[PEN-L:5953] RE: PEN: Intense compression
Am I correct in believing that "intense compression" refers to squeezing the bottom and top of a range closely together? Raising the minimum to what is now the average would have the immediate effect of making the minimum a lot closer to the maximum, therefore the range would be com- pressed... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5956] Re: our contrac...
MScoleman writes 7/20: The issue of technology is not as simplistic as I think many people present it. I think to make any blanket statements, like technology increases skills, deskills, costs jobs, creates jobs is wrong. Essentially, technology does all of the above depending on the circumstances. You might be interested in a current thread on cyberia-l ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) on the productivity paradox. Michael Etchison [opinions mine, not the PUCT's]
[PEN-L:5957] Students Community Rally for Affirmative Action
This is going to be a reflection on yesterday's events, not so much a report--those will follow from a number of sources I hope. Yesteday's events were not a loss, because a new movement took shape yesterday. The results were not a surprise--the main surprise was that so many REPUBLICAN Regents sided with affirmative action. Testimony in favor of affirmative action lasted for hours yesterday. One thing was clear and made everyone watching the proceedings blood stir: our folks were not only right, they were brilliant and empassioned and the Left found a new voice of freedom in this struggle. From Eva Patterson of the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights to Dolores Huerta of the Farm Workers to a whole range of UC students and administrators--there voices and arguments were inspired. And then there was Jesse Jackson. Even veterans of his speeches agreed that this speech was probably the greatest they had ever heard him give. From an opening prayer to biblical parables to political analysis, he tied the arguments for affirmative action together with passion and analysis. If Jackson is serious in rebuilding the Rainbow Coalition as a serious political organization, his words and leadership yesterday reignited the loyalty or a lot of folks, young and old. Thousands of students and community supporters attended this meeting in the remote corner of San Francisco at the UC-SF Laurel Heights campus. That this was summer, a work day and people mostly arrived before 9am in the morning marks the energy behind this protest. But they came, in waves upon waves. Regents dismissed the defenders of affirmative action as "tribalists"; maybe so, but this tribe was a multi-racial tribe that marched and organized together for a common goal. Maybe that's what the Regent fear--they don't want a unified tribe; they want an elite set of individuals sitting on top of a black-brown mass of imprisoned individuals. Turning our society into a unified tribe across race lines and ending institutionalized racism is the last thing they could desire. Only a small contingent of students and community supporters were allowed in the actual chamber where the Regents met. Most rallied outside or watched the proceedings on large screens in rooms provided. A bomb threat at one point forced the Regents outside on a balcony and a march of the protesters gave them a tast of what they were missing. And when the first vote occured, the students and community members inside the chamber rose and protested so strongly, they forced the Regents out of their room and force them to reconvene elsewhere to finish their votes. This was followed by a march and sit-ins. These were good actions but we need to escalate and not just on campuses--for the Regents don't care if education is disrupted. If they did, they wouldn't be making the decisions they do. They are almost all wealthy people with corporate offices that can be protested at and companies that can be boycotted. Immediate actions will follow but the biggest actions are planned starting on October 12 where campuses across the state have already agreed to lead actions in defense of affirmative action. --Nathan Newman, Committees of Correspondence
[PEN-L:5959] AFFAM-L: List on Affirmative Action info organizing
PLEASE REPOST To all, With attacks on affirmative action mounting across the country, the primary vehicle being the Orwellian-named "Civil Rights" initiative in California, organizing has begun early to challenge the racism of this new attack. A new e-mail list has been established to get information out about this movement and news around the struggle for affirmative action to activists across the country. This is a moderated list where messages are checke for relevancy before being sent to all subscribers in order to keep message volume at a reasonable level. To subscribe to information about the struggle to defend affirmative action, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message, type: sub affam-l YourFirstName YourLastName i.e. sub affam-l Jane Smith You will be added to the mailing list. == Since the attacks on affirmative action are tied to the rising racism embodied in immigrant-bashing like Prop 187 and the criminalization of our communities through measures like Three Strikes, you may also want to join these other on-line resources. = 187pol-l 