Re: [PEN-L] Art as Commodity
Louis Proyect wrote: My review of No Country for Old Men has generated a more general discussion about art and politics on my blog and on Stan Goff's Feral Scholar. Although the debate has been pretty polarized over the role of Cormac McCarthy in realizing some ideal about Great Literature, just about every participant lays claim to radicalism or Marxism. One of the more ubiquitous posters is one John Steppling, who seeks to rescue art from commissars like myself who are represented as latter day partisans of the proletarian novel and socialist realism: You cannot attack Mccarthy for not writing a book making the didatic points you want him to make. Thats not what literature does at any time. I find a lot of people on all political sides become a bit frightened by characters when they are constructed as McCarthy constructs them…by which I mean without conventional sentimentality and motivation. I don't know what's been said in the discussion, but my feeling is that No Country for Old Men does have a political point. It's just not one that's especially pleasant to the left. My reading is that the movie is all about the Tommy Lee Jones character (thus the movie's title), rather than being about the other two main characters. The world had become so chaotic and lawless (circa 1980!) that even a dedicated lawman like Jones gives up. The anarchy of the situation was symbolized to me by the scene at the end where the Javier Bardem character is hit, along with the behavior of the two boys. If I am right in my interpretation, the film is profoundly right wing. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] China's Socialist Path (Hart-Landsberg and Paul Burkett)
ken hanly wrote: I do not see China's path as socialist at all or likely to lead to socialism. While Maoist China may not have been socialist in terms of some ideal nevertheless the actually existing socialism of Mao certainly did socialise most of the instruments of production distribution and exchange and did not produce solely on the basis of profit. The present regime has degraded or replaced socialist economic mechanisms through privatisation and market mechnisms with the results noted by Hart-Landsberg and Burkett. As for China being bureaucratic socialism, Mao realised the problem and tried to reduce the power of the bureaucracy but was ultimately unsuccessful and the bureaucrats sucessfully struck back. The handful of capitalist roaders are now firmly at the helm but they have grown in numbers, strength, and riches. a problem with the category bureaucratic socialism (or better, bureaucratic collectivism) is that there are at least two different meanings to the word bureaucracy. The basic idea is that though the means of production were collectively owned by the state, it's not the peasants or workers who owned the state. Rather, it was the bureaucracy. That could mean either the planning apparatus or the CP (or a combination of the two). In neither case does this theory refer to the Weberian concept of ideal bureaucracy. In addition, just as the capitalists have factions, so does the bureaucracy. The Mao faction was fighting the Zhou faction, etc. Both groups were trying to control the economy and the society from above. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
[PEN-L] elections [was: China's Socialist Path]
FWIW, my wife had an important reason to vote for Obama rather than Clinton in the CA primary: he's _less annoying_ to listen to on TV and radio. After 8 years of listening to W (one of the most annoying public speakers in history), that's an important reason. But then, it turned out she was registered Peace Freedom and couldn't vote for either of them. (I was registered as a Dem and voted for Gravel, despite his rocky reputation.) On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the point has been made sufficiently re both Obama Clinton so when they inevitably MORE THAN disappoint their fans* we will be free to say I told you so and keep saying it until we have to make the same predictions in 2012 about whoever is running then. Of course I don't know whether at 82 I'll still be around, but if I am I'm going to rub some people's nose in it. But now isn't it about time to find a better topic than the imperialist elections? Carrol -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] China's Socialist Path
Shane Mage wrote: What is wrong with it is that it describes the emergence and flourishing of Chinese capitalism in its present form as a movement *away from* socialism. It is the opposite--a movement from a backward bureaucratic state capitalism, which reflected the semi-feudal and dependent colonial structures inherited by the CCP, towards a modern, globalized capitalism in which the proletariat is growing by leaps and bounds, in numbers, strength, and confidence. It is then, within the capitalist mode of production, an enormous step *toward* [the possibility of] socialism. It doesn't matter to me if we call the old system in China state capitalism or bureaucratic socialism or bureaucratic collectivism or whatever. However, I think backward is off. the PRC under Mao, etc., was a developmental dictatorship, trying to develop the national economy in a way that involved collective solutions (and sometimes collective disasters, such as the Great Leap Forward). That is, the CCP was trying to make China rich, while getting rid of semi-feudal and dependent colonial structures. In other words, it was trying to getting rid of backwardness as part of a nationalist program. It built the basis for the new capitalist China we now see. Also, at some stages, this government leaned toward helping the peasants and embracing a relatively egalitarian growth process, because the peasants were a major political basis for the CCP. Even developmental dictatorships need to be legitimized. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
[PEN-L] fertilizer [was: Peak food]
speaking of excessive energy costs, there was a story on US National Public Radio a week or so ago about the loss of fertility of African soils. The experts spoke, recommending aid to help Africans buy more (energy-intensive, import-intensive) artificial infertilizer. Whatever happened to rotating crops, letting some land lay fallow, and/or growing crops together that help each other. soula avramidis wrote: isn't the rising cost of energy content of modern agriculture specifically rising oil prices partly responsible for the rise in food prices? -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] fertilizer [was: Peak food]
I agree, but even fragile soils can be helped with old-fashioned techniques (though perhaps not healed). Part of the problem, of course, is that in many places the best lands were grabbed by the Europeans during colonization. On Feb 20, 2008 8:45 AM, Perelman, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is worse than that. Many of Africa's soils are very fragile -- not like our own Midwest. That kind of farming is not sustainable, but the same goes for some of Brazil, which is doing so far more intensively. Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901 michaelperelman.wordpress.com -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Devine Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 7:47 AM To: PEN-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Subject: [PEN-L] fertilizer [was: Peak food] speaking of excessive energy costs, there was a story on US National Public Radio a week or so ago about the loss of fertility of African soils. The experts spoke, recommending aid to help Africans buy more (energy-intensive, import-intensive) artificial infertilizer. Whatever happened to rotating crops, letting some land lay fallow, and/or growing crops together that help each other. soula avramidis wrote: isn't the rising cost of energy content of modern agriculture specifically rising oil prices partly responsible for the rise in food prices? -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] fertilizer [was: Peak food]
me: I agree, but even fragile soils can be helped with old-fashioned techniques (though perhaps not healed). Part of the problem, of course, is that in many places the best lands were grabbed by the Europeans during colonization. Michael Perelman wrote: Not really. The peasants like the barren hillsides, which are much more interesting than the fertile plains. When did you get the job at the Heritage Foundation, Michael? -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] Krugman: a peak oil believer?
Sandwichman (Tom) wrote: It should also be needless to say we will NEVER run out of oil. The whole peak business has to do with the technical capacity to extract *ever increasing quantities* of the product economically. In other words, it's a modern variant of the Ricardo/Malthus prediction of diminishing returns to land. Predictions of peak oil may be based on pessimistic assessments of the prospects of technical breakthroughs. However, the argument against peak oil *assumes* that technical breakthroughs will occur when needed, simply because they are needed. While the pessimistic predictions may be merely wrong, the pollyanna scenario is fantastic. why? it seems that technological change is almost a constant under capitalism (though many of those changes are a bad thing from a humanistic perspective). Further, persistently high prices of oil adds an extra incentive to find cheaper ways to get the stuff. That includes introducing new technology. (That doesn't mean that high prices of oil create an incentive to do the right thing, however.) Also, high oil prices encourage people to use less of it (or steal it, like some people are doing with copper). And yes, global warming may get us first. But it also could become a contributor to the peak episode in that climate change could accelerate demand at the same time it interupts supply. it's possible that rising sea levels could swamp oil fields. Also a severe depression would block new investment in oil technology. in response to Tom, Paul writes: ... Economically viable oil will *sooner or later run out*... What defines economically viable? might technological change not allow some oil that's currently not economically viable to become so? BTW, I think fears of peak oil are a good thing (except for those cultists reported on by HARPER'S magazine a year or so ago). It encourages people to stop using oil and thus delays global warming. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] Peak food
soula avramidis wrote: ... moreover since prices are in the purview of capital workers can only raise their nominal thru union activity. Kalecki's equation is often interpreted as saying that all unions can do is raise money wages. Since the boss simply adds a mark-up to unit labor costs, raising money wages does not raise real wages. Alternatively, for a constant degree of monopoly (and mark-up) and with constant unit costs of raw materials, the equation says that real wages will rise with average labor productivity. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] Subprime jumps the shark
here in Tinsel Town, jumping the shark means going bad. Supposedly, the phrase came about because in the show Happy Days (the one with the Fonz), one of the characters was water-skiing and literally jumped the shark. From then on, the show was (allegedly) not worth watching and it was soon canceled. On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Max B. Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know if Shemano did the 'Subprime' power point thing, but it's all over the Internet and Wall Street now. http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/02/how-subprime-re.html#comments -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] A Subprime Military
it's not the dark side. It's agreeing with Henwood's reason. Instead of trying to predict th unknown (unknowable), I try to think in terms of alternative scenarios. BTW, the actual quote ftom THE ECONOMIST is The secret of successful forecasting is to give a number or a date, but never both. Jim On 2/18/08, Eugene Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim, everyone can predict the future. Monetary policy is based on predicting the future. The stock market is based on predicting the future. I predict the future when I buy my lottery ticket. But my comment reflected my concern that you were going over to Henwood's dark side. Gene On Feb 18, 2008, at 6:48 AM, Jim Devine wrote: no-one can predict the future. On Feb 17, 2008 5:22 PM, Eugene Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If a recession is happening, ??? If? If? Gene Coyle -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] A Subprime Military
no-one can predict the future. On Feb 17, 2008 5:22 PM, Eugene Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If a recession is happening, ??? If? If? Gene Coyle -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] Peak food
is that peak food or a run-up of food prices due to the ethanol boom? On Feb 18, 2008 12:47 AM, Sandwichman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A guy came into the food co-op today to pick up his four 25-pound sacks of wheat. He advised me to pick up a couple of sacks of wheat for yourself and store them in your basement. So I took a look at recent news stories on agricultural commodity prices. Prices are soaring. Every kind of planted crop has increased in price by 30% to 50% over the past few months. This will have a huge impact on food prices. Things are going to get very interesting. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] Economists Against Family Values?
