[PEN-L:10260] Re: Business as usual II
[D Shniad:] Nope. It's those who strike a neutral stance at a time of fundamental crisis among conflicting value systems. Am still awash in existential nausea brought on by the State Dept's appalled discovery, after 32 years of wedded bliss, that Mobutu is one evil dude who should have been hung out to dry in the Sixties. In Dante's Inferno, isn't it the hypocrites that rate the hottest spots? Being no Dante buff and having no text at hand, I'll have to give your correction a provisional acceptance, BUT: unless you're talking about plainly theatrical posturing for tactical purposes, I'd count the striking of a neutral stance as _an honest and integral part_ of said fundamental crisis, indeed one of its basic ingredients. North America is chock full of people who foresee - or even currently experience - the depredations of finance capitalism, yet have sincere doubts of the most agonizing sort about what arrangement should follow it. If all such people are _per se_ candidates for the Inferno, that place would make Calcutta look like a stretch of Wyoming. I have nothing to add to this problem, important as it is, but I hope that others have thoughts warranting an extension of the thread. valis Occupied America
[PEN-L:10263] Re: planning and democracy
From: "William S. Lear" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:10254] Re: planning and democracy On Tue, May 20, 1997 at 14:52:05 (PST) Max B. Sawicky writes: Democratically-elected planners can connive to concoct a plan. . . . This is logic of a most curious sort. If Jim, Max, and I, acting as "sub-units", agree on a plan to dine at Chez Maynard's there is no need for some "overlord" to reconcile such a plan. Suppose we extend There is no anology here because three-person economies are not in question. With N persons there would indeed be a need for reconciliation on where to eat, what time, and who picks up the check. This could be done by a democratically-designated overlord or, at somewhat greater cost, by some kind of collective decision-making process. . . . I don't think anyone is claiming that self-serving motives would be rendered obsolete under such a system, parliamentary or otherwise. Nor is anyone arguing that the presence of self-interest precludes acting on "national interest", or vice-versa. Max's argument is, in short, a Manichean straw-man. I think the claim for democracy is, rather, that such motives of self-interest might very well be minimized, and that other values could come to the fore. . . . That's your claim for democracy -- participation breeds altruism or a larger identity or class consciousness or whatever you'd like to call it. But you've yet to say why, except to invoke the necessity of optimism and to scold, inaccurately, about lack of support or faith in the ideal of democracy. I don't think anyone expects a harmonious meshing of minds in the interest of universal humanity, in which self-interest magically evaporates. However, self-interest could very reasonably be expected to be "downgraded" in many cases. Max seems to be seeing democracy as WHY? WHY? WHY? just another arena in which game-theoretic maximization would continue unabated, where I (and, I think Jim Devine), see it as one in which a flourishing sympathy for others might very well be cultivated and extended. None of us can tell whether or not this will come to be---we've got to struggle and fail a thousand times to finally arrive at an answer. I tried to put JD on the spot by asking how a specific relative price would be determined under so-called democratic planning. He then devoted three paragraphs on how a plan of democratic but otherwise unknown origin would set a production quota for a single good. I think asking such specific questions is only of use if one expects to be presented with a shrink-wrapped version of a democratically planned economy. I would think that things of this sort must evolve It is a fundamental question, not a detail. It speaks to the essence of economic planning -- how resources will be allocated, or how decisions about allocation will be made, even if one abstracts from the issue of capital ownership. from a very primitive stage, and that answering such questions (which strike me as an irrelevant fetish with precision) at this point would be extraordinarily difficult. Adam Smith envisioned a system of . . . MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:10265] Re: planning and democracy
On Wed, May 21, 1997 at 09:34:23 (PST) Max B. Sawicky writes: From: "William S. Lear" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:10254] Re: planning and democracy On Tue, May 20, 1997 at 14:52:05 (PST) Max B. Sawicky writes: Democratically-elected planners can connive to concoct a plan. . . . This is logic of a most curious sort. If Jim, Max, and I, acting as "sub-units", agree on a plan to dine at Chez Maynard's there is no need for some "overlord" to reconcile such a plan. Suppose we extend There is no anology here because three-person economies are not in question. With N persons there would indeed be a need for reconciliation on where to eat, what time, and who picks up the check. This could be done by a democratically-designated overlord or, at somewhat greater cost, by some kind of collective decision-making process. Obviously, Max, three-person economies are not in question. You neatly snipped out the part of your claim to which I responded---viz, sub-units "cannot contribute pieces of a plan that some overlord fails to reconcile". I showed how this was false with a small group, and how the falsehood (remember the word "cannot"??) remained as the group scaled upward. Then, you turn around and agree with my point that, no, there