[PEN-L:704] Re: CLC news release on IHAC report
On Wed, 27 Sep 1995, D Shniad wrote: CANADIAN LABOUR CONGRESS -- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 Fewer jobs, more profits -- INFO HIGHWAY TO SERVE BIG BUSINESS: IHAC MEMBER PARROT For more information: [...] Jean-Claude Parrot, Executive Vice President Canadian Labour Congress (613) 526-7403 Alexander Crawley, President Assn. of Can. Cinema Television Radio Artists (416) 489-1311 opeiu225 Does Parrot have an email address at the CLC?? Crawley at his union? É» º stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal º º + if you agree copy these 3 sentences in your own sig + º º more info: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm º ̹ º Those who would give up essential Liberty, Benjamin Franklin º º to purchase a little temporary Safety, Pennsylvania Assembly º º deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Nov. 11, 1755 º ̹ º Jim Jaszewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Public Key available. º º http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ab975/Profile.html º ȼ
[PEN-L:705] Re: capital good exports
Dear Anthony Catching up on the brief PEN-L discussion on capital goods markets I was extremely interested in the facts which you and others report. My view, which I think can be well-supported mathematically, is that a principal source of inequality in relations between nations is the monopolisation of technological rents by the North. I want to find out if it is supported by empirical evidence. It can be shown theoretically, I think, that regional and national monopolies of technical rents arises automatically from the operation of the market; it is not necessary to assume special or 'non-market' conditions such as specifically monopolistic behaviour or manipulation by multinationals; or historical precapitalist backwardness in the 'developing' countries. This does not mean such conditions do not exist; it does mean that abolishing them will not cure the problem. Just as abolishing unfair labour practices will not abolish inequality between capitalists and labourers. The only assumption necessary for the theorem is that capitalism is universal (a 'pure market economy') and labour productivity is rising through technical progress. The market itself endogenously generates inequality between regions. This can be extended to nations, nations being for the purpose of the theorem defined as regions with a single money which bar or limit immigration (Uniform market within nations, no free market in labour between nations, otherwise uniform world market). I want to test this theorem against observed reality. The analysis depends on the behaviour over time of the introduction of new technology, that is, it is path-dependent. Static analysis therefore does not reveal it. I believe this is the foundation of the errors of the standard trade theory. Naturally, if this could be demonstrated both theoretically and empirically, it would punch a gigantic hole in the standard theory. Endogenous inequality would arise if the 'advanced' regions and nations specialised in those branches of the world economy in which the productivity of labour is rising in use-value (so- called physical) terms (the unit value of these outputs would therefore be falling). However, unless input costs change, value output and hence money receipts per worker would remain unchanged. Typically, this would apply for example in the manufacture of capital goods where the first version of a new machine (or item of software) is generally produced with a high labour intensity, often handicraft labour, which then rapidly falls as the method of production gets standardised and as standard components become generally available. The production of computers is typical in this respect. This is not symmetrical with producers who purchase the outputs of the sectors described above. Relative Surplus Value is not symmetrical and its benefits are therefore not universal, which stands in contrast to the general view that the benefits of technical progress are universal. Such producers will experience falling material costs which will reduce output prices, but the 'physical' productivity of labour will not necessarily change as a result since the technology has not altered, merely the costs of its elements. Such producers experience a falling output of gross value per worker, i.e. falling gross receipts per worker. Thus the labour of the second type of producer, compared with the labour of the first type of worker, is productive of a constantly falling amount of value (in money terms). Neoclassical theory has it that capital transfers to the regions containing the second type of producer should equilibriate or average out these differences over time. However I believe this theory can be disproved rigorously by considering the process of capital movement under continuous technical change. It can be shown that through the operation of the market, producers of the second type wil *also* experience a lower net value product per worker. The labour of workers in such sectors appears less productive of value. A worker in an advanced country may cost more but appears to create more value, because the value-creating capacity of her or his labour is enhanced by disguised value transfers from the 'backward' countries. It has always been considered that differences in value productivity in the 'developing' nations is the result of backward conditions. But the market itself generates this 'backwardness':the 'development ofunderdevelopment'. 'Backwardness' is merely an initial condition; the question is how it becomes institutionalised. If it is institutionalised by the market, then the market is not a solution, as I think many people in the world are discovering. These value losses I believe are transferred in
[PEN-L:706] Re: Assassination of Martin Luther King
On Thu, 28 Sep 1995, D Shniad wrote: Martin Luther King Jr. CIVIL RIGHTS LEADER 'KILLED BY U.S. AGENTS,' NEW BOOK CHARGES Andrew Billen Observer News Service LONDON -- Civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated by America's secret services, a book about to be published in the United States claims. Gee... the silence on this one is DEAFENING. Or is it just apathy? (maybe fear of ridicule for even acknowledging the possibility?) In that case I hope Shniad doesn't post anything on the Kennedy brothers..! : É» º stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal º º + if you agree copy these 3 sentences in your own sig + º º more info: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm º ̹ º"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people...º º it is true that most stupid people are conservative" º º - John Stuart Mill º ̹ º Jim Jaszewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Public Key available. º º http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ab975/Profile.html º ȼ