markets work best when people are totally atomized, homo economi, rather than acting like homo sapiens. jim On 2/18/08, Perelman, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paul Phillips wrote: Why should this surprise anyone? Every labour economist worth her salt knows that unemployment and job loss is a major factor in family breakup as is suicide, alcoholism, mental illness and crime, all of which are correlated/related to the incidence of family breakup. This story concerned a reverse causation -- that family stability inhibits labor flexibility. In our own recent hiring experience at Chico State, an inordinate number of good candidates proved unhirable because of the need to accommodate a spouse. In a similar vein, Andrew Oswald showed a correlation between home ownership and unemployment presumably because people with phones are less likely to pick up and leave. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901 michaelperelman.wordpress.com -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] A Subprime Military
me: no-one can predict the future. Eugene Coyle wrote: If a recession is happening, ??? If? If? Shane: But 60 percent of Americans (together with a few economists) can see the present. now those 60% are likely not familiar with the technical definition of recession. Okay, the technical definition isn't important. Whether there's a technically-defined recession or not, the US economy is what economists call deep shit. Also, we don't know how deep (or what color) the doo-doo is. Exports are doing well, much better than before, while the government is pumping up demand. It's possible that the Fed could abandon all fears of inflation and do what they did in 2001 and after. It's quite possible that we could have an even-more unequally-distributed prosperity based on widespread debt-peonage. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] Peak food
The Blessed Max wrote: If prices rise, doesn't it put some of the marginal corn producers back in the game? I'm thinking about Mexico. it's possible that it could intensify the incentive for the rich to steal the poor's land. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] A Subprime Military
The ECONOMIST once said that when one forecasts, one can say what's going to happen or when -- but not both. On 2/18/08, Rudy Fichtenbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think it was John K. Galbraith who said something like: When it comes to forecasting there are two kinds of economists: those who know that they don't know and those that don't. Rudy Sandwichman wrote: On 2/18/08, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: no-one can predict the future. I thought it was, it's tough to make predictions -- especially about the future, or something like that. -- Sandwichman -- Rudy Fichtenbaum Professor of Economics Chief Negotiator AAUP-WSU Wright State University Dayton, OH 45435-0001 937-775-3085 -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] China, Speilberg, and the Olympics: The real story
In reply to questions about the then-impending attack on Iraq, Speilberg told journalists, Bush's politics has been solid, grounded in reality, willing to uproot terrorism wherever it may be found...if Bush, as I believe, has reliable information on the fact that Saddam is making 'weapons of mass destruction,' I cannot not support the policies of his government. this is unfair to SS, since lots of mainstream people were fooled by Bush's lies. But people like SS, who know nothing about the world, shouldn't get involved in foreign policy issues. I think he got involved with Darfur China only because he was subject to a lot of pressure. (I don't know why, but pro-Israel pressure groups focus on Darfur. Perhaps it's because Sudan is Islamic. My impression is that there are lots of places where equally bad crimes are being committed, including cutting off electricity as a way to impose collective punishment on Gaza.) -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] China, Speilberg, and the Olympics: The real story
what I mean is that it's best to learn something about what you're talking about before you say something. Now, it's okay for average people to violate this rule, but if someone is a public figure (like SS) whose words have special weight, then it's best to be mum -- and then study the issue. If I say something stupid (as I do sometimes, perhaps once a day) it doesn't matter. But if SS does, people listen. By the way, does anyone know what the pro-Zionists have against Sudan? is it simply a matter of wanting the US to be the world police? (kinda like Team America of the film of the same name.) On Feb 17, 2008 11:26 AM, Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 17, 2008, at 10:21 AM, Jim Devine wrote: But people like SS, who know nothing about the world, shouldn't get involved in foreign policy issues. Who should then? Experts? What kind of philosophy is this for a putative democracy? Doug -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] Here comes the big one
good article, but the author should avoid using the phrase debt deflation to refer to debt contracts becoming worthless. To economists, it refers to Irving Fisher's theory of what caused the Great Depression. On Feb 17, 2008 8:58 AM, Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://crookedtimber.org/2008/02/17/here-comes-the-big-one/#more-6658 -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] subprime primer
it's good. They thought up a way to hide risk by spreading it all over the financial system, so that when it went bad it screwed up the entire financial system. It's like hiding plutonium by blowing it up so that plutonium dust is evenly distributed in the atmosphere. On Feb 15, 2008 7:40 PM, Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Shemano sent a funny explanation of the subprime crisis. He kindly asked if he should post it to the list, but it is far to big for most mailboxes. I put a link to it here. http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/a-subprime-primer/ -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] A Subprime Military
If a recession is happening, that will provide a new stream of recruits to the volunteer armed forces. On Feb 17, 2008 2:22 PM, Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/2008-February/070175.html http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/2008-February/070185.html Iraq has been hurting the US military, which is good news, but unfortunately subprime recruits are renewable resources, given the way the US class system is set up to fail children at education. -- Yoshie -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
[PEN-L] the next steroids?
[I'm not much of a sports fan, but it seems to me that it's time to take the money totally out of sports (beyond salaries for jobs done). The winner take all nature of the game creates a _gigantic_ incentive to use performance-enhancing drugs to get into the high-paid majors (which pay much (much) more than the minors and amateur sports) or to stay there (cf. Barry Bonds). If things continue to go the way they are going, big-league professional sports will either involve cyborgs, druggies, and/or transplantees -- or it will involve a draconian and intrusive system to prevent any kind of significant enhancement (making an extremely arbitrary decision about what's significant). So, even though I can't be the pied piper in this movement, I think sports fans should shun major-league sports and flock to (truly) amateur sports, or as a compromise, minor-league sports. The Olympics would be a good place to start: fans should insist that it go back to amateur athletics, perhaps with some allowance for athletes receiving a standardized salary.] The New York Times / February 12, 2008 Finding May Solve Riddle of Fatigue in Muscles By GINA (Piña) KOLATA One of the great unanswered questions in physiology is why muscles get tired. The experience is universal, common to creatures that have muscles, but the answer has been elusive until now. Scientists at Columbia say they have not only come up with an answer, but have also devised, for mice, an experimental drug that can revive the animals and let them keep running long after they would normally flop down in exhaustion. For decades, muscle fatigue had been largely ignored or misunderstood. Leading physiology textbooks did not even try to offer a mechanism, said Dr. Andrew Marks, principal investigator of the new study. A popular theory, that muscles become tired because they release lactic acid, was discredited not long ago. In a report published Monday in an early online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Marks says the problem is calcium flow inside muscle cells. Ordinarily, ebbs and flows of calcium in cells control muscle contractions. But when muscles grow tired, the investigators report, tiny channels in them start leaking calcium, and that weakens contractions. At the same time, the leaked calcium stimulates an enzyme that eats into muscle fibers, contributing to the muscle exhaustion. ellipsis Then, collaborating with David Nieman, an exercise scientist at Appalachian State University in Boone, N.C., the investigators asked whether the human skeletal muscles grew tired for the same reason, calcium leaks. Highly trained bicyclists rode stationary bikes at intense levels of exertion for three hours a day three days in a row. For comparison, other cyclists sat in the room but did not exercise. Dr. Nieman removed snips of thigh muscle from all the athletes after the third day and sent them to Columbia, where Dr. Marks's group analyzed them without knowing which samples were from the exercisers and which were not.The results, Dr. Marks said, were clear. The calcium channels in the exercisers leaked. A few days later, the channels had repaired themselves. The athletes were back to normal. Of course, even though Dr. Marks wants to develop the drug to help people with congestive heart failure, hoping to alleviate their fatigue and improve their heart functions, athletes might also be tempted to use it if it eventually goes to the market. ellipsis So the day may come when there is an antifatigue drug. That idea, is sort of amazing, said Dr. Steven Liggett, a heart-failure researcher at the University of Maryland. Yet, Dr. Liggett said, for athletes we have to ask whether it would be prudent to be circumventing this mechanism. Maybe this is a protective mechanism, he said. Maybe fatigue is saying that you are getting ready to go into a danger zone. So it is cutting you off. If you could will yourself to run as fast and as long as you could, some people would run until they keeled over and died. Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company a couch potato, Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] On the third hand [was: Let.s Go Hillary]
Carrol Cox wrote: The term conspiracy should be reserved (for political clarity) for those activities which cannot work except as complete secrecy is involved. that's an excellent clarification of the meaning of that word. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] Conspiracies
Carol Cox wrote: The term conspiracy should be reserved (for political clarity) for those activities which cannot work except as complete secrecy is involved. Paul Zarembka wrote: The Manhattan project involved hundreds of thousands and the participants did NOT know what the purpose was. Even VP Truman did not. Only a small number knew its purpose; there was a clear quote in the 10/30/2007 NYT to this effect. it seems to me that the MP could have worked even without total secrecy. The Russians knew about it, no? And it didn't really matter that much if the Nazis knew about it, since they already had their version of the MP. It's only some of the technical details that needed to be secret -- and even if they were known, anyone who wanted to build a Bomb needed to have a large infrastructure of facilities, scientists, and engineers. Just knowing how to make a Bomb is hardly sufficient. Operation Gladio [OG] was a major terrorist operation also kept secret. The sinking of the Lusitania involved significant aspects only known with Colin Simpson's 1972 book 'Lusitania'. again, Gladio was likely known to the CP of Italy and that didn't affect its success very much. I don't know enough about the sinking of the L to comment. But didn't the Brits know that U-Boats were sinking ships at the time? It does not seem to me that secrecy was _essential_ to the success of the MP or OG. It's not like, say, the alleged assassination of Paul Wellstone, where the alleged conspirators (Karl Rove?) would be revealed as total traitors and murderers if the facts were revealed, totally undermining the success of the operation.[*] On the other hand, the secrecy of both the MP and OG could be protected by the mass feelings of intense patriotism amongst their participants.They were not going against what's good for the US as perceived at the time in their circles and so were not pushed to reveal their operations. [*] I heard a minor CA DP official hint broadly that Wellstone had been bumped off by the GOPsters. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
[PEN-L] the people speak: Chavez threat
Chavez Threatens To Cut United States Off Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez has threatened to stop sending oil to the United States, citing Washington's role in aiding Exxon Mobil with a lawsuit against nationalizing the country's oil. What do you think? Bettie Arnold, Systems Analyst: Bullies like Chavez should never underestimate the little guy—in this case, Exxon Mobil. Pedro Barajas, Hotel Clerk I'm surprised by how relatively reasonable this threat is. Adam Metz, Carpet Installer Exxon Mobil or Hugo Chavez. Please don't make me choose sides here. [from the ONION] -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] Conspiracies
in terms of the actual practice of the Manhattan Project's conspiracy, patriotism and anti-Nazism were crucial glues which kept it secret. This created problems, by the way, when the target was switched to being Japan, since the anti-Nazi motivation faded. If we want to understand history, our current moral feelings are irrelevant. On Feb 13, 2008 8:13 AM, Max B. Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well I meant American citizens. At least I hope no such scheme could ever be kept secret. Not that a scheme to murder foreigners is any more ethical, but the narrower view at least reflects a molecule of morality. On Feb 13, 2008, at 10:38 AM, Max B. Sawicky wrote: I'm as paranoid as anyone, but moreover, the MP had an objective that few patriots could object to, in contrast to some scheme to murder thousands of innocent citizens. I.e., a scheme to murder millions of innocent (foreign) citizens? Shane Mage -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] David Brooks predicts a centrist Democratic president whoever wins
DAVID BROOKS writes: Which brings us to second looming Democratic divide: domestic spending. Both campaigns now promise fiscal discipline, as well as ambitious new programs. These kinds of have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too vows were merely laughable last year when the federal deficit was running at a manageable $163 billion a year. But the economic slowdown, the hangover from the Bush years and the growing bite of entitlements mean that the federal deficit will almost certainly top $400 billion by 2009. The accumulated national debt will be in shouting distance of the $10 trillion mark. With that much red ink, the primary-season spending plans are simply ridiculous. there's a way for the DP to square the circle: redefine the deficit. The federal deficit (net borrowing) for the 4th quarter of 2007 is currently estimated to be $440.1 Billion. But (following the late economist Robert Eisner) the Clinama or Oton could advocate splitting the budget into the capital budget and the current budget, just as corporations do. In 2007/IV, the federal government's gross investment was estimated to be $474.4 billion. So they could say that since the gov't is investing more than it's borrowing, it is currently running a surplus on the current budget. (After all, don't households run deficits to buy houses and cars?) Of course, a lot of that investment is in military capital. So I guess Brooks' point remains: his pal Dubya has fucked up the world so bad that a DP president won't be able to do anything good. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] On the third hand [was: Let.s Go Hillary]