187pol-l is a discussion list to tie together the strategic issues around a broad-based struggle for racial and economic justice--how to bring the fight for immigrant rights together with the fight for affirmative action, alternatives to 3 strikes, and tying these issues into economic and political struggles like NAFTA and Chiapas. To Subcribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message, type: sub 187pol-L YourFirstName YourLastName i.e. sub 187pol-L Jane Smith You will be added to the mailing list. 187-L To subscribe to 187-l, the main information list around Prop 187 (a companion list to affam-l), do the following: To subscribe to information about the struggle to defend affirmative action, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message, type: sub sub-L YourFirstName YourLastName i.e. sub 187-L Jane Smith = 3STRIKES = To subscribe to 3STRIKES, an information list around Three Strikes and the fight against the criminalization of our communities (a companion list to affam-l), do the following: To subscribe to information about the struggle to defend affirmative action, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message, type: sub 3STRIKES YourFirstName YourLastName i.e. sub 3STRIKES Jane Smith These lists are sponsored as a public service to promote education around these issues by UC-Berkeley's Center for Community Economic Research. You can find other information of interest to the community at the Center's EDIN web site at: http://garnet.berkeley.edu:/ or its gopher site at garnet.berkeley.edu 1251. In Solidarity, *Nathan Newman: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Center for Community Economic Research
[PEN-L:5962] ACT NOW! - Ban on Funded Student Groups (fwd)
ATTENTION/ALERT/REACTION/ACTION/ NOW Here we go again. House conservatives fueled by Reps. McIntosh (R-Ind.); Ehrlich (R-MD) and Istook (R-Okla.) want to restrict the most vulnerable voice in America, ours. These three Representatives are proposing legislation to restrict lobbying/advocacy by any entity that receives federal grant money. Their legislation would cap the amount of money those who receive EVEN a SINGLE federal grant dollar could spend on a variety of activities deemed "political advocacy." The above mentioned sponsors of the bill admit their primary interest is to curb lobbying by tax-exempt non-profit advocacy organizations that feed at the public trough! For those of you who don't know the entities that would be impacted they are as follows: the ILC's; the NCIL; the ARC's; the UCP's; the Easter Seals; churches; universities and more. Basically the proposed legislation that they intend to insert as a rider to the full Labor/HHS/Education Appropriation Committee bill would render all of us ineffective, defenseless and certainly unrepresented on Capital Hill. It would seriously endanger our right to participate in the democratic process. This is just one more attempt by the 104th Congress to muzzle and undermine our advocacy while they slash and burn disability related programs in the budget process. Not to mention what type of backdoor, midnight attempts they might pull to weaken the ADA, etc... We realize that there are way too many alerts being sent, but we have no other options. There are just too many attempts to destroy us and you need to know about each and everytime this occurs. Calls need to be made on a continual basis up until this Thursday when the full Labor/HHS/Educ. Appropriations committee meets. Calls should be made to all who sit on the full Committee, especially Chairman Livingstone (R-LA) and Speaker Gingrich (who has given his support). Item number 1863, dated 95/07/20 21:44:23 -- ALL Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 21:44:23 GMT Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: Activists Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: ? Subject:Student Civil Liberties Attacked Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 18:35:41 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NAGPS) Subject: Congress Wages War on Students and Democratic Rights! Original message STUDENT AID ALERT July 14, 1995 Is Congress Waging War on Students? Last Tuesday, as part of a FY96 appropriations bill, the House Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Subcommittee debated an amendment whose purpose was to silence all the students who have been voicing opposition to proposed cuts to student aid. Sponsored by Rep. Istook (R-OK) on behalf of Rep. Solomon (R-NY), the amendment would deny all federal funds to any university or college at which "any amount derived from tuition, student activity fees, or other charges to students is used for the support of any organization or group that is engaged in lobbying or seeking to influence public policy or political campaigns..." The practical effect of this amendment would be to eliminate most higher education employees and students from participating in the democratic process. Those potentially affected include: * Associations representing administrators, faculty and college presidents * Student Governments * State Student Associations * National student groups such as NAGPS, USSA, USPIRG * Clubs on campus such as right-to-life groups, pro-choice groups, Amnesty International, and any other groups which engage in issues in the public