[PEN-L:4152] Re: story
On Tue, 14 Feb 1995 18:47:26 -0800 Doug Henwood said: When did economists start (over)using the word "story"? Anyone know the pedigree of turn of phrase? Doug -- Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax If you mean "story" as in "telling stories", I would imagine that one proximate source is Donald McCloskey's stuff on "Rhetoric and Economics", which has had some resonance and, I believe, also a positive reception among some Marxoid sorts (largely clustered in western MA). Less proximate sources might be the epistemological ramblings of a Richard Rorty and various exceptionally banalized interpretations of French "Theory" which I gather are still making the rounds in U.S. academia. (Of the suspects typically named as having inspired the latter, I would guess that Lyotard bears the greatest real guilt.) Anyway, whether indulged in by the "left" or the "right", the usage seems to me extremely ill-advised. Given its cyclical character, social reproduction doesn't lend itself to being presented (much less *grasped*) in any of the forms that are typically thought to belong to narrative and it's hard to say who exactly would be the "protagonists" in the "story" of the dynamic tendencies of a *system*. I suppose if one had a sufficiently voluntarist conception of economic life, with all significant developments viewed as the product of initiatives undertaken from the "controlling heights" of the economy, then the "telling stories" business might make sense. But in that case, economic *theory* would become completely otiose. And even then, the latter would have to be replaced not by "story- telling" in the sense of arbitrary fictions, but rather political (conjunctural) analysis and historical research, which certainly have their own protocols of proof. John Rosenthal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:4153] Re: story
On Tue, 14 Feb 1995, Doug Henwood wrote: When did economists start (over)using the word "story"? Anyone know the pedigree of turn of phrase? I can't give a history, but I take Doug's point. Seems to me the term 'story' is very much part of the 'model'/'story' pair. That is, neoclassical econ having become excessively enamoured of mathematical models -- to the point where their manipulation becomes the sole truly legitimate occupation of the professional economist -- any attempt to motivate such models by reference to certain features of the real, or to interpret the results obtained in terms of real processes, is set off as 'story'-telling. == Allin Cottrell Department of Economics Wake Forest University [EMAIL PROTECTED] (910) 759-5762 ==
[PEN-L:4154] Re: NY Times article
Per Doug Henwood: I'm not sure this is an accurate picture. The US has pretty high labor force participation rates and employment/pop ratios. [etc] No doubt I exaggerated in extracting what I call to have been the theme of the report. Thanks for the info. Roger A. McCain Director, Honors Program, and Professor, Economics 5016 MacAlister Hall, Drexel University Philadelphia, PA, 19104 voice 215-895-1267 email at[EMAIL PROTECTED] World-Wide Web at http://www.honors.drexel.edu/HPHP.html
[PEN-L:4158] Re: Const. Amen. Proposal Higher Education
Loren, I agree with the Jackson quote. But my quibble with your emphasis on higher education is three-fold. First, kids in college do better than average already; let's start by spending money on those whose economic prospects are worse than average. Two, higher education in this country has always stood in contrast to vocational education, which has not nearly the level of suppport as academic studies but should have. Finally, we are long overdue for federal spending and regulation to push improvement in the primary and secondary schools, and particularly to address the discrepancies of resources between wealthy and poor districts that arise from funding primary and secondary education from property taxes. So drop "higher" and sign me on. :-) --Alan G. Isaac On Tue, 14 Feb 1995 20:02:46 -0800 [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Dear Alan In response to your question, "Why higher education?" I would argue that higher education is the key to keeping people from needing to be put in prison. It is quite clear to me that we do not currently have a highly educated prison population; in fact, I believe that I have read that as much as 50% of all inmates in state pens have less than a high school education. Therefore, my conclusion is that education in general but more specifically higher education is the key to limited the number of individuals who are imprisoned during their lifetimes. How exactly to spend this money would be open for debate either now or after the amendment were ratified. (It would seem that if it were a Republican proposal afterwards would be just fine but if it were a Democratic proposal we would surely have to outline everything in advance :) Just a side note sorry) But it is my clear belief that increase access to higher ed would lessen the current burden of prison inmates in the long run. Essentially I am asking for both a short run and long run solution to crime and I believe that higher ed offers that based on casual evidence that I believe exists. I am confident that sociological research would support the fact that people with a college degree are much less likely to end up in a state pen. Thank you for your question as it gave me an opportunity to expand on this idea. Loren Rice The University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma "The real solution to welfare and crime is jobs and education" -- Jessee Jackson 1994 speaking to William Bennett