me: To say that these are their jobs is much too conspiratorial for my tastes. I prefer the old Marxian word objectively. Objectively speaking, Clinton (whatever her subjective intentions) will corral the votes of those who seek equality of the sexes, Obama (whatever his subjective intentions) will corral the votes of those who seek racial justice. Dan Scanlan writes: Nothing happens in politics without conspiracy. The latter is the manifestation of the former. of course! it's true by definition for the current US style of politics, if we defined conspiracy as involving any application of power or influence in secret.[*] Of course, the view that nothing happens in politics without conspiracy is not true in a world where there are democratic mass movements that oppose the power of the elites and try to abolish their power, influence, and secrecy. They can make things happen in politics without conspiracy. The Democratic Leadership Council, with Bill Clinton as its first head in 1985 and Hillary, Gore, Lieberman, Gephart and a few others as his cohorts, was created to deliver the Democratic voting constituency to the same corporations that had been funding the Republicans so they, as new leaders of the Democratic Party, could reap the same financial rewards corporations were bestowing on the Reaganites. ... That doesn't seem very secret -- or secretive -- to me. How come so many people know about the DLC? and why do they advertise their nefarious plans on the Internet? (It's hard to imagine a self-respecting Dr. Evil associating himself with them. They hardly give him a chance to say Bwa-Ha-Ha-Ha!) The DLC seems a very standard result of the structural bias of the US electoral system to be dominated by dollar votes. It does not seem like a conspiracy at all, not at all like the (alleged) plot to assassinate the late left-DP Senator Paul Wellstone. If that conspiracy actually happened, it fits the description of a successful conspiracy in the footnote: it succeeded in its goals (partially purging the DP of its left) while preventing the leaking of any information to the world at large. me again: They have this objective -- and likely unintended -- effect because the political/electoral system they work within is severely biased toward maintaining the _status quo_. Dan: I don't think there is anything unintended about it. Sure the system is severely biased -- or fixed. And, boy, do these candidates know how to work it. They ain't EVEN out to fix it. ... sure, but they are products of the same biased system. The system -- and this includes the schools and colleges -- reward the opportunists and punish those with (good) principles. [*] Of course, there's more to a _successful_ conspiracy than the secret application of power and influence. One must lack competition from other conspiracies: there's no Democratic Populist Leadership Council (or whatever) that plots to foil the intrigues of the DLC. One must be tightly organized with no internal conflicts, so that the leadership can make sure that the lackeys, underlings, puppets, and willing flunkies (all of whom are necessary to the process) follow orders and don't leak secrets to the world outside of the cabal. The leadership must have as complete information as possible about the world it is manipulating (the strings it is pulling) and the impact of its machinations on the path of history. It must also have as complete information as possible about what the lackeys, underlings, etc. are doing, so that they can be punished if they break ranks. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] On the third hand [was: Let.s Go Hillary]
me: Sure, I'm going to vote for whomever the Dems choose, to prevent the current version of Bush from being elected. But I know that the vote is wasted. It's totally harmless to the corporations. (Besides, as the anarchists say, if voting could change the system it would be illegal.) ... Voting is a futile act. We have to find those acts that aren't futile. Julio: The average influence of one individual vote is infinitesimally small, negligible. But it doesn't follow from it that the aggregate influence of voting is negligible. So, in this sense, the argument that voting is a futile act is fallacious -- as in fallacy of composition. I agree with this. Though the common Ekon idea that a single vote is useless or irrational (recently recycled by Tim Hartford in his new book) was in the back of my mind, it is something I am trying to purge. However, that common Ekon idea wasn't what I was talking about (and I'm sorry I didn't make that clear). Instead, I am talking about the way the entire electoral game is rigged (specifically in the US). The _real_ primaries involve the collection of campaign contributions and the earning of the nod from the corporate media. Anyone who deviates from the corporate norm will be ignored (e.g., Kucinich) or castigated (e.g., Nader) or both (e.g., Edwards) by the media. This fact interacts with and is reinforced by a second fact: deviants won't receive very many campaign contributions. So their campaigns will die -- because without money you can't air the thousands of ads on TV, etc., that are necessary to winning. (The two-party system and the electoral college are other filters that discourage deviance from the norm. In addition, there is the dominant ideology that pushes voters to generally agree with the media.) In olden days, labor unions and other groups could mobilize their members to go door to door to convince people to vote for the candidate. But that kind of people power has faded, partly because of the repeated victory of the dollar votes in the electoral arena. It's also partly because these non-electoral movements have become more bureaucratic (more run by their main offices), more scattered, and more hopeless in their perspectives, seeing elections as the only way they can affect political change to serve their aims. Under the pressure of history, these groups have become more and more like the special interest groups that they are often criticized for being. (The labor movement, for example, has survived largely by narrowing its goals.) Even if a deviant does get elected (and the only major one currently in the US presidential campaign is on the right, Huckabee), he or she will be pressed to compromise with two houses of Congress elected in similar ways and with courts packed by people elected in similar ways. Back in 1972, I remember, some voters complained about McGovern being too radical. Notably, a DP congresscritter replied: it's our job to make sure that his policies are not too radical. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
[PEN-L] Euros accepted at NY stores
U.S. Stores Accepting Euros In what is seen as a sign of the declining dollar, many New York City stores have begun accepting Euros. What do you think? Eric Cox, Systems Analyst I'd like to refer everyone to Lou Dobbs for my opinion on this matter. Tammy Jackson, Soda Vendor I just hope they go back to accepting pelts. Long story short, I got a lot of pelts I need to unload. Scott Hernandez, Street Cleaner If you're gouging people on the price of a bottle of water, it just seems more polite to do it in their own currency. [from the ONION] -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] Let.s Go Hillary
Carrol wrote: It seems to me that to put one's hopes in either Obama or Clinton is to express utter despair. hey, if Obama is elected, he'll probably turn out to be as bad as Clinton would be. But it would be a sign that at least some of the struggle against racism has been successful. On the other hand, if Clinton is elected, she'll probably turn out to be as bad as Obama would be. But it would be a sign that at least some of the struggle against sexism has been successful. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
[PEN-L] On the third hand [was: Let.s Go Hillary]
me: hey, if Obama is elected, he'll probably turn out to be as bad as Clinton would be. But it would be a sign that at least some of the struggle against racism has been successful. On the other hand, if Clinton is elected, she'll probably turn out to be as bad as Obama would be. But it would be a sign that at least some of the struggle against sexism has been successful. Dan Scanlan wrote: This is certainly one way of looking at it. Here's another: Both Clinton and Obama are corporate functionaries. Clinton's job is to corral the votes of those who seek equality of the sexes. Obama's job is to corral the votes of those who seek racial justice. To say that these are their jobs is much too conspiratorial for my tastes. I prefer the old Marxian word objectively. Objectively speaking, Clinton (whatever her subjective intentions) will corral the votes of those who seek equality of the sexes, Obama (whatever his subjective intentions) will corral the votes of those who seek racial justice. They have this objective -- and likely unintended -- effect because the political/electoral system they work within is severely biased toward maintaining the _status quo_. In both cases the votes are rendered harmless to the corporations. Votes for Nader seem similarly harmless to corporations. We might say that objectively speaking, Nader (whatever his subjective intentions) will corral the votes of those who seek to upset the establishmentarian applecart. Julio Huato writes: Yet on the third hand, if McCain wins he may turn out to be as good as Bush! Yeah, as I've said, I don't think the old line about the Dems and GOPs being equivalent works this time around. And as the Dems say, think about the Supreme Court. Sure, I'm going to vote for whomever the Dems choose, to prevent the current version of Bush from being elected. But I know that the vote is wasted. It's totally harmless to the corporations. (Besides, as the anarchists say, if voting could change the system it would be illegal.) Carrol made the point that voting is a sign of despair. That's right. But to quote Joe Hill, don't mourn, organize. Okay, mourn a small amount (that is, vote) but realize that real politics isn't made in elections. Even McCain would pull out of Iraq if there were a mass movement against staying in. Even Clinton would pull out of Iraq if there were a mass movement against staying in. Even Obama would pull out of Iraq if there were a mass movement against staying in. Voting is a futile act. We have to find those acts that aren't futile. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] apologia
Dean Baker writes: You may wonder why the NYT would print columns from someone with such a consistent reputation for getting things wrong. I guess that is the price that we pay for having a regular column from Paul Krugman. Too bad they can't find a conservative who could at least make an honest argument. the _prices_ we pay! we also have to put up with columns by David Brooks and (ugh) William Kristol. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
[PEN-L] apologia
recession is to enact protectionist measures. While foreign competition may have eroded some American workers' incomes, looking at consumption broadens our perspective. Simply put, the poor are less poor. Globalization extends and deepens a capitalist system that has for generations been lifting American living standards — for high-income households, of course, but for low-income ones as well. W. Michael Cox is the senior vice president and chief economist and Richard Alm is the senior economics writer at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] Let.s Go Hillary
Carrol wrote: When a national coalition to replace the DP-Pimps at UFPJ == When something somewhere entirely unexpected and unpredictable now occurs [e.g., Walmart employees emulate the Fisher Body Sit Down Strike) -- When 50,000 white, black, asian marchers come out to a pro-illegal immigrant march in Chicago -- When something happens 'in the street' as they say -- And happens again, _larger_ -- Then it will make sense to talk of HOPE. Julio Huato wrote: In other words, you are HOPELESS. I know it's a cliché, but whatever happened to optimism of the will, pessimism of the intellect? -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
[PEN-L] it's the water [was: apologia]
Max B. Sawicky wrote: Anyway, Cox was going on about how much better off we are these days because we have innovations like many varieties of bottled water, even though the stuff coming out of the tap is periodically found to have uncomfortable levels of doo-doo. but haven't other studies found that tap water is often cleaner than bottled water? -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] it's the water [was: apologia]
Michael Perelman wrote: I wonder how Dr. Cox would feel however if groggy firefighters who are supposed to save his house were already exhausted from their other job. he may live in an area where fire services are privatized, where the fire-fighters simply drive past burning houses whose owners haven't paid their retainers. Max Sawicky writes: There is some paranoia because of stories about NYC water being at least temporarily contaminated, also some episodes here in D.C. area. I remember when there was a temporary scare about the water in LA (in what year I don't know, 1987??). Suddenly there was a surge in the demand for bottled water, one that's never been reversed (even though the tap water is fine). This is one of these cases where a conspiracy theory may apply. If nothing else, the bottled water peddlers milked a real problem to the max (as it were). -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] apologia
do we really grow rice in California? (I may have reported this, but I'm not convinced it's true.) Doyle Saylor wrote: Why grow rice in California? -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] Let.s Go Hillary
me: I know it's a cliché, but whatever happened to optimism of the will, pessimism of the intellect? Julio Huato wrote: How is voting for Hillary, McCain, Huckabee, Paul, Gravel, Nader, the SWP, etc. -- or not voting! -- a manifestation of this optimism of the will? I interpret optimism of the will as involving seeing all the relevant possibilities for future social change, and then being willing to act to produce the best possible change. On the other hand, pessimism of the intellect tells us not to rely on the best (or even the good) change happening. (Or maybe I'm misinterpreting Gramsci.) _Any_ kind of voting involves optimism of the will, since one person's vote does not matter at all. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
[PEN-L] the role of government
from SLATE: The [Wall Street J0URINAL] notes that it's looking increasingly likely that contractors were involved in water-boarding terrorist suspects. Although Hayden insisted that contractors must follow the same rules as CIA operatives, some doubt they can be held to the same standards or are as accountable. Also, some lawmakers are questioning whether using contractors for interrogations is even legal since, according to policy, inherently governmental activities must be performed by government employees. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
[PEN-L] PK on the R
