[PEN-L:1982] Re: electric utility deregulation
Tom Lehman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm curious if anyone in California has any comments about their personal experiences with electric utility deregulation. I understand that your electric bills have gone up due to deregulation. Any other effects? I have just written a piece on the latest step in electricity utility deregulation in New Zealand. It's long (about 5,000 words) and aimed at New Zealanders but if anyone's interested... Bill Rosenberg
[PEN-L:1984] Re: Are We are all Keynsians Now?
Thanks for the beaut post, Frank. Very compelling and, even in the blistering heat of an antipodean summer, rather chillingly so. Apparently some commentator has of late (might it have been Christopher Hitchens?) written a scary piece about just how similar are the ways we have treated Russia's people and the way our grannies treated the Germans. The idea being that like ingredients are wont to produce like dishes. Can anyone point me at this article? Of course, the second world war was not a function of indignant fascism alone - the bursting of a huge world-wide techno-led share market bubble was equally necessary. Thank goodness for that, eh? Rob.
[PEN-L:1998] BLS Daily Report
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --_=_NextPart_000_01BE3A54.BBBD19E0 BLS DAILY REPORT, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6, 1999 RELEASED TODAY: In October 1998, there were 1,554 mass layoff actions by employers as measured by new filings for unemployment insurance benefits during the month. Each action involved at least 50 persons from a single establishment, and the number of workers involved totaled 160,888. The number of layoff events and initial claimants for unemployment insurance were higher this October than in October 1997. The total of layoff events from January through October 1998, at 12,762, was about the same as in the prior year (12,170), while the total number of initial claimants, at 1,419,165, was higher (1,270,463). ... Construction spending rose 0.9 percent in November, with strong gains in residential and public building, the Commerce Department says. ... (Daily Labor Report, page A-2)_Construction spending rose for the sixth consecutive month. ... (New York Times, page C18)_Construction spending jumped, showing that a main source of the U.S. economy's strength remains healthy. ... (Wall Street Journal, page A2) U.S. sales of cars and light trucks ended 1998 on a strong note for most auto makers. The trend was the same as it has been for several years: Soaring sales of light trucks overcame declining demand for cars. ... (Washington Post, page F1; Wall Street Journal, page A2)_DaimlerChrysler and Ford beat analysts' December sales forecasts, benefiting from strong truck demand and heavy discounts as the industry's second-best U.S. sales year ended. ... (New York Times, page C3). "Remaking the U.S. Economy: More Signs of Manufacturing's Weakened Role" is the title of "Trendlines" by Tim Smart (Washington Post, page F1). Smart says that, although manufacturing has been on the decline lately, the economy in general has been healthy, as shown in construction spending, consumer spending, and car sales, among other indicators. ... The consumer-driven and services-dependent economy, largely domestic in its orientation, is robust. Contrast that strength with the weakness shown in the part of the economy that relies upon exports and makes goods. Prices in that sector tend to be set globally. ... U.S. factories have cut payrolls by nearly a quarter million since March 1998, with slack demand from economically troubled Asia, a strong dollar, and cheaper foreign imports contributing to the job loss, say analysts contacted by the Bureau of National Affairs. But, they add, technological advances heighten productivity, and an increasingly popular management philosophy favoring a leaner workforce has also driven manufacturers to cut staff. Payroll declines in manufacturing are not a new story. In fact, they are a long-term trend. However, the recent large job losses focus attention on the issue. ... U.S. factories cut their workforce by 47,000 in November, with job losses widespread across industries, according to data from the BLS establishment survey. ... BLS Commissioner Katharine Abraham said the Asian crisis depressed employment in some sectors, especially in electronic equipment and industrial machinery. ... (Daniel J. Roy in Daily Labor Report, page C-1). The prevailing view at the three-day meeting of the American Economic Association was that high stock prices probably reflect the economy's actual strength and not a speculative bubble that could burst. ... In the minds of many economists, the stock market serves mainly as a gauge of the real economy and a stimulus for spending. What accounts much more for the strong economy, in this view, is the happy combination since 1995 of four factors: robust job creation, rising output, falling unemployment, and minimal inflation. ... (New York Times, page C2). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health released a report that called job stress "a threat to the health of workers" and urged companies and employees to help reduce their risk. ... NIOSH cited numerous studies of workplace stress that have been conducted in the past decade, including a 1998 survey by the Families and Work Institute that found that 26 percent of workers said they were "often or very often burned out or stressed by their work." The report also said tensions appear to be on the rise, citing a 1997 survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates, which found that three-quarters of employees believe the worker today has more on-the-job stress than a generation ago. ... NIOSH pinned the blame on a variety of factors, including overwhelming workloads, poor social environments at work, conflicting or uncertain expectations, job insecurity, and loss of control over the pace of work because of computerization. ... (Washington Post, page F1). The cost of employee health benefits at large companies will rise almost
