Re: [PEN-L] GM to lock in loan rates for 10 years
Im familiar with the Marxian tradition, but its hard to think of a monopoly corp as poor. I tend to react to the over-use of the term monopoly. Though its not like theres a single definition of the term (handed down from on high by the gods or some convention of learned economists), monopoly literally means single seller (by implication, in a single market). The term monopoly is often used as a way of criticizing the corps, going beyond the literal definition. But its also in the Marxian tradition that capitalist competition can be just as bad as monopoly, since both involve merely the distribution of surplus-value and both are based on exploitation (the production of surplus-value). In some ways, a capitalist monopoly can be better than competition, since its possible that a big firm can successfully be made subject to pressure from labor unions and progressive governments. A monopoly can afford to give up a little of its surplus-profits to clean up the environment, for example, while a competitive firm is so desperate to survive competition that it will resist to the end (unless all of the competitors are subject to the same regulation -- but somehow the little firms seldom see this and act as if they were the only ones subject to the law). (Of course, a big company is more likely to have political influence, too, while competitive firms try to unite politically.) Theres another use of the word monopoly in Marxian political economy, i.e., that the capitalists have a monopoly on the ownership of the means of production and subsistence. Jim Devine, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; web: http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine/ -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Brown Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 7:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L] GM to lock in loan rates for 10 years Sounds like desperation. Michael Perelman ^^ CB: Like Poor little monopoly corp ... GM's hardly a monopoly (exceed as loosely defined as big). It's facing all sorts of competition from Toyota, etc. JD ^^ CB: Yes, bigness is part of this concept of monopoly. This is relative bigness, and, obviously adds to the company's ability to dominate in some economic arena. Are you familiar with the political economic tradition that considers that monopolization _increases_ , not decreases, competition in a number of ways ? It is termed monopoly competition and is more vicious than free competition. This tradition is specifically aware of the arguments you make against the use of the term monopoly to apply to a GM, but doesn't accept your conclusion, and thus continues to use the term monopoly as I do here. Or maybe you have a monopoly on the use of the term monopoly. Here's one short statement of the idea of this nameless political economic tradition: 10. DOES MONOPOLY END COMPETITION? No. It reduces competition in the area covered by the monopoly, while accentuating it in other fields -- e.g., between monopoly capitalists and non-monopoly capitalists and between rival groups of monopolists in the same or different countries. ^ CB: So, the idea of monopoly here does not exclude the possibility of competition with foreign monopolies , like Toyota. ( Although I haven't investigated the extent to which Toyota and GM may be linked ) What is the nature of the competition between GM , Ford and Daimler- Chrysler ? Why are there only three/two U.S. based car companies left instead of 150 as at the beginning of the carmaking age ? Monopoly refers to the history of the car companies as well. GM is a winner, along with Ford, in the long term history of competition among U.S.based-owned car manufacturers. Most competitors have been eliminated. That is an illustration of monopoly growing out of competition as theorized by Marx. It is really not such an odd idea. Imperialism cannot eliminate competition. 'In fact it is this combination of antagonistic principles, viz, competition and monopoly, that is the essence of imperialism, ...'
[PEN-L] Confessions of an economic hit man serving the American empire.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/09/1526251 Democracy Now Tuesday, November 9th, 2004 Confessions of an economic hit man: How the U.S. uses globalization to cheat poor countries out of trillions We speak with John Perkins, a former respected member of the international banking community. In his book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man he describes how as a highly paid professional, he helped the U.S. cheat poor countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars by lending them more money than they could possibly repay and then take over their economies. [includes rush transcript] John Perkins describes himself as a former economic hit man - a highly paid professional who cheated countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. 20 years ago Perkins began writing a book with the working title, Conscience of an Economic Hit Men. Perkins writes, The book was to be dedicated to the presidents of two countries, men who had been his clients whom I respected and thought of as kindred spirits - Jaime Rolds, president of Ecuador, and Omar Torrijos, president of Panama. Both had just died in fiery crashes. Their deaths were not accidental. They were assassinated because they opposed that fraternity of corporate, government, and banking heads whose goal is global empire. We Economic Hit Men failed to bring Rolds and Torrijos around, and the other type of hit men, the CIA-sanctioned jackals who were always right behind us, stepped in. John Perkins goes on to write: I was persuaded to stop writing that book. I started it four more times during the next twenty years. On each occasion, my decision to begin again was influenced by current world events: the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1980, the