The New York Times / February 8, 2008 Op-Ed Columnist A Long Story By PAUL KRUGMAN The economic news has been fairly dire this week. The credit crunch is getting worse, and a widely watched indicator of trends in the service sector — which is most of the economy — has fallen off a cliff. It's still not a certainty that we're headed into recession, but the odds are growing greater. And if past experience is any guide, the troubles will persist for a long time — say, into the middle of 2010. The problems now facing the U.S. economy look a lot like the problems that caused the last two recessions — but this time in combination. On one side, the bursting of the housing bubble is playing the role that the bursting of the dot-com bubble played in 2001. On the other, the subprime crisis is creating a credit crunch reminiscent of the crunch after the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s, which led to recession in 1990. Now, you may have heard that those recessions were short. And it's true that the last two recessions both officially ended after only eight months. But the official end dates for those recessions are deeply misleading, at least as far as most peoples' experience is concerned. There's a reason that the Bush administration, in its (increasingly strained) efforts to tout economic performance on its watch, always talks about jobs added since August 2003. It was only then — two and a half years after the recession began — that the U.S. economy began to experience anything that felt like a recovery. And the same thing happened a decade earlier: the recession that began in 1990 officially ended in March 1991, but the jobless recovery that followed kept Americans feeling miserable about the economy right up through the 1992 election. Since the current problems of the U.S. economy look like a combination of 1990 and 2001, the shape of this episode of economic distress will probably be similar to that of the earlier episodes: even if the official recession is short, the bad times will linger well into the next administration. How severe will the distress be? The double-bubble nature of the underlying problem — a housing bubble and a credit bubble combined — suggests that it may well be worse than either 1990 or 2001. And some highly respected economists are issuing dire warnings. There has been a lot of buzz about a new paper by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff that compares the United States in recent years to other advanced countries that have experienced financial crises. They find that the U.S. profile resembles that of the big five crises, a list that includes, for example, Sweden's 1991 crisis, which caused the unemployment rate to soar from 2 percent to 9 percent over a two-year period. Maybe we'll be lucky, and that won't happen. But what can be done to limit the damage? Since September, the Federal Reserve has slashed its target interest rate five times, and everyone expects it to cut further. But interest rates were cut dramatically during the last two slumps, too — yet the slumps went on for years anyway. Meanwhile, Congress and the Bush administration have reached agreement on a much-hyped stimulus package. But the package, while probably better than nothing, is unlikely to make a noticeable dent in the problem — in part because the insistence of the administration and Senate Republicans on blocking precisely the measures, such as expanded unemployment insurance and food stamps, that are most likely to be effective. Still, by January the White House will have a new occupant. If the slump is still going on, which is likely, this will offer a chance to consider other, more effective measures. In particular, now would be a good time to think about the possibility of going beyond tax cuts and rebate checks, and stimulating the economy with some much-needed public investment — say, in repairing the country's crumbling infrastructure. The usual rap against public spending as a form of economic stimulus is that it takes too long to get going — that by the time the money starts flowing, the recession is already over. But if this turns out to be a prolonged slump, which seems likely, that won't be a problem. But we won't get any innovative action to help the economy unless the next president has a couple of key attributes. First, he or she has to be free of the ideological blinders that make the current administration and its allies fiercely oppose the idea that the government can do anything positive aside from cutting taxes. [oops. We're f*kt.] Second, he or she has to be knowledgeable about and interested in economic policy. Presidents don't have to be their own chief economists, but they do need to know enough to take the right advice. Will we have that kind of president? Stay tuned. Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] A comment on No Country for Old Men
the question [is] what this film, and film in general, has to say about the human condition, and particularly the human condition at this critical juncture in time on this planet; what does the film have to say about the individual facing the contradictions and violence of modern society, coping with the ever-increasing material and social inequality and constraints on a stable and meaningful life posed by neo-liberal, late-stage capitalism, and the concomitant ecological collapse; what does the film have to say about the individual's struggle against the very real violent and dehumanizing authoritarian and mass social forces in a time of rapid change; what does the film have to say about the search for community in a time of homogenization; what does the film have to say about the individual confronting the age-old forces of time, fate, change and death, and making a meaningful personal peace with them? Apparently very little. does every film have to be a message film? the film does say something about the decadence of Southwestern US society. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] Let.s Go Hillary
me: I think that was in 1972, when the CP ran its own independent campaign, but most of its members supported McGovern Charles: Did you do a poll of the members or did you get this info from the FBI ? Most party members are not public because there is not freedom of political association for Communists in the US. no, I didn't do a poll. But that was the word on the street and my friends in the CP didn't deny it. Me: and the USSR, its patron, supported Nixon. Charles: Afterall, Dems and Reps are both parties of Big Business so why not support the one who was going to win and with whom you have to negotiate nuclear weapons treaties. and Nixon was an ally of J. Edgar Hoover, who was busy denying freedom of political association to the CP. Yes, Hoover shuffled off to that big dress shop in the sky that year, but his truth went marching on... -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] Let.s Go Hillary
CB: No, they considered it a Business Party, and said so. Louis Proyect wrote: Do you have a citation for that? I, of course, am not referring to the 3rd period, when the CP was certainly hostile to the Democrats. I remember hearing the CP presidential candidate (Gus Hall) saying that neither the DP nor the GOP candidate would step on the toes of big business, but that the CP would step on its neck. I think that was in 1972, when the CP ran its own independent campaign, but most of its members supported McGovern and the USSR, its patron, supported Nixon. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
[PEN-L] Bob Scheer on Obamillary
. Web site development by Hop Studios | Hosted by NEXCESS.NET -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] Let.s Go Hillary
I'm tired of this defensiveness. On Feb 7, 2008 1:16 PM, Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim Devine Charles: Did you do a poll of the members or did you get this info from the FBI ? Most party members are not public because there is not freedom of political association for Communists in the US. no, I didn't do a poll. But that was the word on the street and my friends in the CP didn't deny it. ^ CB: word on the street from anti-CPers ? My friends in the CP did deny it. ^^^ Me: and the USSR, its patron, supported Nixon. and Nixon was an ally of J. Edgar Hoover, who was busy denying freedom of political association to the CP. Yes, Hoover shuffled off to that big dress shop in the sky that year, but his truth went marching on... ^ CB: Wow. That's a stretch, but such stretches are not uncommon in the mental gymnastics of anti-Communism and anti-Sovietism. So, the Soviet Union was not the patron of the CPUSA ? (Michael will step in now, because straightening out old anti-Soviet thinking is too pro-Soviet. One wonders why since the SU is a ghost. What to fear from discussing the defunct SU ?) -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
[PEN-L] bangs per buck
according to SLATE: The NY [TIMES] notes that, based on 2007 fund-raising figures, no one got a bigger bang for his buck than Mike Huckabee. The former Arkansas governor won 156 delegates at a cost of approximately $45,000 each. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, spent $654,000 per delegate. But that's chump change compared with Rep. Ron Paul, who has lined up five delegates at a cost of about $4 million each. on another topic, did Prez Bush fulfill his promise to rebuild Trent Lott's house after Katrina? -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
[PEN-L] stock returns [was: Ignore the Obituaries, U.S. Reign Will Endure]
Doug Henwood wrote: The Dow could well reach 36,000 someday, but Hassett Glassman thought the Dow shold have reached 36,000 very quickly after 1999. So yes, Their argument was that markets had systemically overestimated the risk of stocks, so PEs should have been much higher than they were back then, at a point when PEs were extremely high. A year later, the market fell apart and stocks were revealed to be quite risky. So it's been disproven, massively. the Hassett/Glassman prediction was based on the assumption that stocks were becoming as safe as bonds, no? How could that ever be true? (contrary to the MF, I think that the assumptions can be as important as the prediction.) BTW, Baran Sweezy (1965) suggested that dividends were becoming as regular as interest payments. I think Galbraith pére may have made the same kind of suggestion way back then. If so, then stocks are more like bonds, at least for the blue chip stocks. Of course, it was only given the political economy of Monopoly Capital/New Industrial State, which soon ended. (Some argue that monopoly capital persists, but it's very different from the BS version.) -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] the Black Swan
I wrote: the impact of the fall of LTCM would have been bigger if the Fed hadn't organized a bail-out. Shane Mage wrote: That's what its there for, isn't it? Effects take place within systems. well, that fits Taleb's strategy. He wants a big safe part of his portfolio, so the class of financiers needs one too. Instead of a bunch of T-bills, the US monetary insurance is provided by the Fed (and backed by the power of the state). -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] Let.s Go Hillary
Michael Perelman wrote: I think Hillary Clinton will be an excellent candidate. ... More than anyone else, she has the potential of finally proving the emptiness of the Democratic Party to the general public. she's better than Mike Dukakis for this purpose? hard to believe. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] stock returns [was: Ignore the Obituaries, U.S. Reign Will Endure]
me: (Some argue that monopoly capital persists, but it's very different from the BS version.) Charles Brown: How is today's monopoly or oligopoly capital different than the older version ? In line with Baran's Frankfurt-school view, Baran Sweezy's MC is monolithic. (This is really clear in Baran's POLITICAL ECONOMY OF GROWTH.) MC has won the battle, beating the working class. All problems come from the edges, from non-mainstream forces like the African-American people of the time or the alienated youth. (There were no Barach Obama (mainstream) figures back then.) If it is not monopoly capitalism , does that mean that there is free market capitalism today ? with no entities having significant economic advantages or significantly more wealth than most others ? What is the nature of non-monopoly/non-oligopoly capitalism ? I don't really care about what it's called. Free market capitalism is just as bad for working people as is monopoly or oligopoly capitalism. The stage that I see prevailing right now reflects the neo-liberal policy revolution of the 1980s. It's part of the weak labor phase of the 1970s to the present, an instant replay in many ways of the Gilded Age or the 1920s. It differs from the Keynesian liberal or (soft) social democratic capitalism of the 1950s and 1960s, during which we had strong labor (especially in Western Europe). -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] Let.s Go Hillary
Charles Brown wrote: Is the emptiness of the Democratic Party the lack of charm of its presidential candidates ? in some ways. The _real_ primaries (the collection of campaign contributions) favors anyone who can rake in the bucks, whether they have charm or not. Thus, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry, Gore. The real primaries filter out anyone like Edwards, who followed a populist path, and discourage people like Gore from going down that path. This undermines the candidate's charm. If Gore had gone with his initial populist leanings, he would have been much more interesting. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] Let.s Go Hillary
Charles Brown wrote: Is the emptiness of the Democratic Party the lack of charm of its presidential candidates ? me: in some ways. The _real_ primaries (the collection of campaign contributions) favors anyone who can rake in the bucks, whether they have charm or not. Thus, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry, Gore. The real primaries filter out anyone like Edwards, who followed a populist path, and discourage people like Gore from going down that path. This undermines the candidate's charm. If Gore had gone with his initial populist leanings, he would have been much more interesting. - CB: I've been thinking the emptiness is more like what Carrol and Lou Pro raise consistently - fake champions of working class interests, diverting and smothering popular and working class movements, etc. It's true that a lot of the emptiness of the DP is fake populism or reflects the shortcomings of true populism. (Much of what Edwards said fits in either or both categories.) But amazingly, the real primaries run by the donors filters theses populisms out too. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] stock returns [was: Ignore the Obituaries, U.S. Reign Will Endure]
me: In line with Baran's Frankfurt-school view, Baran Sweezy's MC is monolithic. (This is really clear in Baran's POLITICAL ECONOMY OF GROWTH.) MC has won the battle, beating the working class. All problems come from the edges, from non-mainstream forces like the African-American people of the time or the alienated youth. (There were no Barach Obama (mainstream) figures back then.) Charles: Not disagreeing with you about the content of their thesis, but late 40's , 50's was the high point in membership and influence of organized labor, so, I'm wondering how that was a point in time that the working class was beaten in comparison with other times. the Baran view was that the labor movement had been co-opted. The 1950s/60s labor stasis was seen in comparison to the militancy of much of the labor movement in the 1930s and 1940s, along with the context of the revolution that many expected after WW2. Charles: If it is not monopoly capitalism , does that mean that there is free market capitalism today ? with no entities having significant economic advantages or significantly more wealth than most others ? What is the nature of non-monopoly/non-oligopoly capitalism ? me: I don't really care about what it's called. Free market capitalism is just as bad for working people as is monopoly or oligopoly capitalism. Charles: I was trying to recognize that in the past you have preferred the term oligopoly. I believe because there usually is not just one (mono) dominant company in what is referred to as monopoly ( like the old Big Three in auto). oligopoly is the preferred economic term, yes. Nowadays, auto is even more competitive, I think. I'm trying to think what is the significance of monopolization for the working class if free market capitalism is the same in effect. in terms of auto, the oligopolization of the product market and the domination by GM meant that if the UAW raised wages, the bosses could more easily raise prices, which made them (the bosses) more amenable to wage increases. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
[PEN-L] religion in the news!