really need not be a central "overlord", and that this could indeed be taken care of by "some kind of collective decision-making process". . . . I don't think anyone is claiming that self-serving motives would be rendered obsolete under such a system, parliamentary or otherwise. Nor is anyone arguing that the presence of self-interest precludes acting on "national interest", or vice-versa. Max's argument is, in short, a Manichean straw-man. I think the claim for democracy is, rather, that such motives of self-interest might very well be minimized, and that other values could come to the fore. . . . That's your claim for democracy -- participation breeds altruism or a larger identity or class consciousness or whatever you'd like to call it. But you've yet to say why, except to invoke the necessity of optimism and to scold, inaccurately, about lack of support or faith in the ideal of democracy. Tsk, tsk, Max. Nobody is scolding you. Do you continually need reassurance on this point? I quoted you quite precisely, and was pointing out that you seemed to be drawing a hard line between self-interest and "national interest". I find nothing in the above that could reasonably be construed as an attack on your support for the democratic principle. Now, since Max seems to have overlooked my explanation as to "WHY? WHY? WHY?" we might expect to see a change in outlook---to one of mutual concern leading/overshadowing self-interest (or however you'd like to phrase it)---I'll lay it out again. It is quite simple, and is not solely dependent on sheer "optimism", as Max puts it, though optimism can't hurt. It is simply because there has been a major, very expensive effort, to crush such democratic impulses, and it seems to me a reasonable assumption that this just might flourish were these restraints and active attacks removed. See, for example, Alex Carey's fine book, _Taking the Risk Out of Democracy: Corporate Propaganda versus Freedom and Liberty_ (Univ. of Illinois, 1997) for a sampling of the corporate effort to flush democracy. I also quoted J. S. Mill to the effect that this is a learning process which must occur over time. I will quote him now at length, perhaps in the hope that Max won't again overlook the point that it is a "question of development", something I think is quite reasonable, from basic principles of emotional and intellectual development: In many cases, though individuals may not do the particular thing so well, on the average, as the officers of government, it is nevertheless desirable that it should be done by them, rather than by the government, as a means to their own mental education---a mode of strengthening their active faculties, exercising their judgment, and giving them a familiar knowledge of the subjects with which they are thus left to deal. This is a principal, though not the sole, recommendation of jury trial (in cases not political); of free and popular local and municipal institutions; of the conduct of industrial and philanthropic enterprises by voluntary associations. These are not questions of liberty, and are connected with that subject only by remote tendencies; but they are questions of development. It belongs to a different occasion from the present to dwell on these things as parts of national education; as being, in truth, the peculiar training of a citizen, the practical part of the political education of a free people, taking them out of the narrow circle of personal and family selfishness, and accustoming them to the comprehension
[PEN-L:10266] Re: budgetary matters
From: James Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:10264] budgetary matters Max S. writes Post-1986, US borrowing is financing tax revenue erosion and increases in health care (Medicare and Medicaid). . . . I would amend the above: 1) It's not "health care" that is increasing. It's _spending_ on health care. The phenomenon of health cost inflation is well known. That is, the actual use-value received from Medicare/Medicaid spending has increased much much less (per person) in recent years than the price of the use-value. In yet other terms, it's the medical and insurance industries that have benefitted much more that the Medicare/Medicaid recipients. Quite right, simply in terms of already-published medical cost deflators or price indices. This speaks to the limited increase on the benefit side, but of course it has great bearing, inversely speaking, on the cost in terms of foregone, alternative consumption. I'm not sure how you would quantify 'use-value,' but whatever it is, the increase is much less than spending. It remains the case that there is growth in services consumed per person or per beneficiary in the public programs. . . . (The system [Social Security] is also running a surplus, helping to cover up a big chunk of the government deficit.) This has become the least-effective cover-up in history. Also it might be noted that before the less-than-epochal budget deal, the budget was projected to produce primary surpluses for the next ten years under current law and policies (e.g., the baseline). BTW, is government spending on elementary schools to be seen as "intergenerational redistribution"? After all, kids don't produce anything Sure, why not? Intergenerational redistribution is not a pejorative. and don't pay any taxes. (Parasites all! Let them eat ketchup!) In the future, when the ratio of old geezers to paid workers rises, we will also see a fall in the ratio of kids to paid workers. So the geezers can be paid using the funds freed up by the declining importance of kids. This is well-taken as far as it goes, but kids are much cheaper in the public sector than the elderly, and the disparity grows with time as health