[PEN-L:1675] Re: Jobless Future
On Mon, 27 Nov 1995, Riccardo Bellofiore wrote: On the theoretical issue, I'm not so sure that it is essential to Marx's reasoning the increasing of proletariat together with capital accumulation. Why is it impossible a raise in the rate (and, maybe, the mass) of surplus value,increasing the rate of (and, maybe,the mass) profit, on a declining employed working class, for a certain period of time? Another matter is the sustainability of such a process. But in fact the jobless future thesis is a contemporary version of the (underconsumptionist?) collapse theory. Riccardo, I have no problem with this statement as a short-term statement, but I still like to be clear when I use "accumulation of capital" that basically the reference is to increasing the exploitable human material (increasing the number of those subject to capital's domination). On another matter, what is the current minimum wage in Italy translated into U.S. $ (and if you had some idea of comparable benefits that would interest me)? Thanks (you could use private e-mail if you don't want to use this list for this). Paul Zarembka
[PEN-L:1676] Howard Rheingold on highway privacy (fwd)
Forwarded message: Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 12:39:02 -0800 (PST) From: Phil Agre [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Howard Rheingold on highway privacy Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-URL: http://communication.ucsd.edu/pagre/rre.html X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: list [Forwarded with permission.] Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 20:33:42 -0800 From: Howard Rheingold [EMAIL PROTECTED] We Need Privacy Protection On Intelligent Highways By Howard Rheingold Ominous steps have been taken recently, steps that perhaps move us all closer to a global surveillance state, but few people are aware of them. Governments around the world are installing "intelligent highways," whose snooping capabilities ought to concern every driver. I recently remarked to my friend Peter, as he drove me around Geneva, that he is scrupulous about obeying the speed limit. He told me in reply that he had on a previous occasion received in his mailbox an envelope containing a photograph of his automobile, the radar detector readout superimposed, along with a notice of his fine. On key Swiss roads, radar detectors automatically videotape speeders, computers automatically recognize the license plate number, check it against a database, and issue mail to the home address of the owner. It happens in Japan, too, and more and more locations around the world.. If my Swiss friend had not told me that story, the hair on the back of neck would not have started to stand up when I read, the next day, in the October 9, 1995 edition of the International Herald Tribune, that Kansas became the tenth state to adopt electronic toll collection. Electronic transponders installed in vehicles automatically communicate with toll collecting machinery via radio, and tolls are automatically deducted from the driver's account. The following day, October 10, the same newspaper reported that Singapore had announced contracts to wire up the road system of the entire city-state. Singapore, never known as a bastion of civil liberties, will be able to track the location of every vehicle, and identify most drivers, on a minute-by-minute basis. A government and private industry initiative now underway proposes multibillion dollar investments in "Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems" (IVHS) in the US. These systems, combining massive numbers of embedded sensors, video cameras, chips embedded in vehicles, and even satellite global positioning signals, are now under construction in every industrialized country. IVHS promise greater convenience and perhaps safety by monitoring highway traffic, routing around jams, and automatically collecting tolls. If these systems are not designed with the privacy of citizens in mind, however, we might be buying a heap of surveillance capabilities for future secret police. This is a technology policy issue where informed groups of citizens can have an impact if we act now. It isn't a matter of banning the technology. It's a matter of making sure today that these systems are designed with the privacy of future citizens in mind. One of the best sources of information about the social impact of IVHS comes from Professor Phil Agre at the University of California, San Diego. Agre stated recently: "Society may decide that it wishes to provide law enforment with generalized abilities to track citizens' movements, but this would clearly be a grave decision - one that should be discussed well in advance rather than building the technical capabilities into ITS systems with virtually no public discussion." There is a technical fix, however. Encryption techniques make it possible to transmit account information from an automobile without disclosing the identity of the owner. However, it is critically important that the early majority of transponder manufacturers build encryption capabilities into their devices. Making privacy a standard will work far better than attempts at legislative regulation after the market has settled on a standard. Agre's reports can be found on the Web at http://communication.ucsd.edu/pagre/rre.html. To access his whimsically-named but extremely useful "Red Rock Eater News Service," via e-mail send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], Subject: archive help. We still have time to do something about this one. We need to ask manufacturers now to consider the importance of building privacy protection into their technology. I support Agre's statement that "People need to use roads to participate in the full range of associations (educational, political, social, religious, labor, charitable, etc) that make up a free society. If we turn the roads into a zone of total surveillance then we chill that fundamental right and undermine the very foundation of freedom." END