[PEN-L:4159]
A rare victory for the foia. --Alan G. Isaac LONG! Original message HOW THE INTERNET COMMUNITY DEFEATED AN ANTI-FOIA PROVISION IN THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT James Love, TAP (202/387-8030; [EMAIL PROTECTED]) February 14, 1995 INTRODUCTION On Monday, February 6, Congress introduced legislation (HR 830), as part of the House Republican's "Contract for America," which contained several provisions that would curtail public access to government information, including a special interest provision inserted on behalf of West Publishing. By Friday, February 10, Congress had held one hearing and two mark-up sessions and reported the bill out of the full committee for floor action. However, between Monday and Friday messages circulated on the Internet generated broad based opposition to the provision, and the "West Provision" in HR 830 was struck from the bill after a most dramatic and heated debate. This is the story of what happened, and how the Internet community influenced the outcome of key right-to-know measure. BACKGROUND - the PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT In 1980, a democratic Congress and Executive branch passed the first "Paperwork Reduction Act," known as the PRA, to create a mechanism in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to reduce regulatory burdens. When Reagan came to power in 1981 with a republican Senater, OMB created an Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which had the joint mission of coordinating federal information policies and overseeing regulatory relief. This seemingly incongruent fit was justified on the basis that many regulatory programs involved collections of "information" from businesses, non-profits and individuals, or required companies to make disclosures of "information" to consumers or workers. The early Reagan appointees to this office included Jim Miller, Harvard faculty members Christopher DeMuth (now President of American Enterprise Institute) and Doug Gingsburg (now a federal judge), and Wendy Gramm, the wife of Senator Phil Gramm. These OIRA "Administrators" used the "I" in OIRA as a mandate to slash government publications (about 25 percent) and push a very aggressive privatization agenda for the dissemination of government information, as reflected in the controversial 1985 OMB Circular A-130 (drafted by a former OIRA employee named Tim Sprehe), which told federal agencies to use the "maximum feasible reliance" upon the private sector, when disseminating government information. OIRA quickly became the hero of the large commercial data vendors such as DIALOG, West Publishing, McGraw-Hill, Dun and Bradstreet, and LEXIS, and the bane of the right-to-know community. The American Library Association (ALA) published regular reports of the OIRA outrages through its highly acclaimed "Less Access to Less Information" series. In the late 1980s, the statutory authorization for the PRA expired, and there has been a fight over the reauthorization of the measure ever since, in part because the regulatory oversight issues (the "R" in OIRA) involve numerous controversies involving powerful constituencies in labor, environmental protection and business. However, the information policy issues, long the step child of OIRA, have also been contentious. The large commercial data vendors, through the Information Industry Association (IIA), have sought language that would prohibit federal agencies from creating new information products when the private sector already had similar products on the market. This provision surfaced in many different ways, and was bitterly debated in a 1990 version of the bill which ultimately failed (the failure was due largely to the regulatory parts of the legislation). AGREEMENT ON PRICING There were, however, some areas where the right-to-know community and the data vendors were in agreement. One was a provision in the legislation that would limit the prices for government information products and services to the marginal (or incremental) costs of dissemination, and outlaw royalties and restrictions on the redissemination of government information. By late 1994 and early 1995 the debate over the dissemination sections in the PRA reauthorization appeared to have been resolved. The Senate version of the bill (S. 244) contained dissemination sections that seemed to reflect a compromise between the two sides, and in TAP's view, would enhance public access to government information. TAP was primarily interested in two issues: -splitting the "I" and the "R" functions of OIRA into two separate offices, so that Information Policy would no longer be the "step-child" to disputes over regulatory policy, and -creating citizen "feedback" mechanisms, that would use the new information technologies to give citizens greater "real time"
[PEN-L:4161] Re: social security broke?
