The twin debacles of globalisation - Bello
Philippine Daily Inquirer, 25/1/02 this story was taken from www.inq7.net URL: http://www.inq7.net/vwp/2002/jan/23/text/vwp_1-1-p.htm The twin debacles of globalization Posted:0:24 AM (Manila Time) | January 24, 2002 By Walden Bello Inquirer News Service IT is said that in politics and in war, fortune smiles all too briefly. After allowing it to briefly savor the success of its Afghanistan campaign, history, cunning and inscrutable as usual, has suddenly dealt the Bush administration two massive body blows: the Enron implosion and the Argentine collapse. These towering twin disasters threaten to push the global elite back to the crisis of legitimacy that was shaking its hegemony globally prior to September 11. Enron forcefully reminds us that free market rhetoric is a corporate con game. Neoliberalism loves to couch itself in the language of efficiency and the ethics of the greatest good for the greatest number, but it is really about promoting corporate power. Enron loved to extol the so-called merits of the market to explain its success, but in fact, its path to becoming the US seventh largest corporation was paved not by following the discipline imposed by the market but by strategically deploying cold cash, lots of it. Enron literally bought its way to the top, throwing around hundreds of millions of dollars in less than a decade to create what one businessman described to the New York Times as the black hole of deregulated energy markets in which its financial shenanigans could thrive unchecked. To make sure government would look the other way and allow the market to have its way, Enron was generous with those willing to serve it, and few earned more Enron dollars than George W. Bush, who received some 623,000 dollars for his political campaigns in both Texas and nationally from his friend Kenneth Lay, CEO of Enron. The deep enmeshing of Bush and a number of his key lieutenantsVice President Dick Cheney, Attorney General John Ashcroft, US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, top presidential economic adviser Larry Lindsey, to name just the most prominent--in Enron's corporate web has shaken off George Ws post-September 11 image of being President of all Americans and brought back the reality of his being the chief executive officer of corporate America. The Enron scandal pulls Americans right back to the bitter sozialepolitik of the nineties when, as Bush himself put it in his inaugural speech, it [seemed] we share a continent but not a country. It brings back the ideological context of the landmark electoral campaign of 2000, when Bushs fellow Republican, John McCain, made an almost successful bid to become the presidential standard bearer by focusing on one issue: that the massive corporate financing of elections that had transformed US democracy into a plutocracy was gravely undermining its legitimacy. Corporate-driven globalization, we have always held, is a process that is marked by massive corruption, and one that is deeply subversive of democracy. Shell was a good case study in Nigeria. Scores of TNCs and the World Bank were implicated with the Suharto political economy in Indonesia. Now Enron strips the veil from what Wall Street used to call the New Economy, which showered rewards on sleazy financial operators like Enron while sticking the rest of the world with the costs, not least of which is what is shaping up to be the worst global downturn since the 1930s. Which is why we have always told World Bank types who want to lecture us on good governance that they should first tell Washington to get its house in order. Corporate corruption is central to the US political system, and the fact that it is legal and assumes the form of campaign finance funneled to pols by political action committees does not somehow make it less immoral than crony capitalism of the Asian variety. Indeed, corruption of the Washington variety is much more damaging, because momentous decisions purchased with massive cash outlays have not only national but global consequences. Corrupt Third World politicians ought to be hung, drawn, and quartered, but let's face it, the amounts of cash and the quotient of power they deal in are peanuts compared to the scale and impact of influence peddling in Washington. If Enron illustrates the folly of deregulation cum corruption, Argentina underlines that of another facet of the corporate globalist project: the liberalization of trade and capital flows. With 140 billion dollars in debt to international institutions, its industry in chaos, and an estimated 2000 people daily falling below the poverty line, Argentina is in a truly pitiable state. Argentina brought down its trade barriers faster than most other countries in Latin America. It liberalized its capital account more radically. And in the most touching gesture of neoliberal faith, the Argentine government voluntarily gave up any meaningful control over the domestic impact of a volatile global