arena * Any part of the university which does research if that research is used to "influence public policy." The amendment failed in subcommittee on an amazingly close vote of 6 to 8 (3 Republicans joined 5 Democrats voting against the amendment). Representative Istook promises to bring the amendment up in full committee. Students, faculty, administrators and interested others who are able to contact their member of Congress should do so before the full committee vote on Thursday, July 20. The Congressional switchboard number is (202) 225-3121. Actual Text of Amendment: "Amendment to Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Bill, 1996, Offered by Istook for Solomon. "At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following new section: "None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be made available to any institution of higher education when it is made known to the Federal official having authority to obligate or expend such funds that any amount derived from tuition, student activity fees, or other charges to students is used for the support of any organization or group that is engaged in lobbying or seeking to influence public policy or political campaigns, other than a student organization whose political activities relate exclusively to the organization and operation
[PEN-L:5964] re: Hitler Capitalism
This statement is not as straightforward as it seems... On Thu, 20 Jul 1995, Bill Briggs wrote: It would be improper to call Hitler's Germany a capitalistic country. Capitalism requires laws [and , if history is any judge], democracy in order to prosper. Does capitalism really need law? I agree that property rights are fundamental for capitalism, and you can have a specific property rights structure that is not similar to what we call Law, in general. For instance, nazis could have their property rights assured, while most other people wouldn't. This provides enough base to capitalism, although different to the one we know in US nowadays... Or maybe I am assuming we talk about the same concept when we say capitalism. Anyway, this discussion started with some adjectives for Lenin, Mao, Stalin and, by style association led to Hitler. Should we talk about capitalism? Macario
[PEN-L:5963] Re: Students Community Rally for Affirmative Action
How do we get the transcripts of the speeches given? I would like to include some of the statements in a newsletter I edit for a local progressive political organization, and would use more as course material this coming semester. I'm sure others would also like to know how to find them. Can you help? On Fri, 21 Jul 1995, Nathan Newman wrote: This is going to be a reflection on yesterday's events, not so much a report--those will follow from a number of sources I hope. Yesteday's events were not a loss, because a new movement took shape yesterday. The results were not a surprise--the main surprise was that so many REPUBLICAN Regents sided with affirmative action. Testimony in favor of affirmative action lasted for hours yesterday. One thing was clear and made everyone watching the proceedings blood stir: our folks were not only right, they were brilliant and empassioned and the Left found a new voice of freedom in this struggle. From Eva Patterson of the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights to Dolores Huerta of the Farm Workers to a whole range of UC students and administrators--there voices and arguments were inspired. And then there was Jesse Jackson. Even veterans of his speeches agreed that this speech was probably the greatest they had ever heard him give. From an opening prayer to biblical parables to political analysis, he tied the arguments for affirmative action together with passion and analysis. If Jackson is serious in rebuilding the Rainbow Coalition as a serious political organization, his words and leadership yesterday reignited the loyalty or a lot of folks, young and old. Thousands of students and community supporters attended this meeting in the remote corner of San Francisco at the UC-SF Laurel Heights campus. That this was summer, a work day and people mostly arrived before 9am in the morning marks the energy behind this protest. But they came, in waves upon waves. Regents dismissed the defenders of affirmative action as "tribalists"; maybe so, but this tribe was a multi-racial tribe that marched and organized together for a common goal. Maybe that's what the Regent fear--they don't want a unified tribe; they want an elite set of individuals sitting on top of a black-brown mass of imprisoned individuals. Turning our society into a unified tribe across race lines and ending institutionalized racism is the last thing they could desire. Only a small contingent of students and community supporters were allowed in the actual chamber where the Regents met. Most rallied outside or watched the proceedings on large screens in rooms provided. A bomb threat at one point forced the Regents outside on a balcony and a march of the protesters gave them a tast of what they were missing. And when the first vote occured, the students and community members inside the chamber rose and protested so strongly, they forced the Regents out of their room and force them to reconvene elsewhere to finish their votes. This was followed by a march and sit-ins. These were good actions but we need to escalate and not just on campuses--for the Regents don't care if education is disrupted. If they did, they wouldn't be making the decisions they do. They are almost all wealthy people with corporate offices that can be protested at and companies that can be boycotted. Immediate actions will follow but the biggest actions are planned starting on October 12 where campuses across the state have already agreed to lead actions in defense of affirmative action. --Nathan Newman, Committees of Correspondence