[PEN-L:707] Japanese Heterodox Economics
ANNOUNCEMENT PKT (csf.colorado.edu/econ) now has a link to a web site intended for Japanese heterodox economists. This is the home page of Hironori Tohyama at Shizuoka University in Japan: http://hlpc2.jcle.shizuoka.ac.jp/ The link is found toward the bottom of the pkt page. Currently, this web site is only 10% in English (the rest are characters that, when read by the proper software, becomes Japanese characters). Hironori might be revising this web site so that it becomes more of a link between Japanese heterodox economists and heterodox economists elsewhere in the world. You might check it out now and also in a month or so when Hironori might have added more material to it. Thanks. Eric .. Eric Nilsson Department of Economics California State University San Bernardino, CA 92407 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:708] Re: Assassination of Martin Luther King
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people...o o it is true that most stupid people are conservative" o o - John Stuart Mill o Jim, what's the citation on this quote? Gil Skillman
[PEN-L:709] mike lebowitz's address
Sorry to interrupt public postings on this list, but I was wondering if anyone could zap me Mike Lebowitz's e-mail address. Please send it directly to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] so as to avoid rude interventions such as that which I just regrettably made. Thanks, John Gulick UC-Santa Cruz Sociology research: eco-Marxist sociology of the built environment
Conservative and stupid
Among many British academics the Conservative Party is often referred to as the Stupid Party--perhaps this has some historical link to the quote below, but I don't know. The last poll I saw on the subject put voting support among university lecturers for the Tories in the single figures. Peter Burns SJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people...o o it is true that most stupid people are conservative" o o - John Stuart Mill o Jim, what's the citation on this quote? Gil Skillman
[PEN-L:711] Dock Strike In Liverpool - Urgent Support needed (fwd)
Forwarded message: From @UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 9 02:27 PDT 1995 Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 10:21:00 BST-1 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: Forum on Labor in the Global Economy [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Gregory Coyne [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Dock Strike In Liverpool - Urgent Support needed X-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Multiple recipients of list LABOR-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 3710 Please circulate this message widely. Over 400 dock workers have been dismissed by the Mersey Dock and Harbour Company and associated companies. These men were amongst the last port workers in Britain to maintain trade union recognition at their place of work. Virtually every other port in the country has been de recognised and activists have been bought off, intimidated or victimised. It is now apparent that the Mersey Dock and Harbour Company intends to do the same in Liverpool. The struggle started over the dismisal of men from a related company and has escalated into a battle against dreaded casual labour systems. In ports like Liverpool the style of casual labour employment where employees were hired and fired on the whim of foremen, where union organisers were always overlooked, where wages were paid by the foremen to the hired men in local pubs and where kickbacks to the foremen were universally expected, was widespread. The system spread to many other port related industries like transport, and continued in Liverpool until relatively recently. There is widespread resentment and fear about its return. The dock workers took srtike action immediately after the sacking of colleagues who refused to work without overtime payments. The Company responded by sacking the whole workforce. In Britain, such immediate strike action, particularly when no secret ballot has taken place to endorse the action, is illegal. If the dock workers union, the TGWU, are seen to support the men then the union is held liable to pay substantial damages until it desists from such support. The men are now caught in a trap. They cannot return to work since they are dismissed and the company is setting about the hiring of new workers. If they are not in work they cannot complete the complicated legal procedure that has to be undergone to make a strike legal in Britain today. It is therefore likely that they cannot receive any material aid from their union since the union would then itself be broken by the financial penalties that the courts would impose. They are therefore mounting a struggle themselves and they need lots of support. In particular they need you 1. To affect the trading in the port of Liverpool in any way that you can. 2. To raise support and cash. Speakers will travel to address meetings in Britain and cheques should be made payable to Jimmy Davis, Secretary to the Port Shop Stewards Committee, CO TGWU, Transport House, Islington, Liverpool. Tel: 0151 207 3388 Fax: 0151 298 1044 3. To raise the case with politicians, particulalry European Union politicians since the Mersey Dock and Harbour Company is set to receive major European cash as a result of Merseyside having Objective 1 status. 4. To pass on information to the dockers about any activities of the Mersey Dock and Harbour Company that you know of. 5. To give examples of campaign activities against a company that could be undertaken, particularly activities that will undermine the financial viability of the company but which are not in themselves legal. Such campaigns have not been too common in Britain and there is little experience in the leadership of unions about running a war of attrition, other than through the use of strike action. So examples from other countries could be really helpful in allowing us to overcome the legal minefield that ensnares trade union activity in Britain. Any ideas would be welcome on how to go about a campaign and examples and contacts would be helpful. You can contact the dockers on the address in point 1 above. Or if it is easier I will pass on email messages to them as and when I can. Thanks in advance. Regards Greg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:712] Slave culture and industry WAS Time's Re...