Re: Re: RE: BLS Daily Report
Well Manitoba and other Canadian provinces seem intent on training nurses to export to the US. Poorer provinces, such as Manitoba, also pay to train nurses who consequently migrate to richer provinces such as Alberta. We do the same thing with doctors. Our local rural hospital has 2 doctors from South Africa and 1 from Poland. Saskatchewan is noted for its lack of Canadian trained doctors in rural areas. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 4:39 PM Subject: [PEN-L:21814] Re: RE: BLS Daily Report The nurses do not exist in those numbers. He is grandstanding -- unless we can kidnap nurses from elsewhere. On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 02:28:26PM -0800, Devine, James wrote: so what does pen-l think of the following? California hospitals will need 5,000 more workers to meet proposed minimum nurse-staffing levels released Tuesday by California Gov. Gray Davis. Davis' plan requires a minimum of one nurse for every five patients in medical wards -- and fewer patients per nurse in labor and delivery, emergency rooms and critical-care units. (The New York Times, page A15). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Afghanistan Again
Here is some info from the Times (UK) Cheers, Ken Hanly Taleban army rises again to face US FROM TIM REID IN KANDAHAR A RENEGADE army of 5,000 Taleban soldiers with 450 tanks, armoured carriers and pick-up trucks is locked in a tense stand-off with American special forces in Afghanistan. The troops fled Kandahar with their commander and more than 100 senior Taleban figures in December after reneging on a surrender agreement. They have regrouped among villages in the mountainous region of Ghazni province, northwest of Kandahar. Amid growing concern that powerful pockets of resistance loyal to Osama bin Laden remain in Afghanistan, an American soldier was wounded in the foot and 15 Taleban and al-Qaeda guerrillas were killed yesterday in a gunfight north of Kandahar. The clash, which occurred during a US special forces search and destroy mission, was triggered when Arab fighters opened fire on the US patrol, US officials said. About 30 men were captured. The Americans said that most of the detainees were Afghans and appeared to be Taleban, not al-Qaeda, fighters. Officials described them as members of the leadership but would not comment on whether the US had acted on intelligence that Mullah Muhammad Omar was hiding in the area. In tough negotiations with American forces, leaders of the renegade army in Ghazni are demanding millions of dollars and the guarantee of an amnesty before they will give up their arms. Extremely delicate and tense negotiations are under way between representatives of Gul Agha Sherzai, Kandahar's new Governor, US special forces and the Taleban commander in charge of the unit. They disappeared the day that Kandahar fell, a senior aide to Mr Sherzai said. They took with them 450 tanks and vehicles, rocket-propelled grenades, machine-guns and rifles. At present, the Americans do not want to use force, as they are spread among the local people. But there are real fears that if there is one incident of revolt which takes place against the government (of Kandahar, we fear it will have a snowball effect. In Kandahar's football stadium yesterday Mr Sherzai addressed 15,000 people after calling a Loya Jirga (National Council). He pledged allegiance to Zahir Shah, the former Afghan King, but renewed attacks on Iran and its growing infiltration with arms and money. It was seen as the first test of Mr Sherzai's popularity in post-Taleban Kandahar. The stadium was, however, only three-quarters full, with 3,000 of the audience being schoolchildren. Afghan troops from Kandahar province are on high alert for possible military action against the allegedly Iranian-backed forces of Ismail Khan, the veteran warlord and Governor of the western city of Herat. Tensions between Mr Sherzai and Mr Khan in Herat remain extremely high and are causing grave concern to the Americans. The growing number of US troops in the country - more than 3,000 are based at Kandahar airport and in Kabul - are being drawn into provincial rivalries. While many in the country welcome the stabilising influence of American troops in the short term, a long-term deployment would be bitterly resented, particularly in the Pashtun south, where Taleban sympathies are still strong. Mr Sherzai's commanders, and US Intelligence, have accused Iran of funnelling cash and arms to Mr Khan and his allies to stir up opposition to the new interim administration of Hamid Karzai in Kabul, and to the US presence in the region. Mr Khan is accused of persecuting Pashtuns in Herat, with reports from refugees leaving the area of Pashtuns being robbed of trucks, jailed and killed. Mr Khan and Tehran deny the allegations. In the north reports continue of fighting between forces loyal to General Abdul Rashid Dostum - a man who switched sides no less than six