[PEN-L:2003] Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
Ellen quotes: BLS DAILY REPORT, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6, 1999 The prevailing view at the three-day meeting of the American Economic Association was that high stock prices probably reflect the economy's actual strength and not a speculative bubble that could burst. ... In the minds of many economists, the stock market serves mainly as a gauge of the real economy and a stimulus for spending. Ellen writes: Over the last few days, I have been looking over data on wages, exports, bankruptcies, etc. in the former so-called emerging markets. International capital, it seems, is really putting the screws to the laboring classes in Asia and South America. Asian assets are on sale at rock-bottom prices; commodity prices are so low, they're practically giving them away. Is this not the triumph of capitalism? Little wonder the Dow hit 9500. IMHO, the strength of the US stock market first and foremost reflects the strength of the US profit rate, with the speculative bubble being present but secondary. Orthodox economists tend to conflate what's good for capital (the profit rate, a high stock market) with what's good for the people (the GDP and its distribution, with limited negative environmental impact, etc., etc.) So it's natural that they would make this mistake. The question is whether the high US profit rate will persist given the mess that the rest of the world is in, not to mention the dynamic problems the result when an economy enjoys (and suffers from) a high and rising profit rate. (See my 1994 RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY paper, on-line at: http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/subpages/depr/D0.html or /Depr.html) Can the "triumph of capitalism" (or more accurately of some sectors of US capitalism) persist? It didn't after 1929, the previous period of similar capitalist triumphalism. So the question is: are we currently in the historical analogy of 1929 or of 1927? Ellen, it was good to see you at the convention! Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html
[PEN-L:1996] electric utility deregulation
Dear Gene and Pen-L, Our Ohio AFL-CIO talking points are weak on the California electric utility deregulation situation. Here is an example, " California...The consumers lost $9.00 for evey Dollar that they saved. Some large utilities are getting out of the Residential market." What's this all about? Your email pal, Tom L.
[PEN-L:2004] Re: BLS Daily Report
strength and not a speculative bubble that could burst...In the minds of many economists, the stock market serves mainly as a gauge of the real economy and a stimulus for spending. I guess that means that "in the minds of many economists" the real economy grew 2.5% yesterday but then shrunk a bit today. Tom Walker http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
[PEN-L:2002] Re: BLS Daily Report
At 10:45 AM 1/7/99 -0500, you wrote: BLS DAILY REPORT, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6, 1999 The prevailing view at the three-day meeting of the American Economic Association was that high stock prices probably reflect the economy's actual strength and not a speculative bubble that could burst. ... In the minds of many economists, the stock market serves mainly as a gauge of the real economy and a stimulus for spending. Over the last few days, I have been looking over data on wages, exports, bankruptcies, etc. in the former so-called emerging markets. International capital, it seems, is really putting the screws to the laboring classes in Asia and South America. Asian assets are on sale at rock-bottom prices; commodity prices are so low, they're practically giving them away. Is this not the triumph of capitalism? Little wonder the Dow hit 9500. Ellen Frank
[PEN-L:2007] Re: Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Jim Devine wrote: Ellen writes: Over the last few days, I have been looking over data on wages, exports, bankruptcies, etc. in the former so-called emerging markets. International capital, it seems, is really putting the screws to the laboring classes in Asia and South America. Asian assets are on sale at rock-bottom prices; commodity prices are so low, they're practically giving them away. Is this not the triumph of capitalism? Little wonder the Dow hit 9500. IMHO, the strength of the US stock market first and foremost reflects the strength of the US profit rate, with the speculative bubble being present but secondary. Orthodox economists tend to conflate what's good for capital (the profit rate, a high stock market) with what's good for the people (the GDP and its distribution, with limited negative environmental impact, etc., etc.) So it's natural that they would make this mistake. The question is whether the high US profit rate will persist given the mess that the rest of the world is in, not to mention the dynamic problems the result when an economy enjoys (and suffers from) a