first Gulf War, Somalia, and the rise of Osama bin Laden. However, threats or bribes always convinced me to stop. But now Perkins has finally published his story. The book is titled Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. John Perkins joins us now in our Firehouse studios. John Perkins - from 1971 to 1981 he worked for the international consulting firm of Chas T. Main where he was a self-described economic hit man. He is the author of the new book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. RUSH TRANSCRIPT This transcript is available free of charge, however donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution. Donate - $25, $50, $100, more... AMY GOODMAN: John Perkins joins us now in our firehouse studio. Welcome to Democracy Now! JOHN PERKINS: Thank you, Amy. Its great to be here. AMY GOODMAN: Its good to have you with us. Okay, explain this term, economic hit man, e.h.m., as you call it. JOHN PERKINS: Basically what we were trained to do and what our job is to do is to build up the American empire. To bring -- to create situations where as many resources as possible flow into this country, to our corporations, and our government, and in fact weve been very successful. Weve built the largest empire in the history of the world. It's been done over the last 50 years since World War II with very little military might, actually. It's only in rare instances like Iraq where the military comes in as a last resort. This empire, unlike any other in the history of the world, has been built primarily through economic manipulation, through cheating, through fraud, through seducing people into our way of life, through the economic hit men. I was very much a part of that. AMY GOODMAN: How did you become one? Who did you work for? JOHN PERKINS: Well, I was initially recruited while I was in business school back in the late sixties by the National Security Agency, the nation's largest and least understood spy organization; but ultimately I worked for private corporations. The first real economic hit man was back in the early 1950's, Kermit Roosevelt, the grandson of Teddy, who overthrew the government of Iran, a democratically elected government, Mossadeghs government, who was Time Magazine's person of the year; and he was so successful at doing this without any bloodshed -- well, there was a little bloodshed, but no military intervention, just spending millions of dollars and replacing Mossadegh with the Shah of Iran. At that point, we understood that this idea of economic hit man was an extremely good one. We didn't have to worry about the threat of war with Russia when we did it this way. The problem with that was that Roosevelt was a C.I.A. agent. He was a government employee. Had he been caught, we would have been in a lot of trouble. It would have been very embarrassing. So, at that point, the decision was made to use organizations like the C.I.A. and the N.S.A. to recruit potential economic hit men like me and then send us to work for private consulting companies, engineering firms, construction companies, so that if we were caught, there would be no connection with the government. AMY GOODMAN: Okay.
[PEN-L] GREAT QUOTES BY GREAT LADIES
Fwd by Karen Wald [EMAIL PROTECTED] GREAT QUOTES BY GREAT LADIES Inside every older lady is a younger lady -- wondering what the hell happened. -Cora Harvey Armstrong- Inside me lives a skinny woman crying to get out. But I can usually shut her up with cookies. The hardest years in life are those between ten and seventy. -Helen Hayes (at 73)- I refuse to think of them as chin hairs. I think of them as stray eyebrows. -Janette Barber- Things are going to get a lot worse before they get worse. -Lily Tomlin- A male gynecologist is like an auto mechanic who never owned a car. -Carrie Snow- Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry and you cry with your girlfriends. -Laurie Kuslansky- My second favorite household chore is ironing. My first being, hitting my head on the top bunk bed until I faint. -Erma Bombeck- Old age ain't no place for sissies. -Bette Davis- A man's got to do what a man's got to do. A woman must do what he can't. -Rhonda Hansome- The phrase working mother is redundant. -Jane Sellman- Every time I close the door on reality, it comes in through the window. -Jennifer Unlimited- Whatever women must do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult. -Charlotte Whitton- Thirty-five is when you finally get your head together and your body starts falling apart. -Caryn Leschen- I try to take one day at a time -- but sometimes several days attack me at once. -Jennifer Unlimited- If you can't be a good example -- then you'll just have to be a horrible warning. -Catherine- When I was young, I was put in a school for retarded kids for two years before they realized I actually had a hearing loss. And they called ME slow! -Kathy Buckley- I'm not offended by all the dumb blonde jokes because I know I'm not dumb-- and I'm also not blonde. -Dolly Parton- If high heels were so wonderful, men would still be wearing them. -Sue Grafton- I'm not going to vacuum 'til Sears makes one you can ride on. -Roseanne Barr- When women are depressed they either eat or go shopping. Men invade another country.. -Elayne Boosler- Behind every successful man is a surprised woman. -Maryon Pearson- In politics, if you want anything said, ask a man. If you want anything done, ask a woman. -Margaret Thatcher- [I do NOT think she is a great lady but I didn't delete it because it's still a good quote...kw] I have yet to hear a man ask for advice on how to combine marriage and a career. -Gloria Steinem- I am a marvelous housekeeper. Every time I leave a man, I keep his house. -Zsa Zsa Gabor- Nobody can make you feel inferior without your permission. -Eleanor Roosevelt- Send this to five bright women you know and make their day. Every woman I know is bright --so I am sending to several.