Pope's Rewrite of Latin Prayer Draws Criticism From 2 Sides By IAN FISHER February 6, 2008 ROME — Pope Benedict XVI on Tuesday issued a replacement for a contentious Good Friday prayer in Latin, removing language that many Jewish groups found offensive but still calling for the Jews' conversion. However, representatives of Jewish groups as well as traditionalist Catholics quickly condemned the new prayer, though for different reasons. Jewish groups said it was still offensive, and traditionalists said they preferred the version that was replaced. It's disappointing, said Rabbi David Rosen, director of inter-religious affairs for the American Jewish Committee, who for 20 years has worked on Jewish-Catholic relations with Benedict as pope and, earlier, when he was a cardinal. The prayer was a focus of dispute last year when Benedict allowed for greater use of a traditional version of the Latin Mass, called the Tridentine rite. That decree improved ties with Catholic traditionalists, who oppose the sweeping changes to church liturgy made from 1962 through 1965 during the Second Vatican Council. The prayer is not part of the standard service used by most of the world's 1.1 billion Catholics, who celebrate Mass in their local languages. The new prayer, published only in Latin on Tuesday in the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, deletes a reference to Jews' blindness and a call that God may lift the veil from their hearts. An unofficial translation of the new prayer reads: Let us pray for the Jews. May the Lord Our God enlighten their hearts so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ, the savior of all men. Almighty and everlasting God, it continues, you who want all men to be saved and to reach the awareness of the truth, graciously grant that, with the fullness of peoples entering into your church, all Israel may be saved. comment: why should the Pope listen to either side? he's infallible, no? The New York Times Wednesday, February 6, 2008 Storms Across 5 States Leave at Least 50 Dead By JOHN HOLUSHA Authorities were searching for victims after a wide swath of thunderstorms packing tornadoes, high winds and hail swept through the South. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/us/06cnd-storm.html?8auemc=au comment: why does God hate the South? Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] Let.s Go Hillary
me: It's true that a lot of the emptiness of the DP is fake populism or reflects the shortcomings of true populism. (Much of what Edwards said fits in either or both categories.) But amazingly, the real primaries run by the donors filters theses populisms out too. Carrol Cox writes: I would take that as evidence that no substantial sector of the capitalist class is particularly worried about politi cal danger stemming from current economic turmoil. No one seems to be saying, as Papa Kennedy did back in the '30s, I would be willing to give up half my money if left to enjoy the other half in peace. I don't know if I said this before or not, but this is a good answer to Schumpeter's critique of Keynes and FDR back in the 1930s. His argument is that Keynesian policy (if implemented) and the New Deal hurt business confidence and thus (what we would call) capital accumulation, thus prolonging the Depression. But the alternative to FDR or Keynesian policy was the rise of a militant working class (or fascism, which is unpleasant for capitalists, even if it's sometimes necessary). So FDR or Keynesian policy could be seen as raising capitalist confidence. Or, more correctly, the two stories cancel out: the fear of Keynesianism or FDR had little or no effect on capitalist confidence. They did hate FDR (and some actually launched an abortive coup). My rich grandparents' generation made anti-semitic remarks against him (Rosenveldt), etc. This hatred of the New Deal is one of the historical origins of modern W. Bushism (though it hardly explains why W rose to power at the time he did). If a real threat were perceived, there would be ruling-class support for (relatively) radical politics (as well as some support for radical right-- extra-legal-- politics). Both occurred in the '30s. yes, the key problem with Edwards is that populist politics is totally disorganized and decentralized, so that his program was largely (or almost completely) coming from above. Populism from above! Now there's a contradiction in terms. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] stock returns [was: Ignore the Obituaries, U.S. Reign Will Endure]
me: oligopoly is the preferred economic term, yes. Nowadays, auto is even more competitive, I think. Shane Mage: Not my preferred term. What textbooks call oligopoly I would call shared monopoly, thus in one phrase indicating both structure and process. I use both terms in my teaching. I want my students to be able to understand what other econ. profs. are talking about. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
[PEN-L] bad omens
[a day-trading type sent me this] This morning, Bill King points out another amusing coincidence: The Ticker Tape Parade Indicator: • The NY Giants won their first Super Bowl in 1987; the Great US Stock Market Crash appeared later. • The NY Giants won their second Super Bowl in 1991; the last US full-blown recession appeared; money center banks barely avoided the abyss. • Before yesterday, the last NYC ticker-tape parade was 2000 (Yankees); the Great US Stock Bubble burst. • The NY Giants won their third Super Bowl in 2008 and received a ticker-tape parade; head to the caves! -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] [lbo-talk] I hope you all vote(d) for Obama
Isn't it a bit late to discuss who to vote for? (or bit early, if Super Dooper Tuesday doesn't settle the issue?) I already voted absentee (on Saturday). Since CA moved its presidential primary so that it would actually have an effect, I swallowed my price intelligence and changed my registration to the DP. Then, the only candidates who were decent all dropped out. So I voted for Gravel. I like Mike! I like Mike! I like Mike! I like Mike! in any event, to have any president do anything decent or progressive, we need a mass movement to keep him or her honest. On Feb 5, 2008 9:03 AM, Shane Mage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 5, 2008, at 10:51 AM, Julio Huato wrote: C'mon everybody in the U.S. Go out and vote. For Obama, of course. Then keep doing whatever you're doing to advance socialism in the world. I agree with Julio. A walk along Broadway on Sunday let me compare the kids campaigning for Obama to the tired old hacks at the Clintons' tables. No doubt that the live forces of any future radicalization have found something here to stir them. If they hope that electing Obama or any Dumbocrat will produce meaningful change within the capitalist system they are surely mistaken: but as the old man said, the youth must have the right to make their own mistakes--and learn from them. By the way, the only reason I'm able to follow Julio's advice is that by 1989 I had become so revulsed by Hizzoner Koch that I registered Dumbo in order to beat him. The Clinton's are just as puke-arousing as Koch, and Obama is a far better specimen, even for a Dumbo, than Dinkens. So I won't be doing something unprecedented today! Shane Mage Thunderbolt steers all things...it consents and does not consent to be called Zeus. Herakleitos of Ephesos -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
[PEN-L] it's good news week!
from HARPER'S WEEKLY: Mississippi lawmakers introduced a bill that would make it illegal for restaurants in the state to serve obese people, and an unidentified robber killed five women in a Chicago-area branch of the plus-sized clothing store Lane Bryant. A camping-goods website was selling a cheeseburger in a can. Meanwhile, British scientists announced that it would soon be possible to convert female bone mar-row into viable sperm cells, hastening the obsolescence of men. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] I hope you all vote(d) for Obama
Doyle Saylor wrote: There is a genuine move left happening. there is definitely a leftward shift in US politics, or rather, a polarization. In fact, I think this year's election will go against the standard left line that the two main parties are Twaddle Dee and Twaddle Dumb. Obama (or Clinton) versus McCain (or Romney or Huckabee) will be a bit like the 1964 LBJ/Goldwater election. However, remember what the victorious LBJ did... -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] [lbo-talk] I hope you all vote(d) for Obama
me: in any event, to have any president do anything decent or progressive, we need a mass movement to keep him or her honest. Doyle: How? that's the $64 billion question! What _is_ to be done? -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] I hope you all vote(d) for Obama
where's the goat? g.a.s. wrote: Heading for the primary: http://www.gribbenstockyards.com.au/images/PS3.jpg Happy voting! -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] the Black Swan
he doesn't come off as arrogant as his book does? BTW, he also disparaged people who read newspapers. also, it's a mistake to trash _all_ economists and he should know it. After all, his book praises economists such as Shackle, Hayek, and (if I remember correctly) Keynes. On Feb 5, 2008 10:58 AM, Eugene Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I went along with a friend last night to hear Nassim Nicholas Taleb, the author of the hot book THE BLACK SWAN. He's an appealing speaker and smeared economists in most paragraphs of his talk, which I much appreciated. He really sees economists as the lowest of the low. In the Q A he was offered an opportunity to disparage other professions, such as priests and bishops, but he declined, saving his opprobrium for economits. Gene Coyle -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] I hope you all vote(d) for Obama
me: Obama (or Clinton) versus McCain (or Romney or Huckabee) will be a bit like the 1964 LBJ/Goldwater election. Doug: So the peace candidate will escalate the war? it's quite possible. How best to end the war than to win it? Peace through superior firepower. But done with compassion. But it seems less likely that a DP Prez will invade Iran. if/when a DP candidate is elected President, he or she will likely present us with rationalized GW Bushism, just as GHW Bush and Bill Clinton rationalized Reaganism, sanding off the rough edges. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] I hope you all vote(d) for Obama
Charles Brown wrote: Don't you think McCain will win ? I think he would be easy for either Obama or Clinton to beat. They could simply report on his singing Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran (playing the videotape) and describe his various positions totally accurately and then say Is this who we want to lead American? -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] I hope you all vote(d) for Obama
me: But it seems less likely that a DP Prez will invade Iran. Doug: You think? It wouldn't surprise me at all if a Dem had to prove him- or herself by doing just that. Esp Obama, who'd have to prove that his middle name means nothing. Currently, I see a big split within the ruling class, between the Bushies (who want to bomb Iran) and the multilateralists (who don't). Because of the disaster that Bush has created, I see the multi types as being on the rise. Both Hillary and Barach seem to lean toward the multilateralists (in terms of their foreign policy advisers, etc.) The multilateralists don't seem to want to bomb/attack Iran. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] I hope you all vote(d) for Obama
On Tuesday 05 February 2008 15:36:44 Jim Devine wrote: The multilateralists don't seem to want to bomb/attack Iran. Michael Smith wrote: But the Israel lobby does, and the Israel lobby has even more clout with the Dems than it has with the Reeps. the way I read the weather suggests that Israel Lobby -- or rather the Israel Lobbies -- is a bit chastened when it comes to foreign policy and needs allies in the multilateralist camp, just as the multilateralist camp needs allies in Europe. The revelation that Iran had discontinued any bomb programs a few years ago undermined European support for the anti-Iran war. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] the Black Swan
CB: In the book he disparages the mathematical concept of the bell curve. Really? Its elementary mathematical statistics. Does he also disparage the Pythagorean Theorem? Taleb isn't against the bell curve as much as the assumption that it's an accurate description of randomness in reality. He emphasizes the role of outliers, which he sees as normal but totally unpredictable. (and as having big effects, such as tanking Long-Term Capital Management.) -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] Leo Panitch: do stimulus packages work?