high and rising profit rate. (See my 1994 RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY paper, on-line at: http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/subpages/depr/D0.html or /Depr.html) Can the "triumph of capitalism" (or more accurately of some sectors of US capitalism) persist? It didn't after 1929, the previous period of similar capitalist triumphalism. So the question is: are we currently in the historical analogy of 1929 or of 1927? It seems, though, that US capital has found ways to benefit from the mess in the rest of the world. GE, for example, made huge purchases in Asia, which it had been eyeing and organizing for some time but had found them too expensive. The capital goods are so cheap now that even if it takes years for Asia to recover, GE will make out like bandits. And their stock will continue to soar. It's the old maxim about a crisis causing consolidation of capital, but the winners and losers were already mapped out before the crisis started. If we believe that profit rates equalize across sectors, then this banditry should create rising profitability in the US by raising the opportunity cost of investing. This would not preclude shrinkage in the "real" sector; in fact, it might even encourage it. Cheers, Tavis
[PEN-L:2011] profits
Rob Schaap wrote: G'day Ellen and Jim, Jim writes: IMHO, the strength of the US stock market first and foremost reflects the strength of the US profit rate I get confused here. Many 1998 annual reports within the Fortune 500 pointed at DECLINING profits, no? And might we not be conflating 'core business' performance with profits made on the stock markets? I mean, if a firm spends a heap on buy backs ( other stocks, too, I s'pose) on a roaring Wall St, simply because of CEO stock options and the fact that making the widgets of yore doesn't offer the returns you can get from shares - why, wouldn't profit statements actually be reflecting Wall St (and a bubble at that) rather than underpinning it? Sorry if this is crap. I just gotta know, that's all. Most of the improvement in US corporate profitability is the result of lower interest costs. Add together profits and interest (to get some measure of the corporate surplus) and there's little change since the early 1980s as a share of GDP. Doug
[PEN-L:2014] Re: profits
Doug writes: Most of the improvement in US corporate profitability is the result of lower interest costs. Add together profits and interest (to get some measure of the corporate surplus) and there's little change since the early 1980s as a share of GDP. Looking at the SURVEY OF CURRENT BUSINESS, June 1998 on profit rates (p. 9, table 9): * the share of net interest income in domestic income (NI) fell from 4.0 percent in 1992 to 2.4 percent in 1997 (a change of 1.6 percentage points = dNI), as Doug says. * the income share of profits from current production (CP) rose from 11.4 percent to 16.8 over the same period (a rise of 5.4 percentage points = dCP). * the share of total property income (TP, the sum of these) rose from 15.4 percent to 19.2 percent over the same period (a 3.8 percentage point rise = dTP). The rise of CP is the key fact we want explained in this discussion. If we see the share of profits from current production as being determined by the share of total property income minus the share of net interest income (CP = TP - NI and dCP = dTP - dNI), then the 5.4 percentage point rise in profits from current production share in domestic income is 29.6 percent due to the drop in the share of net interest income (dNI/dCP) and 70.4 percent due to the rise in the share of total property income in domestic income (dTP/dNI), between 1992 and 1997. So I put more stress on the role of the total share that capital gets (dTP) as opposed to the changing distribution to finance capital (dNI) in explaining the change in net profits after interest payments (dCP) in the recent boom. But dNI plays a role that cannot be denied. A major reason why Doug and I have different emphases is that I was talking about the current economic boom, while he was comparing the near past to the 1980s. But what years should we choose if we want to understand what's going on now? I'm sure that which years you choose depends on what one's questions are. I calculated the part of the change in the share of current production-profits that is "explained" by the change in the share of total property income (dCP/dTP = 1 - dCP/dNI) for 1979 to 1996. * If we use 1984, 1985, 1987-1990, or 1996 as the standard of comparison to 1997, then the change in NI is more crucial (dCP/dTP = 16.1% 32.1% for 1984 1985; 38.6%, 21.1%, 27.5%, 36.8% for 1987-90; 33.3% for 1996). Comparing these years to 1997 indicates that the retreat by finance capital is more important to "explaining" dCP. * If we use 1981-83 or 1986 or 1991 or 1995 as the standard of comparison to 1997, then dCP/dTP is approximately 50%, so that the shift away from interest and the increased production of property income play about equal roles in "explaining" dCP. * If we use 1979-80 or 1992-94 as our benchmark to compare to 1997, then the total production of property income is more important than the shift away from rentiers. (dTP/dCP = 63.4% 64.1% for 1979 1980; 70.4%, 75.6%, 60% for 1992-94.) This suggests that between these years and 1997, it was the increased production of surplus-value (property income as a whole) that's been crucial to raising the share of profits from current production. BTW, the rise in total property income as a percentage of domestic income need not be a result of stronger exploitation of US workers, though I think this increased exploitation is part of the story. The rise in TP can also result rising use of capacity utilization (though the numbers I've seen don't indicate that this has happened) or transfer from other countries via falling import prices (something that definitely has happened). I put the word "explain" in quote marks above because I don't think using a tautology (dCP = dTP - dNI) gives us a complete explanation. We need more of a political-economic explanation. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html