[PEN-L] (cross-post) chinese system
Louis Proyect writes: Fascist countries don't invite radical professors like Jim Craven to give talks at conferences. Fascism is a totalitarian system that controls every last aspect of a citizen's life and demands blind obedience to an ultra-nationalist regime bent on an expansionist course. This hardly describes China. J. R. wrote: First of all, not all fascist regimes are the same as they all vary in degree of oppression and methods. Dr. Lawrence Britt, a political scientist wrote: /The 14 Characteristic of Fascism (http://www.1hope.org/fascism.htm ), but, it seems to me not all characteristics are needed to qualify as fascist. Louis Proyect responds: Dr. Britt is a self-described humanist. He says that the failure to investigate the plane crash of Paul Wellstone is proof that the USA is fascist. This is not worth replying to. Comrade Rosso, have you ever read Marxist literature on fascism? Much of it is online at www.marxists.org and will cost you nothing except time that would be well-spent. Response (Jim C) This is a response to Louis. A response to this individual calling China fascist would not be time well spent; the problem is not only what he does not know, but more importantly, the problem appears to be what he apparently knows for sure that just ain't so. He either does not understand what fascism is about and/or does not understand what China is about. Before I left for China, I sent some materials on my background to those who had invited me. Why? For several reasons. First of all I did not want to abuse the hospitality of those who had invited me with my coming to a conference at which my own views--and activist background--might be seen as very controversial and possibly bring some hardship to those who had so kindly invited me. Further, I gave the proposed title of my paper and an abstract but no one asked to see my proposed paper before leaving for China. Again, I sent my paper in advance in the event that my comments might cause some conference-disrupting responses and/or bring some hardships to those who had invited me. Again, there was no negative response to my proposed comments. And at the conference no one tried to censor me, no one tried to tell me what language to use and no one tried to inhibit my comments (decidedly anti-capitalist) about the dangers of widespread expansion of capitalist markets, institutions, categories, relations and values in China--dangers vis-a-vis the ongoing socialist construction, protection of existing levels of socialist construction and development of mass socialist consciousness. Further, I asked if it would be possible to visit the mausoleum of Chairman Mao and the grave of Dr. Norman Bethune (Pai Chu En) as it had been my dream to visit and pay respects at the graves of these two who had influenced my own life and views so much--as is the Blackfoot Way to visit, at least once, the graves of those we respect and who have influenced us in our lives. They went out of their way to help me to pay these respects knowing exactly where I was coming from. I even sent some protest letters against my own college for repression I had suffered and copies of the case I am involved with in Canada charging the Canadian government with genocide against Indigenous Peoples just so that they would be aware of some of the controversies I had been involved with/am involved with so that those who had invited me would not be caused an embarrassment or problems for having invited me. Again, I was invited and while in China treated with the utmost respect and kindness while there. While in China I had extensive discussions with some first-rate Chinese scholars and academicians who, of course, came from a variety of theoretical perspectives. But the discussions were open, frank and extremely insightful. The organizers were even prepared for me to convene a workshop and invite Marty Hart-Landsberg (a friend of mine whom I respect and whose work as an economist I respect but with whom I disagree on the question of capitalism having been restored in China), Paul Burkett and others to debate, at the conference, with Chinese scholars, the issue of whether or not capitalism has been and/or is being restored in China. This would not be possible if China had moved to fascism and/or even had restored capitalism. Calling China fascist, especially when considering all that China has suffered and continues to suffer under the yokes of imperialism and fascism--imperial encirclement and destabilization (social systems engineering) campaigns, denial of critical technologies and life-saving food and medicines, threats of nuclear annihilation, protection of Japanese Class-A war criminals from prosecution in return for use of their barbaric research from the likes of Unit 731, etc etc etc--is a horrible slander and slur against a People who have come so far despite such overwhelming odds and despite such barbaric and lethal imperialist and fascist forces bent on sabotaging
[PEN-L] Divided we stand
Letters to the editor Detroit Metro Times http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=6968 Divided we stand Since the election there have been many calls for America to unite behind the president. It is easy to make this sound poetic and noble, but we must not forget that the views of the losing side still have merit. Those who have legitimate concerns about issues should not abandon them in the name of national healing. We cannot. We must not. Democracy requires the expression of views including strong opposition. If contrary opinions are not expressed, then we no longer have a democracy. If healing means not voicing opposition, then the cure is worse than the disease. The people who voted for Mr. Bush did so for a variety of reasons. Not every Bush voter selected him for moral issues, some voted for him in spite of those stands. Not every Bush voter was in favor of his foreign policy; some voted for him in spite of those actions. His election is not a mandate on all of his policies, and there is no reason we should all unite behind all of them. -Laura Lee, Rochester Hills