this is right on target. On Jan 28, 2008 6:49 AM, Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.zcommunications.org/zvideo/2484 -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] the Black Swan
the impact of the fall of LTCM would have been bigger if the Fed hadn't organized a bail-out. On Feb 5, 2008 5:11 PM, Shane Mage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 5, 2008, at 6:50 PM, Jim Devine wrote: Taleb isn't against the bell curve as much as the assumption that it's an accurate description of randomness in reality. He emphasizes the role of outliers, which he sees as normal but totally unpredictable. (and as having big effects, such as tanking Long-Term Capital Management.) Big effect? Depends from whose point of view. Quite apart from its political and economic (not to speak of historical) triviality, I believe that even now far more people would claim a clear recall of Johnny Podres's shutout in the seventh gane of the 1955 series than can remember even the haziest aspects of that big effect. Shane Mage Thunderbolt steers all things...it consents and does not consent to be called Zeus. Herakleitos of Ephesos -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] I hope you all vote(d) for Obama
On Feb 5, 2008 5:39 PM, Julio Huato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Perelman for president. Now THERE'S an idea!! all it needs is more exclamation points!! -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] Who was Jesse James?
so the Brad Pitt portrayal of Jesse James in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford wasn't accurate? say it ain't so, Louis! Louis Proyect quotes: Paradoxically, however, this tale also reveals the integration of the nation's past. The life of Jesse James is, in many ways, an African-American story. His entire existence was tightly wrapped around the struggle furor, rather, against black freedom. Raised in large part by an African-American woman in a mostly black household, he had a father who battled abolitionists in the Baptist church, a mother who kept two black children in virtual slavery after the war, a guerrilla unit that casually murdered African Americans, and a bandit career that pitted him openly against Radical Republicans. Missouri's white population was too badly divided to make race alone the starkest aspect of Jesse's public image, yet it formed a patina that covered it all. At the beginning of his life, the secessionist movement in Missouri emerged from an especially intolerant faction that had mobilized to defend slavery in the 1850s; toward the end of his life, he selected as his target Adelbert Ames, one of the nation's leading spokesmen for racial equality. clip -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] A Sociological Analysis of the Rogue Trader
he's an over-achiever. Michael Perelman wrote: The Wall Street Journal has a very perceptive article about the class nature of Jerome Kerviel, a striving person from a modest background, who was trying to compete with and win approval from his more fortunate colleagues. Kerviel's story is obviously self-serving, but much of it rings true -- especially his ill-fated efforts to be accepted. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] Eisenhower Republicans
back in the 1950s 1960s, the ultra-right-wing John Birch Society said that Eisenhower was a communist. Nowadays, when JBS crap (e.g., Anne Coulter) has become mainstream, they may be right. What a difference a few decades make. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] Capitalist pig of the month
I am a socialist in the real sense of the word, Mr. Vargas says. CB: I wonder if the translation of this should be socialite instead of socialist. or he means that he wants to socialize risks while privatizing benefits. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
[PEN-L] cassandra's dream
I saw the new Woody Allen flick Cassandra's Dream last night. My review: skip it. See Before the Devil Knows You're Dead instead. (It's also about brothers in crime. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is worth the price of admission.) As my wife pointed out, we have to see some bad films to appreciate the good ones. Cassandra's Dream was often excessively melodramatic, generally slow-paced, and sometimes made us laugh (despite Allen's intentions). -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] cassandra's dream
I should have said Phillip Seymour Hoffman is worth the price of admission _as usual_. On Jan 31, 2008 11:35 AM, Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim Devine wrote: My review: skip it. See Before the Devil Knows You're Dead instead. (It's also about brothers in crime. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is worth the price of admission.) YEAH!!! -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
[PEN-L] Devine in the news!
In LA OPINION, a L.A. Spanish-language newspaper, I am said something like the following (my translation, based on an on-line translation service and my memory of what I said): ... James Devine, professor of economics of Loyola Marymount University, warns of the danger that a large business organization [called BizFed] as the one that has just formed can negatively affect the workers. It would be translated in lower salaries — or wages that grow less — which would at the same time would contribute to keeping the economy stagnant, says Devine, indicating that the comparison [of the big business group] with the unions is not valid. The workers need to be united in unions because they have less bargaining power than their employers, and many less resources and ways to transmit their positions to the politicians and legislators, says Devine. The head Office Union AFL-GO BACKWARDS [which originally was AFL-CIO!] criticized the reasons in which BizFed has given to justify its creation. It criticized that have conceived as a counterweight to what the unions have come doing up to now. the original article: Nueva federación de negocios en LA Un total de 44 organizaciones empresariales que representan a 70 mil empresas se unieron en BizFed; no hay ninguna hispana Yolanda Arenales [EMAIL PROTECTED] 30 de enero de 2008 Múltiples organizaciones de negocios del condado de Los Ángeles han decidido unirse para actuar de forma colectiva a la hora de dejar oír su voz. Los sindicatos han tenido mucho éxito con este tipo de estrategia, y creemos que hacer lo mismo desde el lado empresarial equilibrará la forma en que ambos lados tratamos de conseguir nuestros intereses, señalaba ayer David Fleming, presidente de BizFed, la nueva organización que de momento agrupa a 44 organizaciones empresariales como la Alianza Económica del Valle de San Fernando, la Asociación de Hoteles de Los Ángeles y diversas cámaras de comercio como la de Hollywood, Pasadera, Santa Mónica y Claremont, entre otras. La Asociación Asiática de Negocios de Los Ángeles y la Cámara de Comercio Afroamericana de la región metropolitana de Los Ángeles son algunas de las asociaciones que representan a empresarios minoritarios. Sin embargo, hasta ahora, no hay ninguna organización hispana. No sabía nada sobre que se estuviera creando esta asociación, dice Rubén Guerra, presidente de la Asociación de Negocios Latinos (LBA). Guerra opina que, en muchos aspectos, la Cámara de Comercio de Los Ángeles (LAChamber) —organización de la que partió la iniciativa de crear BizFed— no está alineada en las mismas posiciones que defienden los empresarios latinos. Por ejemplo, nos distancia la posición en cuanto a seguro de salud, dice Guerra, señalando que muchos empresarios hispanos están a favor de ofrecerlo a sus empleados porque, además de valorar sus gastos operativos, toman en cuenta los intereses de la comunidad hispana, una de las más necesitadas de este tipo de servicios. Martha Montoya, que está al frente de la región sur de la Cámara Hispana de Comercio de California, tampoco tenía noticia de la creación de BizFed. Pero Gary Toebben, presidente de LAChamber, enfatiza que la nueva federación espera contar pronto con organizaciones hispanas. Representan una parte muy importante de nuestra economía, y queremos trabajar con ellos para mejorarla, comentó Toebben, subrayando que las organizaciones de negocios latinos están invitadas a unirse a BizFed. Según una encuesta recientemente realizada entre sus miembros, los temas prioritarios en los que la nueva organización quiere trabajar son la mejora del transporte (tanto personal como de mercancías), la reducción de la criminalidad, particularmente la relacionada con la actividad de pandilleros y la mejora de la educación, sobre todo entre los niveles K-12, para garantizar que la región cuente en el futuro con mano de obra cualificada. Se trata, en definitiva, de que los negocios que están se queden, y además que consigamos atraer otros nuevos, dice Fleming. Sin embargo, James Devine, profesor de economía de la Universidad Loyola Marymount, advierte sobre el peligro de que una gran organización empresarial como la que acaba de formarse pueda afectar negativamente a los trabajadores. Podría traducirse en salarios más bajos —o que aumentan menos— algo que a su vez contribuiría a mantener estancada la economía, dice Devine, señalando que la comparación con los sindicatos no es válida. Los trabajadores necesitan unirse en sindicatos porque de entrada tienen menos poder de negociación que sus empleadores, y muchos menos recursos y vías para transmitir sus posiciones a los políticos y legisladores, dice Devine. La Central Sindical AFL-CIO criticó las razones en las que BizFed ha dado para justificar su creación. Criticó que se haya concebido como un contrapeso a lo que los sindicatos han venido haciendo hasta ahora. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let
Re: [PEN-L] Devine in the news!