At 7:01 PM 2/14/95, Jim Devine wrote: awhile back, I reported that according to Doug Henwood's LEFT BUSINESS OBSERVER (no. 67, Dec. 22, 1994), the US social security system's imminent demise was based on arbitrary assumptions. Now the story reappears in BUSINESS WEEK (Feb. 20, 1995), in Robert Kuttner's column. Interestingly, the two stories are different: in Doug's it's the assumed dismal growth of GDP that produces SS bank- ruptcy. In Kuttner's it's the assumed dismal growth of real wages. Doug, which is it? both? Kuttner's article has the implication that if the SS system fails (or is radically overhauled) it will be in part because of employers' efforts to keep wages (net of benefits) down. But if workers get a rising share of GDP (perhaps due to some successful reform of the health care system, which seems unlikely), the SS system will do better. Hmmm - Kuttner's researcher called me to find out where I got this from, and I, helpful sort that I am, told all. So the prick stole it without so much as a thank you, eh? The report of the trustees of the Social Security system present both GDP and SS taxable wage figs. The taxable wage base falls as a percent of GDP over time, because of increasing concentration of income at the top and growing capital income (i.e., most of the growth in income is above the SS taxable maximum, currently somewhere around $55,000). Doug -- Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax
[PEN-L:4160] Chase Mexico
I think Counterpunch did an important thing by circulating this famous memo, but the danger of this sort of muckraking is always that it focuses too much attention on individuals and away from systemic forces. You don't need a memo to know that Wall Street wants to see the Zapatistas crushed - all of Wall Street, and the Mexican elite as well, not just Chase and Roett. Let's give a moment's thought to Goldman Sachs, former home of Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin, present home to the ubiquitous Jorge Mariscal, and the biggest foreign underwriter of Mexican securities from 1992-4. Doug -- Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax
[PEN-L:4165] DS CRITIQUE OF CONTRACT WITH AMERICA
To: Penl'ers -- in view of the rapid advance of the Contract with America menace, we wanted to get you advance notice of the Dollars and Sense critique of the Contract, which will arrive to subscribers and to newsstands at the end of February. Below is the table of contents, and the first article. For information about reprints and bulk orders of the issue, contact us. Marc Breslow, Editor. FORTHCOMING IN THE MARCH/APRIL 1995 ISSUE OF DOLLARS SENSE. COPYRIGHT 1995, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. NOT TO BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT CITATION AND PRIOR PERMISSION. FOR PERMISSION CONTACT DOLLARS SENSE, ONE SUMMER ST., SOMERVILLE, MA 02143, (617) 628-8411, FAX 628-2025, EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SUBSCRIPTIONS $18.95 PER YEAR, SINGLE ISSUES $3.95 PLUS POSTAGE. TO OBTAIN THE MARCH/APRIL ISSUE, INCLUDING THE TABLE AND CHARTS NOT CARRIED IN THIS TRANSMISSION, SEND $5 TO DOLLARS AND SENSE. TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR MARCH/APRIL ISSUE OF DOLLARS SENSE SPECIAL SECTION: DECODING THE CONTRACT 8 Budget-Balancing Nonsense The GOP's Contract with the Devil Marc Breslow 12 Is Big Government Really the Problem? Robert Pollin 14 The Capital Gains Tax Giveaway John Miller 18 Unnecessary Evil Why Inequality is Bad for Business Randy Albelda and Chris Tilly - 22 NAFTA Shock Mexico's Free Market Meltdown James Cypher 26 GATT: A View From the South Francis Adams 28 California's Melting Pot Boils Over The Origins of a Cruel Proposition Abel Valenzuela THE REGULARS 2 LETTERS: Race Debate; Identity Crisis 4 THE SHORT RUN: Heritage Foundation Hype 6 ACTIVE CULTURE: Defending the Value of Life 7 COMMENT: Power and Paper Doug Henwood 32 PRIMER: Game Theory: Does Greed Explain Enough? Gil Skillman 36 IN REVIEW: Books Leslie Savan The Sponsored Life Doug Henwood The State of the U.S.A. Atlas Jeremy Brecher and Tim Costello Global Village or Global Pillage 43 ECONOMY IN NUMBERS: The GOP's 17% Mandate Marc Breslow BUDGET-BALANCING NONSENSE THE GOP'S CONTRACT WITH THE DEVIL By Marc Breslow Marc Breslow is an editor at Dollars Sense. The new Republican congressional leaders want to accomplish the miracle that eluded Ronald Reagan:cutting income taxes, increasing military spending, and balancing the federal budget all at the same time. As of this writing, the House has overwhelmingly passed the balanced-budget amendment, moving the struggle to the Senate. As Majority Leader Richard Armey of Texas wanted, the House voted without specifying what spending cuts should be made. Incredibly, Armey acknowledged that the necessary cuts are so onerous that no one would vote for the amendment if they knew what it would require. If the Republicans are intent on counter-revolution, President Clinton~s fiscal 1996 budget would reproduce the status quo. While Clinton hyped his own tax and budget cuts, both are too small to matter much during the next few years. Even by the year 2000, his middle class tax cut would be merely 1% of the budget, and his spending reductions about 3%. While the Republicans claim that the country~s economic and social problems result from excessive taxation and spending by Democratic Congresses, the reality of the past 15 years is dramatically different. Federal spending rose slightly faster than growth in the economy during the Reagan-Bush years, while falling in relative terms since Clinton took office. And the largest, fastest-growing spending areas are ones which Republicans have not opposed ~ interest on the federal debt, Social Security, Medicare, and other health spending. Meanwhile, the income tax cuts initiated by Ronald Reagan are responsible for the increased federal debt burden. The federal budget deficit exceeded $300 billion a year five times during 1982 to 1992, and equaled $270 billion in fiscal 1993, George Bush~s last budget (all in 1995 inflation-adjusted dollars). It dropped to $209 billion in 1994, and will be $193 billion in 1995, estimates the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Republican plans to both raise military spending and cut taxes would increase the amount by which spending exceeds revenues, worsening the deficit. Several of the absurdly-titled provisions in the Contract
[PEN-L:4166] Daly steady state
Herman Daly seems to question the imperative of economic growth. What is the left consensus toward his proposals for a steady- state economy? -- _ Dale Wharton [EMAIL PROTECTED] M O N T R E A L Te souviens-tu?