Re: [PEN-L] Divided we stand
I do not recall the Repugnicans standing behind Bill Clinton in 1996 any more than I recall them supporting our troops in Haiti, Somalia, and Bosnia. I recall them gearing up to impeach the commander in chief. Let's give them the same consideration as best we can. Letters to the editor Detroit Metro Times http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=6968 Divided we stand Since the election there have been many calls for America to unite behind the president. It is easy to make this sound poetic and noble, but we must not forget that the views of the losing side still have merit. Those who have legitimate concerns about issues should not abandon them in the name of national healing. We cannot. We must not. Democracy requires the expression of views including strong opposition. If contrary opinions are not expressed, then we no longer have a democracy. If healing means not voicing opposition, then the cure is worse than the disease. The people who voted for Mr. Bush did so for a variety of reasons. Not every Bush voter selected him for moral issues, some voted for him in spite of those stands. Not every Bush voter was in favor of his foreign policy; some voted for him in spite of those actions. His election is not a mandate on all of his policies, and there is no reason we should all unite behind all of them. -Laura Lee, Rochester Hills
[PEN-L] law and economics
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1100136999310 Courts on the Edge of Financial Crisis Latest crunch could cause a dire impact, say judges and scholars Marcia Coyle The National Law Journal 11-12-2004 Imagine a federal judicial system in which courthouses are open every other week, there is a five-year wait for a jury trial and no oral arguments are permitted on appeals. It is a pretty drastic picture, and an exaggerated one at that, but court scholars and others believe a funding crisis, unprecedented in the last two decades, will result in fundamental alterations in the nation's justice system in another two years if left unresolved by Congress. If we have to make major reductions in staff in fiscal 2005, we will have some parts of the country where we can't provide all of the services we need to provide, said Chief Judge Carolyn Dineen King of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who chairs the executive committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States. For sure it will happen throughout the country if we have to do it in the following year. We are at a very difficult pass, I would say, she added. At a difficult pass and in a holding pattern. When Congress recessed this month for the election, it had yet to enact a budget for the judiciary and a number of other federal agencies and departments. It left in place a continuing resolution that funds them through Nov. 20. (Fiscal year 2005 actually began Oct. 1.) While the courts say they have been underfunded in the last four years, what is particularly worrisome this year is that Congress is considering a hard freeze: appropriations for all nondefense, nonhomeland security operations would be frozen at fiscal year 2004 levels. If that happens, wrote Chief Judge John W. Sedwick of the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska in a letter to the Senate's Appropriation Committee chairman, the courts, which already stand on the brink of a fiscal abyss will plunge over the precipice. Under a hard freeze, the judiciary estimates it would have to fire or furlough 2,200 to 5,000 full-time employees-almost 20 percent of probation officers and clerks' office staff-and make a 50 percent cut in court operations costs. Money to pay attorneys who represent indigent criminal defendants under the Criminal Justice Act would run out next June, and money for jury fees would be exhausted in July. LOSING MORE DOLLARS In dollar terms, the problem is a cumulative one. Until about four years ago, the judiciary was receiving annual budget increases from Congress of about 10 percent. But about four years ago, the increase started to decline-and swiftly. In the last two budget years, the judiciary received increases of 4.8 percent and 4.7 percent. What does that translate into? asked King. We need an increase of about 6.1 percent each year in order to simply maintain current services. That will not cover increases in our workload, but it will cover a comparable amount of workload to that of the prior year. The problem is exacerbated by the annual rent increases the judiciary pays to the General Services Administration (GSA): 8 percent every year, which is 22 percent of the courts' budget. It is not negotiable, explained King. We are the largest rent payers. The Department of Justice is the second largest and it is painful for them too. When you take into account that we haven't been getting the amount to cover current services and the fact that our rent is going to go up, our financial situation has been very problematic, she added. What we've done is the only thing we can do. We have had to cut staff. In the last year, the judiciary has cut, through layoffs or attrition, about 1,000 staff positions. Before recessing, the House passed its own appropriations bill for the judiciary which would give the courts an increase of 5.6 percent, close to what they need to maintain current services. The Senate also passed a bill but its increase is 3 percent -- a real haircut, said King. Two weeks ago, the Judicial Conference sent an appeal letter to lawmakers who will be working to resolve differences between the two appropriations measures. The conference, which had requested an 11.5 percent increase to meet fiscal 2005 workload requirements, is now asking for the minimum funding needed to maintain fiscal year 2004 level of services and operations -- not covering workload increases --and to be excluded from any across-the-board reduction. The conference also recently approved a two-year moratorium on 42 courthouse construction projects, and said it will seek full funding for four projects considered space emergencies in Los Angeles; San Diego; El Paso, Texas; and Las Cruces, N.M. BAD TIME FOR A BUDGET CRUNCH In non-dollar terms, the problem is caseload. There's always some concern that the courts are crying wolf, but I think the federal courts generally run a fairly lean operation, said long-time court scholar Arthur Hellman of the University of