care spending grows. Also, it's mostly the states that finance kids and mostly the Feds that finance the old folks, so shifting financing sources entails a non-trivial, albeit managable adjustment in fiscal federalism. I thought that it had been pretty well settled (on pen-l at least) that the problem with social security was not with the ratio of oldsters to youngsters but the slowdown in labor productivity growth (which may have in fact have been reversed). It should be stressed that the Trustees of the SS Good. I don't disagree and didn't say otherwise. . . . There was a pretty good article by Richard Leone (of the 20th Century Fund) on the op-ed page of the April 4, 1997 issue of the LA TIMES, page B9. He points out, among other things, that the ratio of nonworkers (and nonpaid workers) to paid workers was significantly higher in 1964 than currently or in the projections for 2030 when the "boomers" become oldsters. 1964 was not a period of excessive burden for the paid workers. Yes but in 1964 it was the excess of kids, not old people, that was behind the ratio's magnitude, and health care spending had a long way to grow, so to speak. BTW, Doug: who are the Trustees of the SS system? May I guess that many of them are Reagan-era appointees? The president appoints them. They are a pretty moderate group, as were the Reagan/Bush appointees, by and large. The trustees serve a caretaker function more than anything else. Their reports have been consistent and centrist over the years in content and methodology. Policy prescriptions have come from the Social Security Advisory Council, also appointed by the president, which was headed by Edward Gramlich and included some genuine right-wingers, the most notable of whom is Carolyn Weaver. Even so, the recommendations of the council (there were three factions) were mild compared to the rantings of the Kerrey Commission and the Concord Coalition. As a matter of research, I would encourage list'ers to consider the long-term economic outlook. Currently the most harmful influence on current policy debates is the mainstream economic projections for the next fifty years, as embodied in the Social Security trustees reports, the FRB growth models, etc. The left has failed to present a credible, alternative future. It would be most helpful to have discussions and evidence that doom is not preordained, or that practical policies could avert doom. The same follows at the international level, where the combination of aging populations (more old people, not more kids) and sagging labor productivity growth is held to require the dismantling of social insurance systems, a fundamental pillar of the neo-liberal agenda. Cheers, MBS
[PEN-L:10269] Re: Re EU
Trevor (and others): what does it mean to say that "NAFTA is just a trade group"? NAFTA, the CAnada-US FTA, the WTO and other such arrangements impose a set of restrictions on countries' ability to regulate the behaviour of capital. I'm very uncomfortable with the (oft-repeated) proposition that NAFTA's simply about trade. It's one of the corner stones of neoliberalism on the world stage today. Sid In reply to Maggie, I'm not saying that international trade groups like the EU and NAFTA can be turned to progressive purposes. I think that the EU and NAFTA are quite different types of initiative. NAFTA is just a trade group, and I do not see any progressive possibilities in it. As far as the EU is concerned, I do not consider it to be just a trade group - it is precisely the political dimension that make it different from NAFTA; also I do not see it so much as an international organisation, but rather as part of the process of creating a (West) European state structure. As far as progressive initiatives are concerned, I agree with Maggie. I think they will only be realised if they are pushed for by strong union and/or popular movements. But I think on key issues like shorter hours, such movements will need to be developed at a European level if they are to be effective. Trevor Evans Berlin
[PEN-L:10276] Boston conference on the MAI -- please forward
Boston Cambridge Alliance for Democracy c/o Jean Dunbar Maryborn, Co-chair 427 River St. Norwell MA 02061 617-826-2482, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5/21/97 For Immediate Release Contact: Jean Maryborn 617-826-2482 NATIONAL SPEAKERS COME TO BOSTON FOR CITIZENS' CONFERENCE ON MAI GATT, NAFTA, now MAI -- A First in the Nation Conference on the Next Step in Corporate Governance. Boston. Saturday; May 31, a first in the nation citizens' conference titled "MAI: Big Business Over the Rest of Us?" brings national experts in the areas of business, public policy and citizen advocacy for debate over the merits of MAI, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. The event is 9:30 to 5:00, at Devlin Hall, Boston College, 140 Commonwealth Ave. Chestnut Hill. The Agreement, negotiated quietly by government and trade representatives of the 29 richest nations, is designed to free the flow of investment capital and profits. The Conference will be the first time for citizens to debate the issue, explore and expose it to public scrutiny, asking how it will effect their lives, their jobs, their environment, and the ability of their elected governments to control corporate behavior on issues important to them. The program features: Keynote: Lori Wallach of Public Citizen, the watchdog group in Washington DC founded by Ralph Nader, setting the context of MAI. Introduced by Ronnie Dugger, Alliance for Democracy, the talk will be followed by a discussion period, then workshops on potential MAI impact, with experts in their fields. (List attached.) Debate on the potential impact of MAI, moderated by US Rep. John Tierney. Participants: Cynthia Beltz, American Enterprise Institute; Ronnie Dugger, founder of the Alliance for Democracy; Lori Wallach, Public Citizen. Marino Markesh of the National Association of Manufacturers has been invited, plus a representative of the Department of State, Treasury, Commerce or the EPA. Economic Alternatives: In Boston's proud tradition of fostering independent thinking, the day will round out with Pat Choate, Vice Presidential Candidate, Reform Party, and Hilary French of the Worldwatch Institute, looking at alternative economics. The conference is sponsored by local chapters of the Alliance for Democracy, Public Citizen, and the Sociology Department of Boston College, with a wide variety of co-sponsors, (list attached.) Public Citizen and the Alliance expect this first in the nation event to be replicated across the country. Cost is $10, $8. preregistered, $5 low income . To pre-register, send a check by 5/28 to "Boston/Cambridge Alliance for Democracy," c/o Adams, 10 Newland Rd, Arlington MA 02174. For more information: 617- 266-8687 or 508-872-6137. Web page: http://world.std.com/~dadams/MAI. Devlin Hall is handicap accessible. Specialized Workshops: The trade agreements' potential impacts on: Small and Medium Business. Raymond Vernon (Kennedy School, Harvard), and Alan Tonelson (US Business Industry Council) Labor. Thea Lee (AFL-CIO) Regional Development. Scott Nova (Preamble Collaborative) Environment. Andrew Deutz (Woods Hole Research Center) On and by Media. Charles Sennott (Boston Globe) Culture, Community and Organizing : Mary Zepernick, Virginia Rasmussen (Program on Corporations, Law Democracy; WILPF) Law the States. Robert Stumberg (Georgetown University Law Center) Political Power and Democracy. State Rep. Jim Marzilli, Mel King, Simon Billenness (Franklin Research and Development Institute) Workshops to be followed by an Action/lunch-workshop "How to Campaign: Making Your Convictions Count," with Simon Billenness, Scott Nova, State Reps. Jim Marzilli and Byron Rushing. Co-sponsors: AFL-CIO, Bikes Not Bombs, Boston CISPES, Center for Popular Economics of UMass, Amherst; Community Church of Boston, CPPAX, Dollars and Sense, 5th District Citizens Concerned about Central America, Franklin Research and Development Corp., Rev. David Garcia, Dir. Episcopal City; Mission, Mass. Federation of Teachers, MassPIRG, Mobilization for Survival, New England Council for Responsible Investing, Northeast Action, Sisters of Saint Joseph Office of Justice and Peace, United Church of Christ/Norwell Peace and Justice Committee. Background: by Paul Johnson 508-281-2699 Will International Business Over-ride Laws Passed by our Elected Governments? At a time when more responsibility is being shifted to state and local government to deal with social needs, new laws are being drafted at the international level which will restrict the power of state and local government to affect economic development, environmental or labor standards, and the retention of domestic industries. The Multilateral Agreement on Investment, being prepared by O.E.C.D. (The European-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) with the United States, is designed to make it easier for
[PEN-L:10275] Univ of Calif @ Santa Cruz Strike (fwd)
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed May 21 15:23 PDT 1997 X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 18:18:23 -0400 Sender: Forum on Labor in the Global Economy [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Sam Lanfranco [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Univ of Calif @ Santa Cruz Strike This is a message from the University of California At Santa Cruz, where a strike of technical employees is underway at the moment. My own university, having just gone through a 51-day faculty strike, is rich with similar stories. - Sam Lanfranco LABOR-L ListManagement --Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 13:45:35 -0800 From: Ina Clausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: to share with list Our UPTE-CWA Santa Cruz president received this letter. wanted to share a letter I received from a UCSC UPTE member, Lance Bresee, who works for Lick Observatory at UCSC. This letter, to me, expresses what we should be trying to achieve both individually and collectively. It would be difficult for me to put into words how I felt when I received this letter, but "grateful" comes immediately to mind. I also feel proud to be part of the organization he describes. We make mistakes, but UPTE is a fine organization and it is made up of many, many fine people. Lindey Cloud President UPTE-Santa Cruz This morning, when I arrived at work, a coworker told me about driving by the UPTE members holding the banner at the base of campus, and giving them the "thumbs down" sign. He seemed proud of this childish gesture. "They looked at me like they couldn't understand why I would do that." He said. "Why DID you do that?" I asked, not understanding. I heard that he resented the union for costing him pay raises. This logic, which leads one to conclude that UPTE is responsible for the actions of the University which a posted notice shows to have been illegal, according to a PERB ruling, seems to me to be the equivalent of suggesting that wealthy people, by owning valuable possessions, are responsible for burglars. The reality, which seems clear today after becoming involved myself and witnessing things which my coworker fearfully avoids looking at, is that the University is trying to punish the tech unit for becoming unionized, and they do not care what it costs. The small amount requested for retroactive pay increases, which one UC Chancellor described as mere "noise in the system" in the UC