[PEN-L:4167] Chase, Mexico and Guerrilla Research
On Wed, 15 Feb 1995, Doug Henwood wrote:
I think Counterpunch did an important thing by circulating this famous
memo, but the danger of this sort of muckraking is always that it focuses
too much attention on individuals and away from systemic forces. You don't
need a memo to know that Wall Street wants to see the Zapatistas crushed -
all of Wall Street, and the Mexican elite as well, not just Chase and
Roett. Let's give a moment's thought to Goldman Sachs, former home of
Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin, present home to the ubiquitous Jorge
Mariscal, and the biggest foreign underwriter of Mexican securities from
1992-4.
Doug
Doug:
I see no "danger" here. I see no opposition between identifying the
functionaries of capital and understanding "systemic forces". In the
first place theoretical arguments about "systemic forces" means little or
nothing to most people. What does means something is who knew what, when
and what they did about it. In the second place, theoretically speaking
the concept of "systemic forces" has no meaning without agency. I don't
mind the use of the term but I would never give it the kind of
structuralist interpretation that leaves out subjects. Things certainly
happen behind the backs of the actors, but mostly what that means is that
the outcomes of their actions are not always what they expect or intend.
In this case we get a glimpse of what has beem said by those actors
behind closed doors. We get a better understanding of some of the forces
in U.S. capitalist policy making. Sure, we all think that ALL of Wall
Street wants the Zapatistas crushed, but that doesn't mean the story of
their internal discussions is useless to know. There is not always
consensus in policy matters and it is often very useful to know who is
saying what to whom, to take advantage of it in struggle.
Remember Vietnam. There was consensus, more or less, for a long time with
a few exceptions such as George Ball. But as that consensus began to
disintegrate and those of us in the anti-war movement recognized it as
such, we were able to widen the conflicts into a split that weakened the
Johnson and then Nixon administrations and helped bring their war to an
end.
Chase is clearly embarassed by this report getting out, enought to
disassociate itself from Roett. Roett is probably royally irritated even
if he might have suspected that was one of the rules of the game. Knowing
that Zedillo chose to go into Chiapas partly under pressure from Wall
Street is useful for the anti-war effort in Mexico. Few there enjoy the
idea that their government is an agent of WAll Street whatever they think
of the Zapatistas etc.
This kind of thing also allows us to raise an issue which has been
ignored for too long by too many: the role of the university in foreign
policy making. Roett is Director of Latin American Studies at Johns
Hopkins. Such area studies were created to feed scholars and analysts
into the American imperial machine. We realized all that back in the
1960s. NACLA did a lot of reserch on area studies in Latin AMerica.
Attacks on such connections were an important part of the anti-Vietnam
war effort, they helped rupture the socialization of students into the
establishment and disrupted the research and public images of those who
had sold their souls to the Defense Department or to State or to the CIA.
Remember the revelation of Project Camelot in Chile where individual
social science researcher activities were being paid for and coordinated
as part of a counterinsurgency agenda? Remember the articles in VIET
REPORT on the Peasant and the Professors about the role of the Unversity
of Michigan in Vietam? Remember the expose "Anthropology on the Warpath"
in the NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS about the use of anthropologists research
in the counterinsurgency campaign there? All these revelations
contributed to the struggle.
The result was a crisis in the connections between the universities and
business. For the last 15 years business and the government have been
trying to renew those ties and craft new ones. It has not always been
easy. Part of the Vietnam syndrome has been the memory of distaste over
such links.
For example, a couple of years ago a new administration in the Institute
for Latin American Studies here at University of Texas wanted to open a
program to train military personnel in Latin American studies. It would
bring in new money they said! The reaction of most faculty and students
was quick and aggressively negative. The program was not started.
Hopefully, the information about Roett will reach the faculty and
students at Johns Hopkins and there will be those who will protest his
position there, perhaps call for his resignation --considering that he
has called for murder ("elimination of the Zapatistas"). That's a hell of
thing for a "scholar" to be doing.
