vote for them.  In fact, many do, including union
workers.
>
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 07:37:37PM -0500, dmschanoes wrote:
> > Really?  What working class people?  African-American working class
people?
> > Hispanic working class people?  Undocumented workers?
> >
> > Retired, white, former workers?  No doubt. But the notion of a
reactionary
> > mass of workers is a convenient fallacy.
> >
> > But the facts are that the Republicans garner contributions from
> > corporations at a rate and mass twice that of the Democrats-- that the
> > biggest corporate contributor to Bush's 2000 campaign was.the
airline
> > industry, surprise, surprise.  Followed by. more surprise,
> > pharmaceuticals, insurance, etc. etc.
> >
> > Yes, Republicans do define themselves by class and property, and the
> > Democrats try to obscure those specifics. Big deal.
> >
> > Here's the rule of thumb-- Republican elected when the bourgeoisie are
going
> > into a recession; Democrat when they want to come out of one.
> >
> > Republican workers?  Sure.  But that's a historical condition based on
the
> > lack of a specific class alternative.
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 4:53 PM
> > Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor
> >
> >
> > > Is that so?  The Repugs have been very successful in getting working
class
> > people to
> > > vote for them by way of wedge issues and making the Dems. seem out of
the
> > mainstream.
> > >
> > > Electorally, their clearly define constituency is a minority and the
Dems.
> > do a
> > > pretty good job of serving the corporations as well.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 03:00:48PM -0500, Louis Proyect wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That raises an interesting question of *class*. The Republicans are
> > > > successful because they have a clearly defined constituency that
they
> > fight
> > > > tooth and nail for. This includes first of all the big bourgeoisie,
but
> > it
> > > > also includes small proprietors and privileged workers, especially
> > whites.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Michael Perelman
> > > Economics Department
> > > California State University
> > > Chico, CA 95929
> > >
> > > Tel. 530-898-5321
> > > E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
> > >
>
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
>

Re: demo fervor

[Michael Perelman]

Maybe I was not clear.  If the Repubs. were clear about what they were, no working
class people would vote for them.  In fact, many do, including union workers.

On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 07:37:37PM -0500, dmschanoes wrote:
> Really?  What working class people?  African-American working class people?
> Hispanic working class people?  Undocumented workers?
>
> Retired, white, former workers?  No doubt. But the notion of a reactionary
> mass of workers is a convenient fallacy.
>
> But the facts are that the Republicans garner contributions from
> corporations at a rate and mass twice that of the Democrats-- that the
> biggest corporate contributor to Bush's 2000 campaign was.the airline
> industry, surprise, surprise.  Followed by. more surprise,
> pharmaceuticals, insurance, etc. etc.
>
> Yes, Republicans do define themselves by class and property, and the
> Democrats try to obscure those specifics. Big deal.
>
> Here's the rule of thumb-- Republican elected when the bourgeoisie are going
> into a recession; Democrat when they want to come out of one.
>
> Republican workers?  Sure.  But that's a historical condition based on the
> lack of a specific class alternative.
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 4:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor
>
>
> > Is that so?  The Repugs have been very successful in getting working class
> people to
> > vote for them by way of wedge issues and making the Dems. seem out of the
> mainstream.
> >
> > Electorally, their clearly define constituency is a minority and the Dems.
> do a
> > pretty good job of serving the corporations as well.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 03:00:48PM -0500, Louis Proyect wrote:
> > >
> > > That raises an interesting question of *class*. The Republicans are
> > > successful because they have a clearly defined constituency that they
> fight
> > > tooth and nail for. This includes first of all the big bourgeoisie, but
> it
> > > also includes small proprietors and privileged workers, especially
> whites.
> >
> > --
> > Michael Perelman
> > Economics Department
> > California State University
> > Chico, CA 95929
> >
> > Tel. 530-898-5321
> > E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
> >

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

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

Re: demo fervor

[dmschanoes]

Really?  What working class people?  African-American working class people?
Hispanic working class people?  Undocumented workers?

Retired, white, former workers?  No doubt. But the notion of a reactionary
mass of workers is a convenient fallacy.

But the facts are that the Republicans garner contributions from
corporations at a rate and mass twice that of the Democrats-- that the
biggest corporate contributor to Bush's 2000 campaign was.the airline
industry, surprise, surprise.  Followed by. more surprise,
pharmaceuticals, insurance, etc. etc.

Yes, Republicans do define themselves by class and property, and the
Democrats try to obscure those specifics. Big deal.

Here's the rule of thumb-- Republican elected when the bourgeoisie are going
into a recession; Democrat when they want to come out of one.

Republican workers?  Sure.  But that's a historical condition based on the
lack of a specific class alternative.


- Original Message -
From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor


> Is that so?  The Repugs have been very successful in getting working class
people to
> vote for them by way of wedge issues and making the Dems. seem out of the
mainstream.
>
> Electorally, their clearly define constituency is a minority and the Dems.
do a
> pretty good job of serving the corporations as well.
>
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 03:00:48PM -0500, Louis Proyect wrote:
> >
> > That raises an interesting question of *class*. The Republicans are
> > successful because they have a clearly defined constituency that they
fight
> > tooth and nail for. This includes first of all the big bourgeoisie, but
it
> > also includes small proprietors and privileged workers, especially
whites.
>
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
>

Re: demo fervor

[Michael Perelman]

Is that so?  The Repugs have been very successful in getting working class people to
vote for them by way of wedge issues and making the Dems. seem out of the mainstream.

Electorally, their clearly define constituency is a minority and the Dems. do a
pretty good job of serving the corporations as well.

On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 03:00:48PM -0500, Louis Proyect wrote:
>
> That raises an interesting question of *class*. The Republicans are
> successful because they have a clearly defined constituency that they fight
> tooth and nail for. This includes first of all the big bourgeoisie, but it
> also includes small proprietors and privileged workers, especially whites.

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

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

Re: demo fervor

[Louis Proyect]

Too bad the Democrats don't go after Bush, Halliburton and Enron with
the same fervor they go after Nader -- or Matt Gonzales in San
Francisco, for that matter.
Dan Scanlan
That raises an interesting question of *class*. The Republicans are
successful because they have a clearly defined constituency that they fight
tooth and nail for. This includes first of all the big bourgeoisie, but it
also includes small proprietors and privileged workers, especially whites.
The Democrats are supposed to rest on "enlightened" ruling class figures
like in Hollywood and certain financial wheeler-dealers, but they hold
their ostensible mass base at arm's length. As Ted Glick pointed out in the
article forwarded by Michael Hoover, Jimmy Carter spoke of "ethnic purity"
in neighborhoods, an obvious bid for the average Republican Party voter.
Meanwhile, Clinton attacked Sister Souljah and threw mothers off of
welfare. Despite Kerry's rhetoric about "Benedict Arnold" corporations
sending jobs overseas, he has voted for every free trade agreement. As
Nader pointed out, this party loses elections because it refuses to fight.
And the Nation Magazine urges us to tie our fate to this bunch of losers
rather than to fight for what we believe in. Give me a fuckin' break.
Louis Proyect
Marxism list: www.marxmail.org