budget, has already been exceeded by the costs of 27 months of bargaining and the moneys held up by the California State Legislature. Recently, while riding back from the UAW picket line with a fellow union member after a meeting to discuss the current action, my new friend commented that he had "never expected to get in this deep." We were both candidates to meet with the Chancellor on that Friday. I never even thought I would JOIN this union, much less volunteer to represent it in a face-to-face meeting with the chancellor. I did not vote for the union back in 1994. I had no desire to be represented by a union. When the union won the election, I had no desire to join. I first started paying dues to the union when the university illegally withheld the 2.2% raises. I could see that this was a clear violation of contract law, and knew that UC could not possibly believe this action legitimate. Therefore, UC was willing to violate the law to punish the union. This action frightened me; I realized that my employer was capable of illegal actions in retribution to employees. I knew that we would have to sue to get the money, and that lawyers did not work for free, so I began paying union dues. I began to become active in the union when I saw my coworkers sitting and waiting to see if "the union" would get a good contract without support. I watched as UC negotiators delayed and argued against giving techs the same raises they gave every one else, occasionally showing up at the last minute with an excuse rather than a proposal, until they could claim that retroactive pay could not be provided as it was "already spent." In this time I married. My new wife had a child, and another was on the way. We were living in my one-bedroom apartment, and I knew I needed better shelter for my family. You can read my story in the current City on a Hill, but it became clear that, if UC negotiators were successful in breaking this union, it would mean no raise and a possible pay cut. This would spell disaster for my family. No longer could I passively sit back and let these few people do the dirty work of providing for my family by fighting this new threat. As I participated in union meetings, I saw that the nature of the union changed; I saw the impact of my involvement in the meetings. Even though I abstained from every vote,
[PEN-L:10273] democracy planning
Maurice Foisy writes: In our state (and evrywhere in the U.S.) when groups such as labor or the Democratic party attempt to rationalize the use of scarce resources - through targeting on winnable districts, etc.- the only perspective from which this makes sense is a centralized one, i.e. at the state level. The result has usually been that they fail or refuse to respond to grassroots support - focusing instead upon professionalized empirical indicators of success Do you think this is because the "rationality" we associate with planning is not genuinely democratic, i.e. based on value consensus achieved through discussion or is it something else? I think that in most cases the planners are pursuing their own career goals subject to the constraints put on them by the large number of competing interest groups. In our society, of course, the main shared characteristic of most of these interest groups (especially the powerful ones) is profit-seeking and the preservation of the societal status quo. Further, the planners want the issues to be simple. If you bring in the unwashed masses (i.e., the people) then suddenly issues get messy and complicated, asn issue that can't be solved by technocratic "expertise." Both the pressure from the business class and the need to cloak planning in the mystique of expertise encourage undemocratic ways. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
[PEN-L:10274] Very HOT new Company Generating INTENSE Interest
Chosen "Company of the Month" for May '97 in Network Opportunities Magazine **HOTTEST NEW MLM ON THE NET REQUIRES NO SPONSORING!!** ""EASIEST HOME BASED BUSINESS THAT ANYONE CAN DO"" Failsafe Sponsoring can make you between $600 and $13,000 per month.!! This is simply the most explosive company in MLM history!!! The simple facts are: 1. No personal selling of products! 2. No personal sponsoring required! 3. No meetings! 4. No distributor kits to buy! 5. No sign-up fees! We have designed a system that enables the 95% of MLMers who have never earned more than a few hundred dollars to finally earn between $600 and $2000 per month within their first few months. This allows most families to no longer have to rely on the income from one job and one boss. Receive this Powerful High-Tech Recruiting System and Online Enrollment Database plus these benefits: 1. Distributors placed in your downline at no cost to you! 2. Only one customer needed-yourself! 3. A 100% committed downline! 4. Commission checks increase every month! 5. Most lucrative pay plan in the industry! 6. Earn thousands in your first few months! 7. COMPLETELY AUTOMATED SPONSORING SYSTEM! 8. Company provides FREE business tools! This without a doubt the most aggressive MLM company that almost guarantees that anybody can earn money without sponsoring even one person! They even guarantee you a check the VERY FIRST MONTH!! To learn more about the opportunity of a lifetime just e-mail me and put and put "opportunity" in the subject area and I will get the address back to you propmtly. This is for real. I look to hear from you soon. The time is now! Sincerely, Mitch --- Our research indicates that the preceding material may be of interest to you. If you feel that you received this letter in error, please respond with the word "remove" in the subject field and our software will automatically remove you from our mailing list.