Therefore, I say: the more such information we can lay our hands on, the
[PEN-L:4169] Re: story
On Wed, 15 Feb 1995 09:54:28 -0800 Eric Nilsson said: One good impact of the notion of economic theory as "story" is that it frees the theorist from blindly accepting previous theories as the "truth" or as "scientific." They are simply stories. One bad impact of this notion is that some seem to claim that all stories are equally good and that no reference needs to be made to empirical evidence. (Those using the second approach often invoke the related idea that each theory, or story, has its own "facts.") Right: McCloskey et al are right to label economic models as mere stories (just like the non-quantitative theories). Even better would be the word "methaphor" or "simile": the model is supposed to be _like_ the world, just as a simile is like the world. (Here the "world" refers to the empirical realm.) the problem is that this insight is often linked to a anti-realist, idealist, relativist epistemology, in which is essentially assumed that empirical reality has no existence independent of our perceptions of it: in this view, each perception is equally valid, each model is equally good, or more reasonably, that each model can be judged only on the basis of its internal logical coherence and elegance, how well conclusions are derived from the assumptions. With a realist epistemology, on the other hand, we are trying to tell the best stories (or make the best similes about) the dimly-perceived empirical reality (the shadows on the wall of the cave). In addition to elegance and logical coherence, we have to care about the correspondence between the model or theories and the empirical world. We also have to find the model or theories that help us understand what's going on the best, in order to help us attain our goals. A good theory can be tested in practice. BTW, unlike Plato (with the shadows on the cave-wall metaphor) I am a materialist: the elements of the dimly received reality are not dim reflections of some ideal forms, but are instead real objects that may vary tremendously. (the "typical" object is an average of a variety havving some shared characteristics rather than being a reflection of some hidden ideal.) in ideal solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante.
[PEN-L:4170] Chase, Roett, and Latin American Studies
Harry Cleaver's post also suggests perhaps that those looking for a local "hook" for protests, etc. against the war in Chiapas might target the Center for Latin American Studies at your local campus, if there is one. Ask the Director to issue a statement condemning Roett -- if no such statement is forthcoming, hold a demonstration. Check if you can find some political students at the latino/a cultural center... -bob naiman
[PEN-L:4171] Re: story
Allin Cottrell writes that any attempts to interpret neoclassical models in terms of real processes is put off as story tellings. This seems to imply that economists consider their models the real thing and actual practices to be just stories. However when I was in graduate school most of my professors used the expression story to refers to expositions of the model itself. Tracing out the comparative statics of a particular model was refered to as telling a story. Prior to the popular acce3p ptance of McCloskey's views on rhetoric, this useage was quite unselfconscious. Drue Barker Department of Economics Hollins College [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:4172] U.S. lawmakers condemn force in Chiapas (Reuters, 2/14)^?^?^? (fwd)
Forwarded message: Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 13:00:26 -0600 (CST) From: "Harry M. Cleaver" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: U.S. lawmakers condemn force in Chiapas (Reuters, 2/14) (fwd) To: Comite de Solidaridad [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] This posting has been forwarded to you as a service of the Austin Comite de Solidaridad con Chiapas y Mexico. == -- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 12:54:19 +0600 From: Luis Fierro [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: U.S. lawmakers condemn force in Chiapas (Reuters, 2/14) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Reuters) U.S. lawmakers condemn force in Chiapas Tue, 14 Feb 95 16:00:16 PST Newsgroups: clari.world.americas.mexico,clari.news.conflict, clari.news.usa.gov.foreign_policy,clari.news.top References: WASHINGTON (Reuter) - A group of U.S. House members and Amnesty International USA denounced the Mexican government Tuesday for its recent use of force against rebels in the state of Chiapas. ``I am acutely disappointed in President (Ernesto) Zedillo's decision to drop political initiatives and turn to a military response,'' Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Cal., said at a news conference. She was joined by Reps. Robert Torricelli, D-N.J., and Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio. Last Thursday Zedillo ordered the arrest of key rebel leaders, including the masked Subcommander Marcos, and sent the military into rebel territory to capture them. The rebels have been fighting the government for 13 months. Some 2,500 troops, backed by tanks and armored vehicles, moved in without resistance as the Zapatistas fled. But in a quick turnaround, Zedillo Tuesday ordered the Mexican army to halt its advance in the southern state of Chiapas and called on Indian rebels to lay down their arms as the government moved to end the 13-month-old peasant uprising. Amnesty International USA said it had confirmed reports of aerial strafing against civilians in three towns during the offensive. It said the Mexican government had kept outside observers away. ``Very serious allegations of human rights abuses, including the bombing of civilian targets, have been made,'' Pelosi said. The rebels said Sunday the army had bombed two towns and committed human rights abuses as they moved in, but Zedillo said the claims were not true. Separately, another group of U.S. House and Senate members introduced a resolution requiring the Treasury Department to make monthly reports on President Clinton's $20 billion debt relief plan for Mexico. Clinton announced the debt relief plan Jan. 31 after he failed to win support in Congress for a broader $40 billion loan guarantee program to help the ailing Mexican economy. The smaller plan does not need congressional approval. The report would include updates on the condition of the Mexican economy, consultations between the Mexican government, the U.S. Treasury
[PEN-L:4174] fair elections amendment
The right way to do campaign finance reform? ** Eban GoodsteinDepartment of Economics 518-584-5000 (2739) 811 N. Broadway fax: 518-584-3023 Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the spirit of offering constitutional amendments, here's one that I think is terrific. I heard it floated as a general idea by Jeff Faux last January, and I've added the details. FAIR ELECTIONS AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION 1. Each registered voter can give a total of $500 per year to political candidates, or to organizations which provide support for political candidates. 2. Any candidate for office can use up to $5,000 of their own money each year of a campaign. What's great about this idea: 1. Simple: politicians can be held accountable to it. 2. Avoids public financing: nobody likes the idea of giving money to politicians! 3. Fixes the problem.