Eric Nilsson writes 10/6: Those who claim slavery and industry are incompatible are not aware of this large literature: this speaks badly for their historical research and knowledge. A riposte to a point I did not make. Of course slaves can be made to work in factories. Of course factory work as such does not automatically bring out the best in folks. Of course it would be hard _in some factories_ to distinguish between slave and non-slave working conditions. He points to econometric evidence [showing] SLAVEHOLDER culture as holding back investment in industry. Leaving aside the persuasiveness of econometric evidence when, apart from theoretical issues, the data are so spotty, this does not undercut either Cox/DeSouza or my comments on (not necessarily endorsement of) them. Does a Marxist have difficulty understanding that when an employer thinks of "employment" as being an essentially command operation, that employer is likely to be less alert to opportunities to invest in industrialization? Maggie Coleman writes 10/6 to point out that not only were there slaves working in factories, but many felt that the non-slaves who worked in factories were not much better off. Even if we look only at conditions actually on the job (and, to a lesser extent, in the company towns), she has a good point there. Which she overstates. Constricted though the millhand's scope was while at the spindle, there was more to life than that. I recognize that Ms. Coleman and I are looking at different aspects of the factory experience -- roughly, she looks for/at oppression, I, at opportunity -- but there is, I think, common ground available. The "free" hand's choices were constrained at best, far more (I think she would agree) than a modern worker would find comfortable, but they were obviously greater than a slave's. To make a case that "free" hands were _significantly_ freer than slaves one need not show that each mill hand became a mill-owner, or a freeholder, or anything but a factory worker. My impression is that many got out of the factories into what they (and, presumably, we) would take to be better lives. More, those so inclined (subject, of course, to the overhanging fatalism which factory drudgery can impose) had at the very least the formal opportunity to improve themselves, inside the factory or out -- relatively few of the industrializing entrepreneurs were born to silk, and far fewer of the skilled craftsmen who formed the essential body of expertise necessary to support industrial progress in technology and organization. Those paths were altogether closed to slaves. (As she does not mention, female "free" workers had far more opportunities to choose both their work and their spouse than did slaves.) If one works in a setting in which escape is absolutely impossible, is one not likely to have a different set of attitudes/beliefs/behaviors than is one who, at least abstractly, is not foreclosed from improving his station? Not every "free" worker would become a master craftsman or a foreman, let alone an independent entrepreneur; indeed, not every one aspired to. But such aspirations were not preposterous, and some dreams did come true. It was because they _could_ come true, Cox and DeSouza appear to agree, that "free" workers developed a culture in which hard work, ambition, punctuality, and so on were encouraged. The possibilities open to slaves were monstrously slimmer. In a rush to deplore the working and living conditions or "free" hands, or the honorable impulse to recognize the accomplishments-against-odds of which slaves proved themselves capable from the beginning, it ought not be necessary to undervalue the harm done slaves. Please note that I am not saying that any of the data referred to by Ms. Coleman are incorrect -- only that the conclusions she draws are not quite apposite to the Cox/DeSouza reasoning. It appears, from her summaries of the sources she cites, that reliance on indentured workers was decreasing significantly by the time of the civil war; she certainly does not argue that the conditions in which slaves worked -- and the futures they could reasonably imagine -- had improved significantly for those (relatively few) slaves working in factories. Nor do her summaries mention what must surely have been a significant number of "escapes" from indentures, which must have been infinitely easier to make good than slave escapes. At bottom, what matters is what the actors can visualize themselves being. Does Ms. Coleman or Mr. Nilsson hold that slaves' and "free" workers' visions of the possibilities open to them (or their children) were indistinguishable? Michael Etchison [opinions mine, not the PUCT's]
[PEN-L:713] Re: Slave culture and industry WAS Time's Re...