[PEN-L:2010] Re: BLS Daily Report
Seems like "a" ,not "the", triumph of capitalism. Charles Brown "Ellen T. Frank" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/07 12:16 PM At 10:45 AM 1/7/99 -0500, you wrote: BLS DAILY REPORT, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6, 1999 The prevailing view at the three-day meeting of the American Economic Association was that high stock prices probably reflect the economy's actual strength and not a speculative bubble that could burst. ... In the minds of many economists, the stock market serves mainly as a gauge of the real economy and a stimulus for spending. Over the last few days, I have been looking over data on wages, exports, bankruptcies, etc. in the former so-called emerging markets. International capital, it seems, is really putting the screws to the laboring classes in Asia and South America. Asian assets are on sale at rock-bottom prices; commodity prices are so low, they're practically giving them away. Is this not the triumph of capitalism? Little wonder the Dow hit 9500. Ellen Frank
[PEN-L:2008] Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
Gosh, well I didn't get to any of those sessions where people were being so pollyannaish about the US stock market. OTOH lots of us have gotten burned predicting imminent collapses, etc., that have not happened, or were followed more than compensatory runups, as in the second half of last year. Nevertheless, I note that yesterday's Financial Times reports that the US $ has hit a recent low against the Japanese yen, partly triggered by comments by E. Seikekabaru (sp?), known as "Mr. Yen", that the US stock market is overvalued and that the US economy will shortly slow significantly. He used the term "bubble." Of course he could be wrong and this is January, when the "January Effect" of unusually rapidly rising stock prices frequently happens. But then October is often a time of unusual declines and this last one saw a record runup. Oh well, we shall just have to wait and see. Good to see a number of you in New York. Barkley Rosser On Thu, 07 Jan 1999 09:45:19 -0800 Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ellen quotes: BLS DAILY REPORT, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6, 1999 The prevailing view at the three-day meeting of the American Economic Association was that high stock prices probably reflect the economy's actual strength and not a speculative bubble that could burst. ... In the minds of many economists, the stock market serves mainly as a gauge of the real economy and a stimulus for spending. Ellen writes: Over the last few days, I have been looking over data on wages, exports, bankruptcies, etc. in the former so-called emerging markets. International capital, it seems, is really putting the screws to the laboring classes in Asia and South America. Asian assets are on sale at rock-bottom prices; commodity prices are so low, they're practically giving them away. Is this not the triumph of capitalism? Little wonder the Dow hit 9500. IMHO, the strength of the US stock market first and foremost reflects the strength of the US profit rate, with the speculative bubble being present but secondary. Orthodox economists tend to conflate what's good for capital (the profit rate, a high stock market) with what's good for the people (the GDP and its distribution, with limited negative environmental impact, etc., etc.) So it's natural that they would make this mistake. The question is whether the high US profit rate will persist given the mess that the rest of the world is in, not to mention the dynamic problems the result when an economy enjoys (and suffers from) a high and rising profit rate. (See my 1994 RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY paper, on-line at: http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/subpages/depr/D0.html or /Depr.html) Can the "triumph of capitalism" (or more accurately of some sectors of US capitalism) persist? It didn't after 1929, the previous period of similar capitalist triumphalism. So the question is: are we currently in the historical analogy of 1929 or of 1927? Ellen, it was good to see you at the convention! Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:2009] Re: BLS Daily Report
Barkley Rosser wrote, Of course he could be wrong and this is January, when the "January Effect" of unusually rapidly rising stock prices frequently happens. But then October is often a time of unusual declines and this last one saw a record runup. Oh well, we shall just have to wait and see. As I understand Say's law, for every seller, there's a buyer, eh?. Obviously, then there's as much money to be made during a stock market decline as during a rise. Or as Malthus said, "What an accumulation of commodities! Quels debouches! What a prodigious market would this event occasion!" (quoted by Keynes on page 364 of the General Theory of Employment) Tom Walker http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