[PEN-L:4173] Mexican union lodges complaint against Sprint
2 Mexican union lodges NAFTA complaint against U.S. company: TELECOM UNION BLASTS SPRINT'S LABOR PRACTICES MEXICO CITY, February 9 -- In the first formal complaint by a Mexican union against a U.S. corporation under the provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Telecommunications Workers of the Republic of Mexico charged the Sprint Corporation with violating "basic norms of labor rights" in the U.S., declaring: "We do not want this to happen with Sprint in Mexico." Today's filing by the union's General Secretary Francisco Hernandez Juarez cited Sprint's mass firing of 235 Latino telemarketers in San Francisco on July 14, 1994. Juarez noted that the shutdown of Sprint/La Conexion Familiar, a subsidiary that sold long distance phone service to Spanish-speaking customers in the U.S., occurred one week before a vote on representation by the Communications Workers of America (CWA). Sprint committed "more than 50 violations of the law" during the workers' union campaign, as determined by the U.S. National Labor Relations Board, Juarez stated. The charges were filed with Mexico's National Administrative Office (NAO) for the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation, the side agreement to NAFTA dealing with labor policies in Mexico, Canada and the U.S. The Mexican union represents employees of Telefonos de Mexico, the national phone system with which Sprint is trying to form an alliance to create a telephone network throughout North America. Juarez charged that the slow judicial process under U.S. law, and the absence of a prompt remedy to the violation of workers' rights at La Conexion demonstrates "the ineffectiveness of the U.S. law to comply with the principles contained in (the NAFTA labor side agreement) to which the U.S. is now obligated." The union leader called on the NAO to "declare that Sprint will not be allowed to establish itself in Mexico given its track record of abuses against workers until the company reinstates the fired U.S. workers and declares that it will "respect the rights of workers" and recognize unions in both countries when a majority of workers in a Sprint enterprise seek to unionize. The Mexican union also urged the NAOs of the three NAFTA countries convene a forum this year "attended by government, labor and management representatives from the telecommunications industry to explore ways to collaborate and discuss appropriate standards concerning workers' rights .. good paying jobs, as well as other important matters." The NAFTA labor side agreement provides for consultations among representatives of the U.S., Canada and Mexico up to the level of the secretaries of labor to resolve disputes over the lack of compliance with labor standards guaranteed in the agreement. The Sprint/La Conexion Familiar affair also has drawn concern from Sprint's prospective German business partner, Deutsche Telekom AG. The board of the German phone system, which is negotiating a 10-percent stake in Sprint, valued at $2 billion, cited Sprint as the inspiration for a new policy "ensuring that employer-employee relations customary in Germany are recognized and complied with" where the company "operates jointly with its global partners." Sprint's shutdown of La Conexion Familiar was the subject of a month-long trial prosecuted by the NLRB's Region 20 in San Francisco before an administrative law judge. A ruling is expected this spring. -- Communications Workers of America For further information, contact Jeffery Miller, CWA Public Affairs Department, 202-434-1163
[PEN-L:4180] RE: Cuba
In message Tue, 14 Feb 1995 21:06:55 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Aprapos of Sid Sniad's comments/post on Cuba, what ever happened to the proposal that surfaced on the pen-l some time ago that those of us interested contribute $100 to a Cuba assistance fund that would be redeemable in a couple of years in tourist/travel expenses? paul phillips Actually, I thought I had reported on that. The idea for Cuban Friendship Bonds (redeemable in tourist facility expenses in Cuba after a period of time) was presented to the World Conference on Solidarity with Cuba in November. Officials from the Cuban Institute for Friendship were apparently quite favourable to the idea (as were delegates from Canada and elsewhere who heard it), but development of such a proposal clearly involves action by the Cuban government (eg., what agency or institute would be responsible for issuing such bonds) and that is not the type of thing that occurs quickly. In any event, they have the proposal; I'm hoping to get back there in late April and would explore the question then again. One footnote to Sid's post on Cuba: it is important to acknowledge that the situation remains quite grim (despite a recovery since last summer) and that the improvements in living conditions, stimulated by gains from tourism and some foreign investments (many are only announced and others involve debt/equity swaps), are quite fragile and would be sorely affected by a poor sugar cane harvest or a rise in oil prices. Ie., some successes notwithstanding, ending the Embargo is likely crucial to save the Cuban Revolution and all it represents. in solidarity, mike Michael A. Lebowitz Economics Department, Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Office: (604) 291-4669; Office fax: (604) 291-5944 Home: (604) 255-0382; fax/modem (with notice):(604) 254-3510 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:4181] Re: Chase, Mexico and Guerrilla Research