[PEN-L:1677] ACM Letter on Copyright (fwd)
Forwarded message: Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 12:36:21 -0800 (PST) From: Phil Agre [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ACM Letter on Copyright Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-URL: http://communication.ucsd.edu/pagre/rre.html X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: list [I have enclosed a letter that the ACM has sent to relevant members of Congress concerning problems with proposed legislation on intellectual property issues, preceded by ACM's press release on the letter.] Date: Fri, 01 Dec 1995 14:09:36 -0500 From: Marc Rotenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ACM Letter on Copyright [...] --- PRESS RELEASE December 1, 1995 US Public Policy Office of the Association for Computing (ACM) Contact: Barbara Simons at (408) 463-5661 USACM web page http://www.acm.org/usacm/ ACM CALLS FOR REVIEW OF COPYRIGHT LEGISLATION RECOMMENDS MODEL POLICY FOR CONSIDERATION WASHINGTON, DC -- The Association for Computing (ACM), an international membership organization of information and computer professionals, today expressed concern about a proposal to extend copyright restrictions to the Internet. In a letter to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, the ACM urged Congressional leaders to pursue further public debate before adopting legislation that "fails to recognize legitimate needs and interests of academic, professional, scientific, and ordinary users of telecommunications technology." The letter is a response to S. 1284 and H.R. 2441, the Information Infrastructure Copyright Act of 1995. The Act is based on a White Paper prepared by a government working group on intellectual property rights chaired by Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks Bruce A. Lehman. This White Paper recommends that Congress restructure the current copyright law. The ACM letter warns that certain provisions in the bill "would impede legitimate needs of the scientific and academic communities to disseminate and study information in a free and speedy fashion." ACM cautions that as written, the bill "expands the legal interpretation of 'copyright infringement,' by making it unlawful to browse through digital libraries found on-line, whether those libraries are located on the Internet or elsewhere." The ACM warns that the inclusion of the word "transmission" in a particular section of the bill "may be interpreted by the courts to cover a transmission to a video screen for period of time long enough for such material to be read." The letter concludes that as written, the Information Infrastructure Copyright Act may criminalize browsing, a widespread activity on the Internet today. ACM submitted a model copyright policy, developed specifically for the dissemination of electronic information. The ACM policy encourages browsing while deterring copying for profit or commercial advantage. Stu Zweben, President of ACM stated that the "ACM has developed an effective policy to deal with copyright in the electronic age. This policy reflects the technical expertise, publishing expertise, and the basic interests of the scientific and educational communities that ACM serves. Policy makers should be cognizant of our work, and account for these interests before enacting legislation on this issue." Zweben said, "It is important that ACM exercise its leadership in information technology by speaking out on this issue." Barbara Simons, Chair of the U.S. Public Policy Committee of ACM said, "Our nation is facing the question of how to integrate the new electronic technology into our society and our legal system. Protection of intellectual property is clearly of great importance. However, we need to exercise caution when considering new laws and restrictions. ACM looks forward to working with Congress to explore appropriate technical and legislative methods for protecting intellectual property." The ACM is an educational and scientific organization otherwise known as the Association for Computing. The membership of the ACM includes more than 85,000 information and computing professionals worldwide, including almost 70,000 persons who reside in the United States. A copy of the ACM Letter on the Information Infrastructure Copyright Act may be found at http://www.acm.org/usacm/copyright_letter.txt. For further information about the ACM public policy activities, contact the USACM at 666 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, Suite 301, Washington, DC 20003, telephone (202) 298-0842 or contact Barbara Simons at (408) 463-5661. The full text of the Lehman White Paper, the Information Infrastructure Copyright Act, and other material concerning intellectual property including the ACM Model Policy is available at the USACM web page (http://www.acm.org/usacm/). [Here is the letter itself] Mr. Chairman: By way of introduction,
[PEN-L:1678] Re: Minimum wages in real terms