[PEN-L:10272] Re: Inefficiencies of planning? ;)
From: Tavis Barr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:10267] Inefficiencies of planning? ;) During the heat of the space race in the 1960's, NASA decided it needed a ball point pen to write in the zero gravity confines of its space capsules. After considerable research and development, the Astronaut Pen was developed at a cost of $1 million U.S. The pen worked and also enjoyed some modest success as a novelty item back here on earth. The Soviet Union, faced with the same problem, used a pencil. Let's not forget that the U.S. defense sector is itself a planned economy. MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:10271] Re: planning and democracy
I've been bothered by a conundrum of planning and democracy in the past decade or so. In our state (and evrywhere in the U.S.) when groups such as labor or the Democratic party attempt to rationalize the use of scarce resources - through targeting on winnable districts, etc.- the only perspective from which this makes sense is a centralized one, i.e. at the state level. The result has usually been that they fail or refuse to respond to grassroots support - focusing instead upon professionalized empirical indicators of success. Both the value committments and "tacit knowledge" which serves as a basis for local support become irrelevant or suspect. The result is much like management's typical disregard of "morale" as a factor in sucess. Do you think this is because the "rationality" we associate with planning is not genuinely democratic, i.e. based on value consensus achieved through discussion or is it something else? -- A more generalized statement of this practical problem is addressed in a couple of articles: Ray Kemp "Planning, Public Hearings and the Politics of Discourse" and John Forester, "Critical Theory and Planning Practice" in _Critical Theory and Public Life_, ed by John Forester, MIT Press, 1985 Maurice Foisy Political Science Western Washington University Bellingham, WA
[PEN-L:10270] Kuttner on markets (long)
Copyright 1997 by The American Prospect, Inc. Preferred Citation: Robert Kuttner, "The Limits of Markets," The American Prospect no. 31 (March- April 1997): 28-41 (http://epn.org/prospect/31/31kutt.html). THE LIMITS OF MARKETS By Robert Kuttner Adapted by the author from Everything for Sale: The Virtues and Limits of Markets, Alfred A. Knopf / Twentieth Century Fund, published January 1997. The claim that the freest market produces the best economic outcome is the centerpiece of the conservative political resurgence. If the state is deemed incompetent to balance the market's instability, temper its inequality, or correct its myopia, there is not much left of the mixed economy and the modern liberal project. Yet while conservatives resolutely tout the superiority of free markets, many liberals are equivocal about defending the mixed economy. The last two Democratic presidents have mainly offered a more temperate call for the reining in of government and the liberation of the entrepreneur. The current vogue for deregulation began under Jimmy Carter. The insistence on budget balance was embraced by Bill Clinton, whose pledge to "reinvent government" was soon submerged in a shared commitment to shrink government. Much of the economics profession, after an era of embracing a managed form of capitalism, has also reverted to a new fundamentalism about the virtues of markets. So there is today a stunning imbalance of ideology, conviction, and institutional armor between right and left. At bottom, three big things are wrong with the utopian claims about markets. First, they misdescribe the dynamics of human motivation. Second, they ignore the fact that civil society needs realms of political rights where some things are not for sale. And third, even in the economic realm, markets price many things wrong, which means that pure markets do not yield optimal economic outcomes. There is at the core of the celebration of markets relentless tautology. If we begin by assuming that nearly everything can be understood as a market and that markets optimize outcomes, then everything leads back to the same conclusion—marketize! If, in the event, a particular market doesn't optimize, there is only one possible conclusion—it must be insufficiently market-like. This is a no-fail system for guaranteeing that theory trumps evidence. Should some human activity not, in fact, behave like an efficient market, it must logically be the result of some interference that should be removed. It does not occur that the theory mis-specifies human behavior. The school of experimental economics, pioneered by psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, has demonstrated that people do not behave the way the model specifies. People will typically charge more to give something up than to acquire the identical article; economic theory would predict a single "market-clearing" price. People help strangers, return wallets, leave generous tips in restaurants they will never visit again, give donations to public radio when theory would predict they would rationally "free-ride," and engage in other acts that suggest they value general norms of fairness. To conceive of altruism as a special form of selfishness misses the point utterly. Although the market model imagines a rational individual, maximizing utility