[PEN-L:5965] Re: AFFAM-L: List on Affirmative Action info
Penners: The University of California has decided to end affirmative action. Many African American political and social spokespersons, among others in California, have asked that national organizations boycott the state. California is a pivotal state in the affirmative action battle. I've begun holding discussions with a friend about the possibilities of the National Economic Association boycotting the January ASSA meeting, pos- sibly meeting somewhere else on the East Coast. (This a very informal discussion thus far and it is not a position offically raised within the NEA. And, that organization bears no responsibility for my remarks). Is there any support on this list for boycotting the January, 1996 ASSA meetings in California and trying to re-organize someplace else? Is is logistically possible? Should economists, especially "progressive economists," fight against the anti-affirmative action iniative in Cali- fornia and elsewhere? peace, patrick l mason
[PEN-L:5966] WP about institutions
To the Honorable Body of Coleagues: I have finally posted a working paper in the WUSTL archive. With the title of "Intuition and Institutions, the Bounded Society" I have tried to establlish the link between bounded rationality and the creation of social institutions that determine economic performance. I would be pleased if someone could take a look over it and, maybe, suggest where to publish it. My ignorance have made it difficult to find where is it fit, so I appreciate any help. Maybe private posts would be better, since there is always the possibility of finding no place for it. The paper is in econwpa.wustl.edu, in the economic history archive, by the number 9507001. There seems to be some problems in reading it, I have been able to recover the file 9507001.pdf and read it with Acrobat Read, which is available for free on WWW. Hope to hear from some of you... Macario
[PEN-L:5967] Re: ACT NOW! - Ban on Funded Student Groups (fwd)
Nathan Newman, very upset, writes 7/21 that Congress is looking "to restrict lobbying/advocacy by any entity that receives federal grant money." Well, not prohibit it altogether, but put a "cap [on] the amount of money those who receive EVEN a SINGLE federal grant dollar could spend on a variety of activities deemed 'political advocacy.'" This, he says, "would render all of us ineffective, defenseless and certainly unrepresented on Capital Hill. It would seriously endanger our right to participate in the democratic process." Why is it that he, or any of his "endangered" groups, has a claim to use tax money to lobby -- for, one supposes, more tax money, among other things? If these groups can't find non-members, non-recipients of federal funds, to speak up for them, why should taxpayers (some of whom, presumably, would prefer that these groups not be funded) have to pay for these lobbyists? Why, for that matter, should an entity which seeks tax monies have a "right to participate in the democratic process" _paid for by taxpayers_? Some, I suppose, would argue that any entity ought to be able to use all of its funds for lobbying, even if all those funds came from the government. I'd guess there wouldn't be a lot of popular support for that extreme position. So let's suppose that there is a good answer to my rhetorical questions, along the lines of "But we get 15 cents a year, on a budget of $1 million." Can a reasonably usable line be drawn? Michael Etchison [opinions mine, not the PUCT's]
[PEN-L:5968] Ernest Mandel has passed away (fwd)
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 08:05:26 -0700 From: Joanna Misnik [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Ernest Mandel has passed away Ernest Mandel, a leader of the Fourth International and internationally known Marxist economist died yesterday in Belgium of a heart attack. He was 72 years old. Mandel had been in failing health for several years. Cremation is today at a small family service. In September, broader commemorative events are planned when his ashes will be moved to either Paris or Antwerp. Active throughout his illness, Mandel was working along with Swiss comrade Charles Andre Udry on a book analyzing the role of finance capital in today s global economy. He was able to attend the 14th World Congress of the FI which was held this June and intervened in his usual spirited and incisive fashion. Messages of condolence to his comrades, and his companion Ann can be faxed to the Belgian section of the FI. The number is 011 32 2 522 6127. He will be sorely missed, particularly by an entire generation of revolutionaries who came to Marxism and to the Fourth International in the heydey of the 1960s. He was our teacher. Joanna
[PEN-L:5969] Re: Our Contract W/ America?