(s)he's my evil twin. On Jan 31, 2008 7:21 PM, Max B. Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When I saw the header I thought this was about that big fat drag queen in the John Waters movies. Jim Devine wrote: In LA OPINION, a L.A. Spanish-language newspaper, I am said something like the following (my translation, based on an on-line translation service and my memory of what I said): -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] The dollar and U.S. hegemony
Ingo Schmidt writes: What is noteworthy is that, at the same time as the dollar declined, the US foreign deficit reached record highs, contrary to the market logic that predicts a smaller current account deficit in the case of currency depreciation. This is a new development. In the past, depreciations and decreasing current account deficits actually went hand in hand. What does the current de-linking of dollar rates and the US current account position imply? I haven't checked the exact facts on this description, but the the fact that at the same time as the dollar declined, the US foreign deficit reached record highs is _not_ contrary to the market logic that predicts a smaller current account deficit in the case of currency depreciation. A currency can easily fall at the same time we see a larger current account deficit. First, as the US$ falls (in terms of Euros), the $ price of goods imported from (say) Europe rises. But the US does not cut the real volume of its imports as quickly as the $ falls. (In terms of market logic, the demand for imports is inelastic, at least in the short term.) So the total price of US imports ($ price times real quantity of imports) can actually rise. At the same time, as the US$ falls, the Europeans don't automatically increase the real volume of their imports from the US in step with the depreciation of the $. (Again, the demand for imports -- this time seen from the European point of view -- is inelastic, at least in the short-term.) That means that the total price of European imports (= that of US exports) can actually fall as the US$ falls. So, the total price of US net exports can fall even though the US$ is falling. The other elements of the current account balance don't change very quickly, so that the current account balance can and likely will get worse. This phenomenon is so familiar to foreign trade buffs that it even has a name, the J curve effect: as the US$ falls, the trade and current account balances get worse and then (eventually) get better. (Note the repeated phrase in the short term above.) It's hard to tell how long it takes before the corner is turned and trade and current-account benefits start getting better, but it usually happens, especially for a powerful country like the US. It is also not true that In the past, depreciations and decreasing current account deficits actually went hand in hand. It (the J curve phenomenon) happened in the later 1980s. The J curve effect does make the US situation worse, however. Instead of the wished-for or hoped-for instant recovery of the trade and current-account balances, they get worse. That might stimulate a speculative crash of the US$. But it doesn't have to do so. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] U.S. economist on Marx in Chinese newspaper
balances the market. Where does this democratic politics come from? does it fall from the sky? is it innate in the mind? No. They come from social practice, and from it alone. (Gee, I wonder if people reading the Shanghai Daily know who I plagiarized that from.) In 19th century England, as in most other capitalist countries, democratic politics came from below, from movements such as the Chartists. That is, working people fought back -- and the moneyed rulers weren't interested in democracy. (In the US, the story is different, because many democratic rights were won without working-class struggle because a big chunk of the male population owned land in the early stages. Still, US workers had to fight pretty damn hard.) And of course, the growing money potentates used their friends in the government (or hired scabs) to fight the working-class upsurge. They also developed ways to control democracy so that it wouldn't get out of hand, while (1) keeping working people quiet because it was their government and (2) making them alienated from politics because their government was corrupt (owned by -- guess who?) Of course, it's wrong to over-generalize from the corrupt system of managed democracy we see in the US. The workers don't always lose. But they don't win if they rely on the condescending masters in the government to solve the problems. Government educates and invests. and who pays for that? and what good is a public information if the government destroys its scarcity value by educating lots of people, creating your competition? it's great to be literate, numerate, etc., but it doesn't give you a leg up to compete with the moneyed powers. It also provides social insurance by taxing the prosperous and redistributing benefits to the less fortunate. As Otto von Bismark (who invented it) knew, social insurance is almost completely a matter of redistribution within the working class, not a redistribution from the rich. Like most insurance, it's needed. But we pay for it, not the rich. (Your employer contributes to unemployment insurance, it's true, but all economists (though maybe not deLong) know that that tax is passed on and is really paid by the employees.) Economist Simon Kuznets proposed the existence of a sharp rise in inequality upon industrialization, followed by a decline to social-democratic levels. As Doug Henwood has said, we've gone beyond the Kuznets curve. His curve has inequality up followed by inequality down. Even it this happened, we in the US are now in a new inequality up phase, since 1980 or so. But, over the past generation, confidence in the Kuznets curve has faded. Social-democratic governments have been on the defensive against those who claim that redistributing wealth exacts too high a cost on economic growth. These people who are defending economic growth are neoliberals, by the way. In recent decades, they have been successful at feathering their own nests and those of their employers. They also define growth in totally market-driven terms (GDP). If you do that, you've lost the game (as it were). The consequence has been a loss of morale among those of us who trusted market forces and social-democratic governments to prove Marx wrong about income distribution in the long run - and a search for new and different tools of economic management. Increasingly, pillars of the establishment are sounding like shrill critics. Consider Martin Wolf, a columnist at The Financial Times. Wolf recently excoriated the world's big banks as an industry with an extraordinary talent for privatizing gains and socializing losses ... (and) get(ting) ... self-righteously angry when public officials ... fail to come at once to their rescue when they get into (well-deserved) trouble ... (T)he conflicts of interest created by large financial institutions are far harder to manage than in any other industry. For Wolf, the solution is to require that such bankers receive their pay in installments over the decade after which they have done their work. But Wolf's solution is not enough, for the problem is not confined to high finance. The problem is a broader failure of market competition to give rise to alternative providers and underbid the fortunes demanded for their work by our current generation of mercantile princes. What? _now_ Mr. deLong recognizes the existence of mercantile princes? and now his only response is totally ambiguous? Is he hoping that democratic politics is going to fall from the sky again? is he going to convince those mercantile princes to be nice for a change? -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] What is the Fed worried about?
Eugene Coyle wrote: The conventional wisdom is that the Fed is worried about a recession. The Fed did the 3/4 point cut the morning after Asian and European markets crashed. (Plus another 1/2 point just now.) I think they were/are more worried about the stock market. If the US market had tanked the morning after the others the mark to market could have sunk a number of Wall St. institutions, perhaps including banks. ... it's more than the stock market _per se_. It's all of US finance that's affected by the housing market (and all those bad loans). I don't think the housing market itself will recover soon, but lower rates allow refinancing while avoiding sudden and unaffordable increases in payments on variable-rate mortgages. By the way, the second rate-cut shows that the Fed wasn't simply reacting to the effects of the fraud by that French guy. Free Jerome Kerviel and all other political prisoners! -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] What is the Fed worried about?
Doug Henwood wrote: A rogue trader, as they say, is one who starts losing money. Isn't it that a rogue trader is one who's caught? -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] What is the Fed worried about?
me: Free Jerome Kerviel and all other political prisoners! Shane: But Kerviel *is* free--on his opn recognizance. hey, it was a joke, hearkening back to when the left was always calling for freeing political prisoners. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] What is the Fed worried about?
CAN IT HAPPEN AGAIN? and JOHN MAYNARD KEYNES are good books by Minsky. -- Jim D. On 1/30/08, Max B. Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe it's time to read Minsky. To nobody in particular, any suggestions on that front? By these rate cuts at a time of high and rising inflation the fed is sending a four word message: ITS TIME TO PANIC. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
[PEN-L] unproductive labor's role [was: A New Economy?
Below, I wrote that in one treatment of the wages of unproductive labor-power, if S1 denotes the surplus value created by productive workers and if the rate of profit is stated as r = (S1 + U)/(C + V) = [(S1/V) + (U/V)]/[(C/V) + 1] then an increase in (U/V) does not not affect the value of the numerator in the equation. As pen-l alumnus Jurriaan Bendien notes, I was wrong. The problem is that I unthinkingly assumed that the rise in U was totally compensated for by a fall in S1 (as some seem to assume), so that any increase in U/V was compensated for by a fall in S1/V. With this assumption, r is constant even though U is becoming more important. On Jan 28, 2008 9:10 AM, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shane Mage wrote: Marx makes it quite clear that the wages of socially necessary but unproductive labor are paid out of [the circulating portion of] constant capital. While to the individual capitalist they appear to be a deduction from surplus value, to the capitalist system as a whole they are part of the overall cost structure. ... Thus, because these wages consist of part of the gross product, the higher their share of the total wage bill the lower the share of the gross product available to the ownership class for consumption and investment, and accordingly the *lower* the rate of exploitation. Does it really matter? there are three ways of treating the wages of unproductive labor-power (U) among Marxist political economists: (1) as Shane says, U is part of circulating part of constant capital; (2) U is part of variable capital (V); and U is part of surplus-value (S). Let the rate of profit r = S/(C + V) = (S/V)/[(C/V) + 1], ignoring the role of fixed capital and differences in turnover time. Let the rate of surplus-value, s = S/V. for (1), C becomes U + C1, where C1 is the physical input component of constant capital. So the rate of profit becomes S/(U + C1 + V) = (S/V)/[(U/V) + (C1/V) + 1]. A rise in U/V raises C/V and the denominator of r and thus hurts it, holding (C1/V) and the numerator constant. A rise of (U/V) also hurts the numerator, s = (Y - C1 - U - V)/V = (Y/V) - (C1/V) - (U/V) - 1, where Y is total (gross) value. This assertion works only if (C1/V) and (Y/V) are constant. In this view, the fall in the rates of profit and surplus-value can be counteracted by a rise in Y/V (what might be called the value productivity of productive labor) or a fall in C1/V. for (2), V is replaced by V1 + U, where V1 is the wages of productive labor. The profit rate becomes S/(C + V1 + U) = (S/V1)/[(C/V1) + 1 + (U/V1)]. A rise in U/V1 has exactly the same depressing effect on the rate of profit as in #1, again holding the numerator and (C/V1) constant. Again holding (C/V1) and (Y/V1) constant, the rise in (U/V1) also hurts the numerator, the rate of surplus value = (Y - C - U - V1)/V1 = (Y/V1) - (C/V1) - (U/V1) - 1. Just as for #1, the fall in the rates of profit and surplus-value can be counteracted by a rise in (Y/V1) or a fall in (C/V1). It seems that even though the concepts are different, #1 and #2 are mathematically equivalent. Both treat U as part of costs. I guess you could get different results if you replaced (Y/V1) with (Y/[V1 + U]), (C/V1) with (C/[V1 + U]), and (U/V1) with (U/[V1 +U]). But these new ratios don't make as much sense to me. The whole idea of productive labor says that we should care about the relative role of C and productive labor and the value productivity of productive labor. (3) This is the version that Fred Moseley uses. In this case, S = S1 + U, where S1 is the surplus-value produced by productive labor. The rate of profit has to be restated as r = (S1 + U)/(C + V) = [(S1/V) + (U/V)]/[(C/V) + 1]. In this case, a rise in (U/V) does not affect the denominator -- or the numerator. So it has no effect at all on the rates of profit or surplus-value. However, Moseley admits that what's important is the conventional rate of profit, which treats U as a cost, not a benefit, to the capitalist class. That gets us back to either #1 or #2. Where, then, does U matter? It might matter as part of the accumulation process (as Adam Smith hinted it might). If capitalist accumulation out of gross S goes to raise U rather than raising the wage-bill for productive workers (V1) or expenditure on material circulating capital (C1). If V1 doesn't rise very much, that limits the mass of profits (= s times V1). If C1 doesn't rise very much, that limits the rise of C1/V1 and thus the growth of the value-productivity of productive capital. Either of these can hurt the long-term process of accumulation, rather than simply being a matter of fiddling with formulas. This last paragraph doesn't quite make sense to me, so any input would help. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e
Re: [PEN-L] A New Economy?