Michael Etchison wrote, Leaving aside the persuasiveness of econometric evidence when, apart from theoretical issues, the data are so spotty, this does not undercut either Cox/DeSouza or my comments on (not necessarily endorsement of) them. and Does Ms. Coleman or Mr. Nilsson hold that slaves' and "free" workers' visions of the possibilities open to them (or their children) were indistinguishable? Mr. Etchison's comments reveal (again) a lack of familiarity with the existing literature on slavery. There is a large literature (econometric and noneconometric) on Black slave and White slaveholder culture and its relationship to economic development. A simple statement that the data is "spotty" fails to destroy this literature. In any case, I bet Mr. Etchison is not aware of what data has been used in the study of US slavery. Of course the options available to slaves and nonslaves were very different. This has been written about. But the leap between this fact and the claim that Blacks must accept White culture is a pretty large leap. There is a large literature very consistent with Mr. Etchison's claims: that of White Southerner's trying to justify slavery (and of the attempt to bring Blacks "to civilization") and of other historians writing in the early part of this century who were very upfront in stating their beliefs that Blacks (and their culture) were inferior to Whites (and their culture). They were also interested in justifying the enslavement of Blacks (and the then current discrimination for Blacks in US society). But at least, unlike DeSouza, they were honest about this. Eric .. Eric Nilsson Department of Economics California State University San Bernardino, CA 92407 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:714] Crisis, style and rescue
A TOUR OF AMERICAN DECLINE Doug Henwood's apt warning, "Never ever expect that things have gone too far. Things can always go farther." reminds me of Walter Benjamin's comment that, "for the suffering of individuals and communities there is only one limit beyond which things cannot go: annihilation." Benjamin was writing about the German Inflation of the 1920s and was commenting on the stupidity and cowardice of the German bourgeoisie, particularly on their cliched reaction to economic decline that "things can't go on like this." As Benjamin pointed out (rightly), the situation of crisis and decline had quite remarkable stability, even if that stability was of an entirely new kind, and even if it was unpleasant. Far from seeing decline as extraordinary, Benjamin pointed out (again, rightly) that *rescue* from the situation had to be perceived as "extraordinary, verging on the marvelous and incomprehensible." With the benefit of hindsight, we know that there *was* no extraordinary rescue. Instead "things went on" to Nazism, war and holocaust. And for Benjamin, exile and death (not to mention incomprehension). Would that someone on this list could assure me that civilization has progressed so far in the last half century that such barbarities are no longer thinkable. INCOMPREHENSIBLE RESCUE Again, a quote from Benjamin's "Tour of German Inflation": "A curious paradox: people have only the narrowest private interest in mind when they act, yet they are at the same time more than ever determined by the instincts of the mass. And more than ever mass instincts have become confused and estranged from life. Whereas the obscure impulse of the animal detects, as danger approaches, a way of escape that still seems invisible, this society, each of whose members cares only for his own abject well-being, falls victim, as a blind mass, to even the most obvious danger." Wherein lies that invisible, *incomprehensible* way of escape? Benjamin instructs us, in typical, elliptical fashion: "The earliest customs of peoples seem to send us a warning that in accepting what we receive so abundantly from nature we should guard against a gesture of avarice. For we are able to make Mother Earth no gift of our own. It is therefore fitting to show respect in taking, by returning a part of all we receive before laying hands on our share..." "What?" you ask, "That's it? That's all there is to it?" Well, no, there's more, but I hesitate to go on. I can only continue if I KNOW that someone is listening, that they have paid attention to what I have reported so far and that they want to hear the rest of the "tale". Otherwise, I will have to assume that my "style" is too incomprehensible and that, as Bob Dylan sang, "the answer my friend is blowin' in the wind. The answer is blowin' in the wind." Regards, Tom Walker knoW Ware Communications [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mindlink.net/knoWWare/
[PEN-L:715] Apology
Pen-l'ers: Apologies for cluttering the list with business completely irrelevant to it, earlier today. My Eudora nicknames file was somehow corrupted, an embarrassing by-product of advanced technology. Yours, Eric Glynn
[PEN-L:717] Jobs Organizing Workers