Massimo said I am sure that none of these demands are compatible with the competitive position of the United States, or Uk, or any other country. But I am also sure that the realization of Paul We should not conceed that there is such a thing as the 'competitive position' of a country. Countries do not compete in international trade. To the extent that they engage in it it is mutually beneficial. Changes in the distribution of income within a country do not alter this fact, they only alter which classes benefit. What the progressive measures you suggest would do, is reduce the relative profitability of the US or UK as fields for capital investment which is a quite different thing. The obvious conclusion is that a progressive domestic agenda can only be sustained in the presence of strict exchange controls and taxes on capital movement.
[PEN-L:5970] Re: More Extended Reproduction
This is more of my extended exchange with John on the role of empirical measures in Marxian economics. The questions are quite technical, but I regard the questions as important since I think they reflect a bias by many Marxian economists against empirical work. It is a bias that I have encountered myself from referees of papers when trying to get empirical work published. My feeling for some 20 years has been that this bias is unjustified and that whenever one carries out an empirical investigation the result is both enlightening and usually favourable to Marxism vis a vis its critics. John Ernst wrote As Freeman and Kliman have argued on these lists, it is fairly simple to show that by using historic and not simultaneous valuation one obtains a falling rate of profit in cases where simultaneous valuation would yield a rising or steady rate of profit. Paul I am in full agreement thattehnlogical change leading to a decline in the labour content of currently produced capital goods will lead to a loss on capital accounts due to capital depreciation. This will have the effect of reducing the effective rate of profit. What I was questioning was whether using values or PoP makes any difference to ones result for the rate of profit. This is something I very much doubt. If you think that it does make a difference, you should be able to make measurements to show that it does - given that most capitalist countries publish reasonably detailed economic statistics. This is a different question from the one you raise above. John goes on to ask: Consider all of the questions and problems we seem to abstracting from in order to obtain your results. Here are a few. 1. To obtain values you simply sum concrete labor times. Is this valid? Paul: No, the very process of treating all of the labours merely in terms of their time dimension abstracts from their concrete character, thus what is being added is abstract labour. 2. How do you deal with absolute rent in determining prices of production? Paul: I prepare two sets of statistics, one including industries with a high rent content such as oil and agriculture the other excluding these. When one excludes such industries the fit between values and money prices is, as one would expect, better. I think however, that the rent is question is better understood as differential. 3. How do you deal with monopoly prices in determining prices of production? Paul: I make no special allowances for this, neither does most of the literature on prices of production from Marx on. 4. Do modern monetary policies affect the manner in which capitalists incorporate "moral depreciation" into the the concept of social value? Paul: Most certainly. During periods of rapid inflation one has the reverse 'moral appreciation' which appears in the national capital accounts as stock appreciation. When computing timeseries for the rate of profit I always compute it net of stock appreciation. 5. Given that within an industry there are a variety of techniques in use, how do aggregate statistics capture this in the determination of value or price? Paul: The existence of such a range of techniques is implicit in the concept of value as average socially necessary labour time. Thus the averaging that takes place through the use of industrial aggregate statistics is in conformity with value theory. 6. If, with Marx, we assume that one hour of abstract labor in one country creates a different amount of value than in another, how are we to use your technique in putting the whole picture together? Paul: One must distinguish three levels of problem here. In dealing with value in terms of a single country, I hink that the best technique is the one I outlined in an earlier post. In attempting an international analysis there are two further problems. One is the scale of the statistical work one would have to undertake - it is a task for an institute not an individual, but more seriously I think that the current theoretical status of international value theory is too under-developed to allow the posing of useful empirical questions. 7. If inputs and outputs are valued and/or priced annually, who takes the loss as you move from year to year with increasing productivity? Does that affect anything? Paul: As I said above stock depreciation will tend to depress profit rates, but studies of this are better done using National Income Accounts data rather than I/O table data since these are published annually and provide a better basis for the construction of profit rate and organic composition time series. As far as I am aware nobody has yet constructed organic