Shane Mage wrote: Marx makes it quite clear that the wages of socially necessary but unproductive labor are paid out of [the circulating portion of] constant capital. While to the individual capitalist they appear to be a deduction from surplus value, to the capitalist system as a whole they are part of the overall cost structure. ... Thus, because these wages consist of part of the gross product, the higher their share of the total wage bill the lower the share of the gross product available to the ownership class for consumption and investment, and accordingly the *lower* the rate of exploitation. Does it really matter? there are three ways of treating the wages of unproductive labor-power (U) among Marxist political economists: (1) as Shane says, U is part of circulating part of constant capital; (2) U is part of variable capital (V); and U is part of surplus-value (S). Let the rate of profit r = S/(C + V) = (S/V)/[(C/V) + 1], ignoring the role of fixed capital and differences in turnover time. Let the rate of surplus-value, s = S/V. for (1), C becomes U + C1, where C1 is the physical input component of constant capital. So the rate of profit becomes S/(U + C1 + V) = (S/V)/[(U/V) + (C1/V) + 1]. A rise in U/V raises C/V and the denominator of r and thus hurts it, holding (C1/V) and the numerator constant. A rise of (U/V) also hurts the numerator, s = (Y - C1 - U - V)/V = (Y/V) - (C1/V) - (U/V) - 1, where Y is total (gross) value. This assertion works only if (C1/V) and (Y/V) are constant. In this view, the fall in the rates of profit and surplus-value can be counteracted by a rise in Y/V (what might be called the value productivity of productive labor) or a fall in C1/V. for (2), V is replaced by V1 + U, where V1 is the wages of productive labor. The profit rate becomes S/(C + V1 + U) = (S/V1)/[(C/V1) + 1 + (U/V1)]. A rise in U/V1 has exactly the same depressing effect on the rate of profit as in #1, again holding the numerator and (C/V1) constant. Again holding (C/V1) and (Y/V1) constant, the rise in (U/V1) also hurts the numerator, the rate of surplus value = (Y - C - U - V1)/V1 = (Y/V1) - (C/V1) - (U/V1) - 1. Just as for #1, the fall in the rates of profit and surplus-value can be counteracted by a rise in (Y/V1) or a fall in (C/V1). It seems that even though the concepts are different, #1 and #2 are mathematically equivalent. Both treat U as part of costs. I guess you could get different results if you replaced (Y/V1) with (Y/[V1 + U]), (C/V1) with (C/[V1 + U]), and (U/V1) with (U/[V1 +U]). But these new ratios don't make as much sense to me. The whole idea of productive labor says that we should care about the relative role of C and productive labor and the value productivity of productive labor. (3) This is the version that Fred Moseley uses. In this case, S = S1 + U, where S1 is the surplus-value produced by productive labor. The rate of profit has to be restated as r = (S1 + U)/(C + V) = [(S1/V) + (U/V)]/[(C/V) + 1]. In this case, a rise in (U/V) does not affect the denominator -- or the numerator. So it has no effect at all on the rates of profit or surplus-value. However, Moseley admits that what's important is the conventional rate of profit, which treats U as a cost, not a benefit, to the capitalist class. That gets us back to either #1 or #2. Where, then, does U matter? It might matter as part of the accumulation process (as Adam Smith hinted it might). If capitalist accumulation out of gross S goes to raise U rather than raising the wage-bill for productive workers (V1) or expenditure on material circulating capital (C1). If V1 doesn't rise very much, that limits the mass of profits (= s times V1). If C1 doesn't rise very much, that limits the rise of C1/V1 and thus the growth of the value-productivity of productive capital. Either of these can hurt the long-term process of accumulation, rather than simply being a matter of fiddling with formulas. This last paragraph doesn't quite make sense to me, so any input would help. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] George Habash, marxist, Dies at 82
according to the newspaper, he's famous for arranging airplane hijacking. Any comments? On Jan 26, 2008 10:48 PM, soula avramidis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.pflp.ps/english/?q=print/161 The Palestinian newspaper Al-Ayyam interviewed Dr. George Habash, Founder of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, in May 2001. The interview follows below: The key to facing any potential internal conflict is to ensure democratic process at all levels of society, to preserve the human rights, dignity, and freedom of the Arab person, to ensure that the basic material needs of each person are met, and to protect cultural, religious, political, and social pluralism within society. In this respect, pluralism becomes a source of wealth and cultural and social richness rather than a means of fragmentation and an invitation for external, colonialist interference. Source URL: http://www.pflp.ps/english/?q=interview-dr-george-habash-2001 Links: [1] http://www.pflp.ps/english/?q=english/%3Fq%3Dnode/148 Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
[PEN-L] light bulbs -- not a joke.
Michael Perelman wrote: Some kinds of regulation do seem workable. Many people are now in favor of the mercury-involved light bulbs, calling for the elimination of incadescent bulbs. mercury-involved light bulbs? Mercury is a deadly metal. Do you mean fluorescent bulbs? I didn't know that. But the site I cite below says so. Fluorescent bulbs are bad in other ways. Many people are driven to distraction by their flickering. Folks with AD/HD or on the autism spectrum, for two. The way to go is with LED-lights. Luckily, the price should be coming down soon. from http://www.p2pays.org/mercury/lights.asp: Mercury is an essential ingredient for most energy-efficient lamps. Fluorescent lamps and high intensity discharge (HID) lamps are the two most common types of lamps that utilize mercury. Fluorescent lamps provide lighting for most schools, office buildings and stores. HID lamps, which include mercury-vapor, metal halide and high-pressure sodium lamps, are used for street lights, floodlights and industrial lighting. A typical fluorescent lamp is composed of a phosphor-coated glass tube with electrodes located at either end. The tube contains mercury, of which only a very small amount is in vapor form. When a voltage is applied, the electrodes energize the mercury vapor, causing it to emit ultraviolet (UV) energy. The phosphor coating absorbs the UV energy, causing the phosphor to fluoresce and emit visible light. Without the mercury vapor to produce UV energy, there would be no light. A four-foot fluorescent lamp has an average rated life of at least 20,000 hours. To achieve this long life, lamps must contain a specific quantity of mercury. The amount of mercury required is very small, typically measured in milligrams, and varies by lamp type, date of manufacture, manufacturing plant and manufacturer. how many pen-pals does it take to screw in a light-bulb? -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] light bulbs -- not a joke.
me: Fluorescent bulbs are bad in other ways. Many people are driven to distraction by their flickering. Folks with AD/HD or on the autism spectrum, for two. In terms of flickering; higher quality FL don't flicker, though they still appear to cause problems for a minority of people. Obviously standard bulbs should be discouraged rather than outlawed. This would appear to be a perfect case for a green tax; put a two dollar per bulb tax on incandescent bulbs. right. But what about those of us who are aggravated by fluorescents but have to work for companies who use them? maybe we could set up a cap-and-trade system. Give a $5 or $10 a month subsidy to people with medical disabilities aggrevated by FL to compensate for the added cost of incadescents for them. it makes more sense to give the monthly rebate to everyone, because we don't want to create the incentive for people to fake being aggravated by fluorescent bulbs. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
[PEN-L] democracy/republic in Iran vs. in the USA
I found a summary on the Wikipedia of how the Islamic Republic of Iran's government is organized. It is similar in many ways to that of the USA. Below, I have emphasized the similarities by replacing Iranian terms with US ones. There are also differences, as noted. The political system of the [USA] is based on the [1787] Constitution. The system comprises several intricately connected governing bodies. The [President] of [the USA] is responsible for delineation and supervision of the general policies of the [USA]. The Supreme Leader [i.e., President] is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, controls the military intelligence and security operations; and [in practice] has sole power to declare war or peace. The heads of the judiciary, state radio and television networks [NPR and PBS], the commanders of the [national] police and military forces and six of the twelve members of the Council of Guardians are appointed by the Supreme Leader. [There is no equivalent of the Council of Guardians in the U.S., but the Supreme Court plays a similar similar role.] The Assembly of Experts [the most well-heeled campaign contributors and corporate media pundits] elects and dismisses the Supreme Leader on the basis of qualifications and popular esteem [as seen in polls and elections]. The Assembly of Experts is responsible for supervising the Supreme Leader in the performance of legal duties. After the Supreme Leader, the Constitution defines the President of Iran as the highest state authority. [This role is like prime minister in most countries. In the USA, this job is combined with that of President.] The President is elected by universal suffrage for a term of four years and can only be re-elected for one term. Presidential candidates must be approved by [US Assembly of Experts and] the Council of Guardians prior to running in order to ensure their allegiance to the ideals of the [USA, i.e., capitalism and managed democracy]. The President is responsible for the implementation of the Constitution and for the exercise of executive powers, except for matters directly related to the Supreme Leader, who has the final say in all matters. [since the two jobs are combined in the USA, there is less of a check or balance than in Iran.] The President appoints and supervises the Council of Ministers [cabinet], coordinates government decisions, and selects government policies to be placed before the legislature. In general, it seems that power is more diffuse in the USA, so it's harder for people to decide who to blame. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
[PEN-L] folkloric? [was: A New Economy?
CHRISTOPHER CALDWELL writes: If Republicans have had more luck talking about the economy for the last generation or so, it is because they were the less folkloric of the two parties. Huh? the GOPsters are quite folkloric. They long for the idealized golden Age of the 1950s when America was Unified in its defense of the Free World, when almost all of the people on TV looked like us whites, when abortion only happened in back alleys, when men were men, when women were women (perhaps with a little help from Valium), when marriage was heterosexual, and when gays were confirmed bachelors. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] A New Economy?
raghu: What is the Marxist take on this new economy? Do most of the service sector jobs fall in the category of unproductive labor? After all security guards and cashiers do not create any use value. (Blackjack dealers arguably do create use value though of a dubious kind.) -raghu. Louis Proyect wrote: Didn't you mean to say that security guards and cashiers do not produce surplus value? I myself find that distinction rather useless since they are necessary to the realization of surplus value over the entire productive sphere. guards and dealers definitely produce use-values; otherwise no-one would pay them. But, at least in Marxian political economy, they do not produce surplus-value. The guard simply preserves property rights, while the cashier transfers them. The worker who produces surplus-value -- who might be a service-worker, contrary to Adam Smith -- actually creates new property rights, which are held by the employer. Paul Phillips: But Louis, isn't that the point. Unproductive labour must be paid out of surplus value. As the ratio of unproductive to productive labour increases, the rate of exploitation of productive labour must increase, no? -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] A New Economy?
pops up. Dubai doesn't have oil? I conclude say that Marx's concept of unproductive creates a quandary. On the one hand, as part of a value accounting framework for capitalism as a whole, it makes total sense. On the other, alas, I'm afraid it does not add very much to our understanding of the laws of motion of capitalism, especially the most concrete aspects of those dynamics. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
Re: [PEN-L] query: laws of models
world that lies behind our perceptions of it. But it's not a mental picture the way a model is. In some ways, however, a photograph is a mixture of data and a model, since the photographer has a major effect on the appearance of the picture. But it's not a model as I use that word. But the example does point up an important aspect of data: the nature of (almost?) all data is infused with and affected by pre-existing theory. By the way, in case anyone was wondering, I wasn't talking about Tyra Banks either. Doug quotes: The SLB [Sharpe-Lintner-Black capital asset pricing] model is just a model and so surely false. - Eugene Fama Like a map, it is false as a picture of the details of the territory, but like a map it might be useful as a tool for getting where people want to go. I don't know enough about that specific model to say anything about its validity or lack thereof. Doug also quotes the Maestro: It doesn't, however, induce us to then conclude that, if the model doesn't forecast - which implies that it has not captured the appropriate structure - we nonetheless tend to use the structure of the model to do analysis and draw significant conclusions about how the inner workings of relationships occur even though the coefficients which we're employing clearly don't forecast anything worthwhile. - Alan Greenspan huh? AG is ambiguous, as usual. (He should have played the Sphinx in the movie Mystery Men. Maybe in the stage version?) Isn't there a not missing somewhere in there? Robert writes: Asimov later added a fourth, which he decided he had to call the zeroth law. According to the Wikipedia, the three laws of robotics are: 1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. The zeroeth law is that: A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm; the rest of the laws are modified sequentially to acknowledge this. A lot of Asimov's robot stories are about how these laws fail to solve all problems with robots. -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
[PEN-L] new coins
the following is funny and sad, despite a dollop of right-wing nuttiness: http://blip.tv/file/520347 -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
[PEN-L] [only?] 935 False Statements that Led a Nation to War
From: Juan Cole [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Jan 23, 2008 2:48 AM The Center for Public Integrity has published a study finding that 'President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses. On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war. ' Although the study starts out in a neutral tone, as you read, it becomes clear that the authors think the database of administration statements they have compiled shows a deliberate pattern of misrepresentation. The study won't create a lot of controversy, since the American people long ago concluded that BushCo had lied us into a destructive and dangerous quagmire of a war. But it is nice to see someone nail down the specifics of the Goebbels-like propaganda campaign that was run on us. The report continues, ellipsis # In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year. A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction — an analysis that hadn't been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn't requested it. [NPR played this tape on-air this morning. Strangely, W pronounced nuclear correctly! His cowboy persona slipped? ] snip -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
[PEN-L] query: laws of models
I made up the following list of The Three Laws of Models. 1. No model can be an exact representation of the complexities of empirical reality. 2. The predictions implied by any model vary as the assumptions change. 3. No model applies to answer all questions (to predict in all domains) because no model can tell the whole story. does anyone have any comments? is there anything I can add to the list? (A fourth presents a problem: Isaac Asimov had only three laws of robotics and I don't want to exceed his effort.) -- Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