On Wed, 15 Feb 1995, Doug Henwood wrote: At 10:52 AM 2/15/95, Harry M. Cleaver wrote: I see no "danger" here. I see no opposition between identifying the functionaries of capital and understanding "systemic forces". In the first place theoretical arguments about "systemic forces" means little or nothing to most people. What does means something is who knew what, when and what they did about it. In the second place, theoretically speaking the concept of "systemic forces" has no meaning without agency. I don't mind the use of the term but I would never give it the kind of structuralist interpretation that leaves out subjects. Things certainly happen behind the backs of the actors, but mostly what that means is that the outcomes of their actions are not always what they expect or intend. As I said, it was important that the memo was published; it proved that accusations that "Wall Street" wants the Zaps dead are no mere leftist inventions. And of course it's important to put a face on abstractions like "Wall Street" and "capital." But because "systemic forces" may not mean much to most people is no reason to ignore them. Doug: As I suspect you know. I don't ignore them. Chase can now disown Roett, as it's done; Goldman Sachs could disown Chase if it wanted to. When I spoke with Counterpunch's editor, Ken Silverstein, this morning, I made this point, and he entirely agreed, adding, "It's not like Goldman Sachs came out for social reform in Mexico or anything." Doug: Sure, no doubt. It's being done as we speak. But my guess is it doesn't matter to most people who have heard the story and read Roett's report. They get the picture, despite the doubletalk. The liberal-populist/muckraking/journalistic instinct is very prosecutorial and individualized; throw out the bad apples and all will be well. But of course all won't be well. Doug: Of course not. But muckraking only devolves into throwing out JUST the "bad" apples if we let it. We are prefectly free to use the results of muckraking to attack apples in general. So to speak. :-) In this case I haven't heard ANYONE on the nets talking about good apples. I think everyone is just delighted with the confirmation of their suspicions, or bothered by the collapse of their illusions. Roett in this case is capital personified; it's important to make that broader point, but it can get lost in this kind of talk. Doug: Again, it will only get lost if we let it get lost, and we aren't doing that. In fact, I'll bet that GS is happy Chase is taking the heat. Doug: Frankly I could care less about the sordid family quarrels of capital. I'm just hoping some energetic guerrilla researcher comes up with a similar internal report from GS. In the meantime, we go on making all the points we can, at every level, to whatever audiences we think we can reach. I'd say, so far, we're doing pretty well. Zedillo has (apparently) stopped the military advance and the PRI govenor has resigned (unfortunately to be replaced with another PRI goon.) Now the point is to work to get the troops out of the areas they have invaded, liberate the prisoners they have taken, expose the torture (and who knows what else) they have committed and get on with pushing demands for democracy and social restructuring in Mexico (and in the U.S. and elsewhere). Along the way we learn what we can about the enemy and think about how to use it to best advantage. I think we agree about this. == Harry Cleaver Department of Economics University of Texas at Austin Austin, Texas 78712-1173 USA Phone Numbers: (hm) (512) 442-5036 (off) (512) 471-3211 Fax: (512) 471-3510 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ==
[PEN-L:4182] Call for D.C. RALLY, Fri.Feb.17 (fwd)
Forwarded message: Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 19:15:19 -0600 (CST) From: "Harry M. Cleaver" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Call for D.C. RALLY, Fri.Feb.17 To: Comite de Solidaridad [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] This posting has been forwarded to you as a service of the Austin Comite de Solidaridad con Chiapas y Mexico. == -- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 11:38:04 -0600 (CST) From: Brad Parsons [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: D.C. CHIAPAS RALLY, Fri. 2/17/95 -- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 10:51:24 -0500 (EST) From: Chris McGinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Forwarded message -- Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 15:06:11 -0800 From: The Development GAP [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: URGENT ACTION: DC CHIAPAS PROTEST DENOUNCE ZEDILLO'S CRACKDOWN MILITARIZATION OF MEXICO Protest Outside the Mexican Embassy 1911 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington DC Friday, February 17, 1995 4:30 PM Calls for international protests in front of Mexican Consulates and Embassies of Mexico throughout the world appeared in La Jornada. This call came from the National Commission for Democracy in Mexico in response to Zedillo's war declaration against the Zapatistas, February 9, 1995, from the Commissioner of Information, Eduardo Vera. The National Commission for Democracy also called on people to send messages to the Mexican government, embassies and consulates as follows: Mexican Ambassador Jesus Silva Herzog fax: (202) 728-1698 Mexican Consulate in Washington fax: (202) 728-1698 Procuraduria General de la Republica (Attorney General) Antonio Lozano Gracia fax: (525) 626-4419 President Bill Clintonfax: (202) 456-2461 Jim Wagner, State Department Mexico Desk fax: (202) 647-5752 The National Commission for Democracy in Mexico, USA, based in El Paso, Texas and directed by Cecelia Rodriguez has also called for protests outside Mexican consulates or its embassy in Washington, DC. For more information, call (202) 728-3899