[PEN-L] the Pentagon fancies becoming the God of war
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/13/technology/ November 13, 2004 Pentagon Envisioning a Costly Internet for War By TIM WEINER The Pentagon is building its own Internet, the military's world wide web for the wars of the future. The goal is to give all American commanders and troops a moving picture of all foreign enemies and threats - a God's-eye view of battle. This Internet in the sky, Peter Teets, under secretary of the Air Force, told Congress, would allow marines in a Humvee, in a faraway land, in the middle of a rainstorm, to open up their laptops, request imagery from a spy satellite, and get it downloaded within seconds. The Pentagon calls the secure network the Global Information Grid, or GIG. Conceived six years ago, its first connections were laid six weeks ago. It may take two decades and hundreds of billions of dollars to build the new war net and its components. Skeptics say the costs are staggering and the technological hurdles huge. Vint Cerf, one of the fathers of the Internet and a Pentagon consultant on the war net, said he wondered if the military's dream was realistic. I want to make sure what we realize is vision and not hallucination, Mr. Cerf said. This is sort of like Star Wars, where the policy was, 'Let's go out and build this system,' and technology lagged far behind,'' he said. There's nothing wrong with having ambitious goals. You just need to temper them with physics and reality. Advocates say networked computers will be the most powerful weapon in the American arsenal. Fusing weapons, secret intelligence and soldiers in a global network - what they call net-centric warfare - will, they say, change the military in the way the Internet has changed business and culture. Possibly the single most transforming thing in our force,'' Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said, will not be a weapons system, but a set of interconnections. The American military, built to fight nations and armies, now faces stateless enemies without jets, tanks, ships or central headquarters. Sending secret intelligence and stratagems instantly to soldiers in battle would, in theory, make the military a faster, fiercer force against a faceless foe. Robert J. Stevens, chief executive of the Lockheed Martin Corporation, the nation's biggest military contractor, said he envisioned a highly secure Internet in which military and intelligence activities are fused, shaping 21st-century warfare in the way that nuclear weapons shaped the cold war. Every member of the military would have a picture of the battle space, a God's-eye view, he said. And that's real power. Pentagon traditionalists, however, ask if net-centric warfare is nothing more than an expensive fad. They point to the street fighting in Falluja and Baghdad, saying firepower and armor still mean more than fiber optic cables and wireless connections. But the biggest challenge in building a war net may be the military bureaucracy. For decades, the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines have built their own weapons and traditions. A network, advocates say, would cut through those old ways. The ideals of this new warfare are driving many of the Pentagon's spending plans for the next 10 to 15 years. Some costs are secret, but billions have already been spent. Providing the connections to run the war net will cost at least $24 billion over the next five years - more than the cost, in today's dollars, of the Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb. Beyond that, encrypting data will be a $5 billion project. Hundreds of thousands of new radios are likely to cost $25 billion. Satellite systems for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and communications will be tens of billions more. The Army's program for a war net alone has a $120 billion price tag. Over all, Pentagon documents suggest, $200 billion or more may go for the war net's hardware and software in the next decade or so. The question is one of cost and technology, said John Hamre, a former deputy secretary of defense, now president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. We want to know all things at all times everywhere in the world? Fine, Mr. Hamre said. Do we know what this staring, all-seeing eye is that we're going to put in space is? Hell, no. The military wants to know everything of interest to us, all the time, in the words of Steven A. Cambone, the under secretary of defense for intelligence. He has told Congress that military intelligence - including secret satellite surveillance covering most of the earth - will be posted on the war net and shared with troops. John Garing, strategic planning director at the Defense Information Security Agency, now starting to build the war net, said: The essence of net-centric warfare is our ability to deploy a war-fighting force anywhere, anytime. Information technology is the key to that. Military contractors - and information-technology creators not usually associated with weapons systems -