in an institutional vacuum, real people also have civic and social selves. The act of voting can be shown to be irrational by the lights of economic theory, because the "benefit" derived from the likelihood of one's vote affecting the outcome is not worth the "cost." But people vote as an act of faith in the civic process, as well as to influence outcomes. In a market, everything is potentially for sale. In a political community, some things are beyond price. One's person, one's vote, one's basic democratic rights do not belong on the auction block. We no longer allow human beings to be bought and sold via slavery (though influential Chicago economists have argued that it would be efficient to treat adoptions as auction markets). While the market keeps trying to invade the polity, we do not permit the literal sale of public office. As James Tobin wrote, commenting on the myopia of his own profession, "Any good second-year graduate student in economics could write a short examination paper proving that voluntary transactions in votes would increase the welfare of the sellers as well as the buyers." But the issue here is not just the defense of a civic realm beyond markets or of a socially bearable income distribution. History also demonstrates that in much of economic life, pure reliance on markets produces suboptimal outcomes. Market forces, left to their own devices, lead to avoidable financial panics and depressions, which in turn lead to political chaos. Historically, government has had to intervene, not only to redress the gross inequality of market-determined income
[PEN-L:10268] re: inefficientcies of planning
But you've got to admit that the high-tech astronaut pen did produce some good jokes on Seinfeld. During the heat of the space race in the 1960's, NASA decided it needed a ball point pen to write in the zero gravity confines of its space capsules. After considerable research and development, the Astronaut Pen was developed at a cost of $1 million U.S. The pen worked and also enjoyed some modest success as a novelty item back here on earth. The Soviet Union, faced with the same problem, used a pencil. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
[PEN-L:10267] Inefficiencies of planning? ;)
-- Forwarded message -- During the heat of the space race in the 1960's, NASA decided it needed a ball point pen to write in the zero gravity confines of its space capsules. After considerable research and development, the Astronaut Pen was developed at a cost of $1 million U.S. The pen worked and also enjoyed some modest success as a novelty item back here on earth. The Soviet Union, faced with the same problem, used a pencil.
[PEN-L:10264] budgetary matters
Max S. writes Post-1986, US borrowing is financing tax revenue erosion and increases in health care (Medicare and Medicaid). ... Presently, public borrowing in the U.S. ... is making possible an intergenerational redistribution (e.g., borrowing finances health and nursing home care for the elderly now, future taxes service the resulting debt). I would amend the above: 1) It's not "health care" that is increasing. It's _spending_ on health care. The phenomenon of health cost inflation is well known. That is, the actual use-value received from Medicare/Medicaid spending has increased much much less (per person) in recent years than the price of the use-value. In yet other terms, it's the medical and insurance industries that have benefitted much more that the Medicare/Medicaid recipients. 2) "Intergenerational redistribution" seems a very narrow way of looking at this issue. The US social security system is a inadequate way of handling the problem of the systematic insecurity that prevents workers from engaging in suffient life-cycle saving (and the capitalist system's systematic destruction of previous systems of community self-support for the aged). (The system is also running a surplus, helping to cover up a big chunk of the government deficit.) BTW, is government spending on elementary schools to be seen as "intergenerational redistribution"? After all, kids don't produce anything and don't pay any taxes. (Parasites all! Let them eat ketchup!) In the future, when the ratio of old geezers to paid workers rises, we will also see a fall in the ratio of kids to paid workers. So the geezers can be paid using the funds freed up by the declining importance of kids. I thought that it had been pretty well settled (on pen-l at least) that the problem with social security was not with the ratio of oldsters to youngsters but the slowdown in labor productivity growth (which may have in fact have been reversed). It should be stressed that the Trustees of the SS system assume that labor productivity growth and thus wages are going be growing much more slowly than suggested by the historical record. So the predictions of the SS system going deficit in the future are pretty pessimistic, too pessimistic given the evidence at hand. There was a pretty good article by Richard Leone (of the 20th Century Fund) on the op-ed page of the April 4, 1997 issue of the LA TIMES, page B9. He points out, among other things, that the ratio of nonworkers (and nonpaid workers) to paid workers was significantly higher in 1964 than currently or in the projections for 2030 when the "boomers" become oldsters. 1964 was not a period of excessive burden for the paid workers. BTW, Doug: who are the Trustees of the SS system? May I guess that many of them are Reagan-era appointees? in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