At 1:42 PM 12/2/95, Paul Zarembka wrote: Doug, I'm sorry but you are still misreading me. I added a P.S. which implied "OK, if the minimum wage is increased to $10, let the average wage increase to $20 if need be". BOTH increases would take us back to 1950 or maybe only 1973 in terms of the labor time returned to workers from their work hours. THIS IS NOT RADICAL! (altho I don't mind being radical). IT ONLY TAKES US BACK TO AN EARLIER DATE of U.S. capitalism! If it worked then for U.S. capitalism, why not now? Because that was then and this is now. That period was an aberration in the history of the world, a Golden Age of sorts; a period of regulated (i.e. partly stifled) competition, weak foreign economies; a military spending boom; U.S. imperial dominance; low female labor force participation; etc. People who cite Europe as an example ignore the attack on social democracy and welfare capitalism across Western Europe. They too are tending in a more American direction, though of course they still have a long way to go. Here are some numbers to show just how impossible this is. The employment/pop ratio was 56% in 1950; it's 7% now; 12.8 million more people are working now than there would be at 1950 EPR rates. And let's figure the earnings numbers. Let's assume workers are what the BLS calls nonsupervisory workers. BLS shows nonsup's only for private sector workers - 79.6 million out of the 97.4 million private secdtor total or 81.7% (in August 1995). They made an average of $11.47 an hour that week, and worked an average of 34.7 hours. Multiply all numbers together and you get an average of $31,015 a year in annual direct pay per worker, and $2,469 billion for a year. We don't know the sup/nonsup breakdown for government, nor do we know pay, but let's assume they're the same as the private sector. Total worker income was $2,794 billion. That's the amount we're planning to double. Doubling it would raise workers' pay from 39.3% of GDP to Where would it come from? Capital income, of course. Personal income from K in 199Q3 (interest, dividends, rent) was $980.4 billion. (It's hard to allocate self-employment income, but it's only 7% of TPI, so it's safe to ignore it for this sort of work.) Profits were $581 billion. Some share of managerial salaries represent returns to capital - let's assume that they're the amount by which total labor income (wage and salary plus fringes) less worker income exceeds the BLS share of supervisors paid at the average workers' rate. If supervisors were paid like workers, they'd have earned $663 billion, not $1,421 billion, so the return to capital classified as salary works out to about $758 billion. The capital portion of personal income, then, was about $980 plus $758, or $1,739 billion. This estimate is confirmed by another method, the Census Bureau's income distribution figures. The top quintile had 48.6% of income in 1993, or 28.6 points more than their share would warrant. (Talk about Lake Wobegone; in America, almost 80% of the population has below-average incomes. Well, means that is.) That 28.6% times personal income represents an excess of $1,737 billion. Adding in profits would bring total K income to $2,319 billion. To double worker pay, then, would require seizing every penny of capital income, and then some. Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:1679] Re: Minimum wages in real terms
At 2:53 PM 12/3/95, Doug Henwood wrote: sector. Total worker income was $2,794 billion. That's the amount we're planning to double. Doubling it would raise workers' pay from 39.3% of GDP to Ooops. That second number would be 78.6%, of course. Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:1680] Re: Aglietta
Riccardo Bellofiore's comment is attached at the end. Last summer, I have read some works by French Marxists who belong to "Regulation School." Below I'll give the references. My impression of these writers is that they do very serious work in Marxian tradition. The posting by Riccardo Bellofiore is very informative, but critical. I do not know how many would agree with Riccardo's critical points. Fred Moseley, who edited "Limits of Regulation," a special issue of INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, volume 18, no. 2 (Summer 1988) has an excellent introduction essay. He says that Michel Aglietta, Robert Boyer and Alain Lipietz are representative of the Paris-based "Regulation School." On the other hand, Gerard de Bernis and others represent a second stream of regulation theory based in Grenoble. Here are two synopses from Fred's introduction: "Alain Lipietz's essay is an excellent representative of the Paris-based 'regulation school' . . . The chief conclusion of Lipietz's analysis is that the main cause of the decline of the rate of profit during this period was the slowdown in productivity growth which began in the mid-1960s. This productivity slowdown caused both a decline in the share of profit in total income and a decline in the output-capital ratio, both of which led in turn to lthe decline of the rate of profit. Lipietz's explanation of the decline in the rate of profit is thus similar to that presented by Wolff (1986)." "Gerard de Bernis represents a second stream of regulation theory, based in Grenoble. In general, the theorists of this group adhere more rigorously to lthe basic concepts of Marx's theory (such as the labor theory of value and social capital). De Bernis's article, like Lipietz's, begins with a summary of theoretical principles, which are then applied to the current crisis. . . . De Bernis's approach are what he calls the 'two laws of profit' (both based on Marx): the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and the tendency toward the equalization of profit rates across industries and firms." Hugo, you seem to be skeptical of the work by "Regulation School." Do you know any particularwork by them which lead you to such conclusion? Alan (Freeman), you seem to be close to this school geographically/theoretically (am I wrong?). Could you give us your assessment of them and their work? Your comment will be very much appreciated. Doug, I believe you have radio program. Why don't you invite Michel Aglietta to your program and ask him about Regulation School and his position now. Then, we would have first hand information rather than having second guess. REFERENCES: Aglietta, Michel. 1979. A Theory of Capitalist Regulation: The US Experience. London: New Left Books. De Bernis, Gerard Destanne. 1988. Proposition for Analysis of the Crisis. in Fred Moseley (ed.). Limits of Regulation 18(2): 44-67. __ . 