[PEN-L:4184] More on Banks vs Zapatistas (fwd)
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 22:00:18 -0600 (CST) From: Harry M. Cleaver hmcleave@mundo Subject: More on Banks vs Zapatistas Note Bene: The information in this interview complements the Chase internal report and Silverstein and Cockburn's article on it. The CSIS meeting refered to here may be the same one mentioned by them at which Roett spoke. Perhaps not. The point is the same. Dresser mentions Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and the Wall Street Journal as wanting the Zapatistas' heads. The list of headhunters could undoubtedly be lengthened. Perhaps it will be. == -- Forwarded message -- Date: 15 Feb 95 19:45:00 -0600 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: NPR 1/14 Trans. - Copyright 1995 National Public Radio NPR SHOW: Weekend Edition - Saturday ( NPR 10:00 am ET) January 14, 1995 Transcript # 1106-13 TYPE: Package SECTION: News; International LENGTH: 1073 words HEADLINE: Analyst Reveals Prospects of Mexico's Economic Crisis BYLINE: DENISE DRESSER HIGHLIGHT: A political analyst of Mexico says that despite the financial crisis being over, there is still the crisis of expectation and the crisis in political leadership. The Mexican populace will be paying a high price. BODY: SCOTT SIMON, Host: I'm Scott Simon and coming up on Weekend Edition, the impact of Mexico's economic crisis on what had been one of the hottest areas of investment - international markets. But first, only six Saturdays ago, Mexican Political Analyst Denise Dresser [sp] spoke with us about the prospects for her country as new President Ernesto Zedillo took office. An earthquake of a kind has occurred since then - the economic crisis that has sliced some 40 percent off the value of the peso and 50 percent off the value of Mexican stocks. We've asked Ms. Dresser back now. She's on leave from her post at Mexico's prestigious technological University Eta [sp]. She joins us in our studios here. Thanks for being with us again, Ms. Dresser. DENISE DRESSER, Political Analyst: Thank you for the invitation. SCOTT SIMON: As they say, first the news. The Mexican stock market has rallied a bit, in part because the U.S. government was willing to provide about $40 billion of loan guarantees, so the immediate crisis is over but one would think hardly the effect in Mexico. Help us understand what the impact there has been. DENISE DRESSER: Well, even though the immediate financial crisis is over, I think the crisis of expectations and the crisis in political leadership in Mexico remain. Over the next three or four years, Mexicans are going to be paying a very high price. They've lost 40 percent of their buying power. They're going to face, in all likelihood, spiraling inflation. And, above all, there's a sense of collective despair that Mexico has gone through so many economic adjustments over the last 12 years and yet we're being asked to sacrifice one more time and it's not clear that there will be a new recipe, a new formula that will finally propel us into the first world. SCOTT SIMON: This was hardly the making of the new administration of President Zedillo, but do you think that they might have acted more wisely in meeting the crisis? DENISE DRESSER: I think there were structural problems that determined the crisis, but it was probably exacerbated by Zedillo's lack of political leadership. I think we're witnessing the economic manifestations of political problems, of a technocratic team that came into power viewing politics as a residual variable and haven't been able to market this adjustment program to the Mexican people. I think in the next couple of months, we're going to see severe problems, in terms of the political management of economic adjustment in Mexico city. He was going to have to keep the unions in line in order to maintain wages down and keep inflation down. And given that there's a collective sense that Zedillo is not someone who's in charge, it may be difficult to maintain controls over disaffected and discontented groups in Mexico. SCOTT SIMON: Now, as you point out, President Zedillo is in the position now of having to try and hold the line, or even reduce wages among many labor union members, exactly at the same time many union workers felt they were entitled to feel that wages would be expanded. DENISE DRESSER: Well, because President Salinas had created an enormous sense of expectations about Mexico metamorphasizing into a modern economy, and those expectations have been dashed. We're going to witness a series of very difficult