[PEN-L:10262] Re: Business as usual
Sid and Valis, You're both right. Dante casts Pope Celestino V's self-avowed 'neutrality' as hypocritical. Pope Celestino V, who resigned in 1294 - "the great refusal." Inferno, Canto III, line 58 When I had recognized a few of them, I saw and knew the shadow of that man Who out of cowardice made the great refusal. I understood at once beyond all doubt That this was the miserable and useless gang Of those who please neither God nor his enemies. Regards, Tom Walker ^^ knoW Ware Communications | Vancouver, B.C., CANADA | "Only in mediocre art [and in spreadsheets] [EMAIL PROTECTED] |does life unfold as fate." (604) 669-3286| ^^ The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm
[PEN-L:10261] Re: Time Out for Cyber Art
Greg has decided he would like to stay at your place, so I'll email Jill. Elaine
[PEN-L:10259] Re War and Primitive Accumulation
Max, in his response to my request for references in Marx to war --- public debt --- exploitation of workers --- primitive accumulation implies disagreement with Marx and the relationship of war to public debt and defends public debt contracted to finance social services. I should point out my interest is not in the current situation (which is hardly one of primitive accumulation in any case.) In Canada today the military budget is miniscule and, thanks to the invaluable help the Canadian forces were in fighting our recent floods, I would hardly want to cut them any further. Furthermore, as a strong supporter of keynesian demand management, I would hardly want to cut spending on social programs at a time when unemployment is running at almost 10 per cent. My question was in reference to a research project I have under way about the impact of the 1st World War, in particular on how it was financed and the effect it had in consolidating industrial capitalism and creating a rentier class and promoting class conflict which broke out at the end of the war (Winnipeg General Strike in particular but also the farmers' revolt through the Progressive Party.) The Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations (1939) explictly blames the financing of the war for the emergence of class and regional conflicts but without any theoretical understanding or interpretation. What I am attempting to do is a reinterpretation of the accepted 'conservative' view of the importance of the war. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba ps. Max, thanks for the reference to epn.org -- a very useful site for progressive and liberal web pages. For the rest of pen-l-ers, note that I have receive only 3 responses on suggestions of progressive web sites. No one else have any recommendations?
[PEN-L:10258] Re EU
In reply to Maggie, I'm not saying that international trade groups like the EU and NAFTA can be turned to progressive purposes. I think that the EU and NAFTA are quite different types of initiative. NAFTA is just a trade group, and I do not see any progressive possibilities in it. As far as the EU is concerned, I do not consider it to be just a trade group - it is precisely the political dimension that make it different from NAFTA; also I do not see it so much as an international organisation, but rather as part of the process of creating a (West) European state structure. As far as progressive initiatives are concerned, I agree with Maggie. I think they will only be realised if they are pushed for by strong union and/or popular movements. But I think on key issues like shorter hours, such movements will need to be developed at a European level if they are to be effective. Trevor Evans Berlin
[PEN-L:10256] Re: planning and democracy
On Tue, May 20, 1997 at 20:40:01 (PST) peter donohue writes: Instead of debating whether a "national parliament" or "democratically-elected planners" might reach "the socially efficient resolution," wouldn't it be more useful to discuss building organizations of popular power that might cultivate and learn through multiple centers of decision making and various "logics of action?" Especially, since decision making AFTER the revolution will be determined largely by those organizations of popular power we build today? ... I can't comment on the literature cited (some of it sounds a bit off), but this last paragraph is pretty much what I suggested---that even though a plan might have a "locus of scope" (converting to English, "scope") that were global, delegation/fragmentation could occur to a great extent. Also, the notion of building organizations "that might cultivate and learn" is precisely what I meant when I wrote that Mill saw the practice of democracy as a "question of development". I think it would be very useful to discuss this "building organizations of popular power" (BOPPing?) today. I do think that either before doing this, or coincident with it, we need to examine (as I've stressed in my exchanges with Wojtek Sokolowski) current institutional barriers to their implementation and operation, and in a nod to Wojtek, any (orthogonal) psychological/sociological barriers to using these institutions (though, my guess is that the barriers you find will be highly dependent on the nature and form of the institution, but that's just a guess). Bill