1990. On a Marxian Theory of Regulation. Monthly Review. (January): 28-37. Dumenil, Gerard, Mark Glick and Jose Rangel. 1985. The Tendency of The Rate of Profit to Fall in the United States. Part II: The Pattern of Irreversibility. Contemporary Marxism. (Fall): 138-152. Dumenil, Gerard and Dominique Levy. 1993. The Economics of The Profit Rate: Competition, Crises and Historical Tendencies in Capitalism. Brookfield, Vermont: Edward Elgar Publishing Company. Lipetz, Alain. 1986. Behind the Crisis: The Exhaustion of a Regime of Accumulation. A 'Regulation School' Perspective on Some French Empirical Works. Review of Radical Political Economics. 18(12): 13-32. __. 1988. Accumulation, Crises, and Ways Out: Some Methodological Reflections on the Concept of 'Regulation.' In Fred Moseley (ed.) Limits of Regulation. __. 1989. The Debt Problem, European Integration and the New Phase of World Crisis. New Left Review 178(Nov-Dec): 37-50. 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 Fri, 1 Dec 1995, Riccardo Bellofiore wrote: As always within Marxians, if you have three guys you have four opinions. Thus I try to join in with still another perspective on Aglietta. Aglietta wrote a very important thesis (a troisieme cicle thesis, which is similar though not identical to the Ph.D.) in *1974* - the thesis can be read at the Bibliotheque Cujas, the library of law and economics of the Universite' de Paris I. The collective discussion on the thesis helped to define the Paris version of the regulation school (there is also a Grenoble branch around G. Destanne de Bernis, with their own terminology and their more orthodox, communist-party like, ways of seeing the different phases of capitalist
[PEN-L:1681] Re: Minimum wages in real terms
I'll have to give your numbers more thought, Doug, but something is out of sync. Capital had surplus value in 1968, agreed? So, if $7.15 was the minimum wage then (in 1995 dollars), more should be sustainable in real terms in 1995 (as productivity increased). It's as simple as that (unless you think productivity is moving downward). Can you translate your numbers into Marxist categories? Anwar Shaikh--if you are watching this, what do your numbers indicate? Paul Zarembka P.S. There must be a misprint in a sentence of yours. "Here are some numbers to show just how impossible this is. The employment/pop ratio was 56% in 1950; it's 7% now..." I don't get the 7%. --- On Sun, 3 Dec 1995, Doug Henwood wrote: At 1:42 PM 12/2/95, Paul Zarembka wrote: Doug, I'm sorry but you are still misreading me. I added a P.S. which implied "OK, if the minimum wage is increased to $10, let the average wage increase to $20 if need be". BOTH increases would take us back to 1950 or maybe only 1973 in terms of the labor time returned to workers from their work hours. THIS IS NOT RADICAL! (altho I don't mind being radical). IT ONLY TAKES US BACK TO AN EARLIER DATE of U.S. capitalism! If it worked then for U.S. capitalism, why not now? Because that was then and this is now. That period was an aberration in the history of the world, a Golden Age of sorts; a period of regulated (i.e. partly stifled) competition, weak foreign economies; a military spending boom; U.S. imperial dominance; low female labor force participation; etc. People who cite Europe as an example ignore the attack on social democracy and welfare capitalism across Western Europe. They too are tending in a more American direction, though of course they still have a long way to go. Here are some numbers to show just how impossible this is. The employment/pop ratio was 56% in 1950; it's 7% now; 12.8 million more people are working now than there would be at 1950 EPR rates. And let's figure the earnings numbers. Let's assume workers are what the BLS calls nonsupervisory workers. BLS shows nonsup's only for private sector workers - 79.6 million out of the 97.4 million private secdtor total or 81.7% (in August 1995). They made an average of $11.47 an hour that week, and worked an average of 34.7 hours. Multiply all numbers together and you get an average of $31,015 a year in annual direct pay per worker, and $2,469 billion for a year. We don't know the sup/nonsup breakdown for government, nor do we know pay, but let's assume they're the same as the private sector. Total worker income was $2,794 billion. That's the amount we're planning to double. Doubling it would raise workers' pay from 39.3% of GDP to Where would it come from? Capital income, of course. Personal income from K in 199Q3 (interest, dividends, rent) was $980.4 billion. (It's hard to allocate self-employment income, but it's only 7% of TPI, so it's safe to ignore it for this sort of work.) Profits were $581 billion. Some share of managerial salaries represent returns to capital - let's assume that they're the amount by which total labor income (wage and salary plus fringes) less worker income exceeds the BLS share of supervisors paid at the average workers' rate. If supervisors were paid like workers, they'd have earned $663 billion, not $1,421 billion, so the return to capital classified as salary works out to about $758 billion. The capital portion of personal income, then, was about $980 plus $758, or $1,739 billion. This estimate is confirmed by another method, the Census Bureau's income distribution figures. The top quintile had 48.6% of income in 1993, or 28.6 points more than their share would warrant. (Talk about Lake Wobegone; in America, almost 80% of the population has below-average incomes. Well, means that is.) That 28.6% times personal income represents an excess of $1,737 billion. Adding in profits would bring total K income to $2,319 billion. To double worker pay, then, would require seizing every penny of capital income, and then some. Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