[PEN-L:5972] Re: dsanet: AFFAM-L: List on Affirmative Action info organizing
What ever happened to the liberal dream of higher education for all who wanted it? If we still fought for that dream, this arguing over who gets what crumbs from a shrinking pie would not be happening. Given today's technologies, that comprize the information highway free education for all who want it, is a realizable dream. Nat. Ass. of Letter CarriersBill Briggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] unionists subscribe publabor at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5971] Re: Narrowing the Vision
On Wed, 19 Jul 1995, Michael Perelman wrote: We now have a remarkable array of people from around the world, yet we still hear a preponderance of posts from and about the U.S. Also, we still have a small group of people who contribute most of the postings. The list would be more valuable if we could hear from more of you. -- Michael Perelman's important post above is generally ignored by the PENers. Only two people commented. Before I make a brief comment on the posting, I was searching an appropriate quotation. I couldn't find one, but the following would serve as second best: "Since it is not for us to create a plan for the future that will hold for all time, all the more surely what we contemporaries have to do is the uncompromising critical evaluation of all that exists, uncompromising in the sense that our criticism fears neither its own results nor the conflict with the powers that be." --Karl Marx I think the PENers generally are doing what Marx says "uncompromising critical evaluation of all that exists, uncompromising in the sense that our criticism fears neither its own results nor the conflict with the powers that be." But more can be done. I must agree with Michael Perelman that topics covered are narrow and mostly related to the U.S.and participants are "small group of people." If we can broaden topics to include burning questions pertinent to other lands and peoples then participation from other lands would surely increase. Also, personally I would like to see communications focussed on: 1. Less commentary and opinions; 2. More analysis of events and issues; 3. More news and information. Opinions are less useful to guide us to construct a model to understand what is happening aound us. What we need is more "analysis." For instance, a lot of us are puzzled why real wages are falling in most industrial societies and how can we counter this trend. Is it expected in capitalism? Are the alling wages result of increaing income inequality? Or the causality the other way around? What role(s) transnational corporations play in wage declines? Etc. I am sure we all read periodicals and books. In those materials there must be interesting items and news to share. How other (non-English language) publications cover certain important events? Sharing those would be very valuable. I hope this would be received as friendly self-criticism of ourselves. Fikret Ceyhun Dept. of Economics e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Univ. of North Dakota voice: (701)777-3348 office University Station, Box 8369(701)772-5135 home Grand Forks, ND 58202 fax:(701)777-5099
[PEN-L:5973] Homage to Ernest Mandel
Robert Pollin Department of Economics University of California-Riverside Riverside, CA 92521-0427 909-787-5037, ext. 1579 (office); 909-787-5685 (fax) 909-788-8106 (home); [EMAIL PROTECTED] (e-mail) July 21, 1995 Dear Friends, I was saddened to read over pen-l the news of the passing of Ernest Mandel. Mandel was a inspiration to me, especially in my days as an undergraduate and graduate student. How well I remember myself and fellow grad students at the New School students pouring over Late Capitalism and The Second Slump. We knew that Mandel was not necessarily the most rigorous economist. But as our teacher Robert Heilbroner has said, with great rigor among modern economists has also come mortis. Mandel, by contrast, asked great questions, and asked them with passion and conviction. He forced us to think, and challenged us to do better. I have never spoken to him, or corresponded with him. I did however have the privilege of twice hearing him lecture, once at the New School, and more recently at a conference at U Mass-Amherst. Both of these experiences, and especially the one at the New School, are indelibly etched in my memory, part of that storage bank of experiences that keeps me trying to do this hard work of radical political economy. My condolences to everyone who knew Mandel as a friend. For the rest of us, I hope his passing encourages us to keep on keeping on. -- Bob Pollin Sincerely, Robert Pollin Professor of Economics