Below is information that is perhaps of interest to some of your students. A Different Kind of Job Employer:Labor Unions affiliated with the AFL-CIO Job Title: Union Organizer Pay: Depends on union and location. The starting salary range is $20,000 to $30,000 with additional benefits. Union organizers assist workers in gaining union representation. Whether they are working with university clerical employees or Southern textile workers, the goal of an organizer is to assist workers in forming a union at their workplace. This requires them to develop leadership, educate people about their rights, explain the process, and run a campaign for union recognition. While there are no specific educational requirements, union organizing is extremely challenging and is not for everyone. To success as an organizer, an applicant should have the following strengths: excellent communication skills, leadership ability, commitment to building a stronger labor movement, maturity and flexibility, ability to handle stress and responsibility, and strategic thinking. Pay: depends on union and location. The starting salary range is $20,000 to $30,000 with additional benefits. The AFL-CIO Organizing Institute recruits and trains potential organizers from a variety of backgrounds. WOMEN, PEOPLE OF COLOR, and MULTILINGUAL individuals are encouraged to apply. For more information contact: 1-800-848-3021 or [EMAIL PROTECTED] .. Eric Nilsson Department of Economics California State University San Bernardino, CA 92407 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:716] Jobs available! (fwd)
Forwarded message: From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 9 12:24:24 1995 Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 14:24:14 -0500 From: rashid salim [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Jobs available! Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII --- Professor Salim Rashid Dept. of Economics, Room # 309 Commerce West Bldg., 1206 South Sixth St., Champaign, IL 61820 : Tel. (217)333-7388 e-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- First private University in Bangladesh needs faculty to teach courses listed below. Experience and professional record preferable. Competitive salaries offered. Fax CV to Mr. M. Ahmad, president, North-South University, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Fax number: 880-2-883030 and e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and copy to professor Salim Rashid, Economics, UIUC, fax: 217-244-6678 and e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] a) Marketing (Lower and Higher level) b) Human Research Development c) Legal Environment d) General Management/International Management e) Production Management/Management Science f) Finance and Accounting -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:718] Empowerment Zones references
I'm posting this request for an undergraduate student who is writing a paper on the "Empowerment Zone" (alias enterprise zone) that is planned for Detroit. Can anyone recommend references either on zones in the US or on zones elsewhere that contain analysis that might be applied to the particularities of this phenomenon in the US? (We have the Challenge article by Levitan and Miller that is in Susan Feiner's book, Race and Gender in the American Economy.) Any other ideas would be much appreciated. Thanks, Lynn Duggan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:719] Re: mike lebowitz's address
Here is his e-mail address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 On Mon, 9 Oct 1995, John L Gulick wrote: Sorry to interrupt public postings on this list, but I was wondering if anyone could zap me Mike Lebowitz's e-mail address. Please send it directly to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] so as to avoid rude interventions such as that which I just regrettably made. Thanks, John Gulick UC-Santa Cruz Sociology research: eco-Marxist sociology of the built environment
[PEN-L:721] Re: capital good exports
I can accept much of your argument Alan, but how to you claim that actual value transfers occur from the low to the high productivity regions, if the former have a lower rate of value production?
[PEN-L:724] Re: Slave culture...
What is PUCT? maggie
[PEN-L:725] Re: Slave cul...
Sorry for three postings on the same thing -- just one more point in reference to the issue of "Yankee values." The values referred to, especially 'punctuality' were the values of the capitalists building the factories, not necessarily the values of the population in the factories. Further, the almshouses built throughout the northeast to accomodate growing armies of the indigent were the insitutions which inculcated those work values in the work house populations because they were needed by the new capitalists. See Michael Katz "In the Shadow of the Poorhouse." maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:722] Re: the mighty greenspan
Jim Devine suggests that "the normal tendencies of capitalism," not Greenspan, control nominal interest rates. Name one. The profit rate establishes an upper limit in the long run, and the administrative costs of intermediation establishes a lower limit, but that leaves Greenspan with plenty of room to maneuver, especially in the short run when such limits don't apply. Michael Perelman suggests that internationalization limits the Fed. Why? There is an external constraint on the Fed's ability to lower interest rates, but it can be removed at any time by implementing exchange controls. Even without exchange controls, there is not limit on the Fed's ability to raise interest rates. All it has to do is slow down its net purchases during the Treasury's refunding operations. There may be some capital inflow, but that would force foreign interest rates up, not U.S. interest rates down. So Michael's original point still stands: Greenspan has the power to kill people. Edwin Dickens