times during the Afghan civil war - and Mohammed Daoud, two rival members of the Northern Alliance, over a remote district near the Tajikistan border. The conflict has led two other warlords who claim a role in the city - Commander Mohaqaq, a Hazari, and Commander Uftad Ata, a Tajik, to arm refugees loyal to them. The camps are now punctuated by small-arms fire as rival groups, armed by the warlords, battle each other for territory, Haneef Ata, of the International Rescue Committee, said. A UN security officer, who asked not to be named, said that the same practice had spread to other cities. The camps around the eastern city of Jalalabad contained large numbers of young men being armed by warlords who were keen to fill the power vacuum outside Kabul, the official said. Under the terms of the agreement establishing the interim administration there was no provision for the deployment of peacekeeping troops beyond 4,500 in Kabul. General Ghulam Nassery, Afghan minister in charge of peacekeeping, said: Unless the camps are disarmed, Afghanistan could once again slide into civil war. I am ashamed to say, we need men who are not Afghans. We need more than 100,000 of them. -
China has 145mn mobile phone users Web site
The Times of India FRIDAY, JANUARY 18, 2002 China has 145mn mobile phone users: Web site REUTERS FRIDAY, JANUARY 18, 2002 BEIJING: China's mobile phone market, the world's largest, has reached 145 million subscribers, according to a statement on the Web site of its telecom regulator. China's Ministry of Information Industry chief, Wu Jichuan, cited the latest figure in a speech in Hawaii on Sunday, the MII said in a statement on its Web site, www.mii.gov.cn. Wu said in the statement, seen on Friday, that the figure was current but gave no specific period. Wu also said China's fixed-line business reached 179 million users. That was 2 million more subscribers than the end-November total. China, which surpassed the United States as world's largest cellular market last year, is one of the only major markets experiencing rapid growth in its mobile sector. China's two mobile operators, China Mobile Communications Corp and smaller rival China Unicom Group, have Hong Kong listed units in China Mobile (HK) and China Unicom. China had about 140 million cellphone users at the end of November. That was an increase of only four million in the month compared to an average of five million each month for the first 11 months of last year. Copyright © 2002 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved.
Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: say it ain't so, Paul
From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oh, that's OK then. I'll stop my carping and let PK continue his tireless task of speaking truth to power. Carl I know you're being ironic, but I'll reply in a non-ironic way: PK doesn't speak truth to power except within the usual political context of what's good for capital Seems to be bit of cognitive dissonance here. Reading Krugman's NY Times column today, I am given to understand that this whole flap over his Enron connections is really a right-wing attempt to defame Krugman because he is such a fire-breathing lefty, e.g.: ... reading those attacks [on me concerning Enron], you would think that I was a major-league white-collar criminal. It's tempting to take this vendetta as a personal compliment: Some people are so worried about the effect of my writing that they will try anything to get me off this page. But actually it was part of a broader effort by conservatives to sling Enron muck toward their left, hoping that some of it would stick. [http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/25/opinion/25KRUG.html] So, far from being a self-serving opportunist, Krugman is actually the left's last best hope. Carl _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
Re: say it ain't so, Paul
On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Carl Remick wrote: Seems to be bit of cognitive dissonance here. Reading Krugman's NY Times column today, I am given to understand that this whole flap over his Enron connections is really a right-wing attempt to defame Krugman because he is such a fire-breathing lefty Krugman would never say he's a lefty, and of course it isn't true. Rather he'd say he's a liberal. With a big ass rep and a column in the Times. And that that's enough to make conservatives hate him. That plus the fact that he keeps calling the Republicans charlatans and liars. It's plausible. Remember, people don't have to be far apart on the spectrum to hate each other with warmth. The narcissism of small differences often makes the opposite the case. There's no one the people from Alsace feel more distinct from than the people from Lorraine. And when they hear that outsiders refer to the place as Alsace-Lorraine they are so absolutely flabbergasted that they don't believe you. Sometimes I think Democrats and Republicans are the same way. Michael __ Michael PollakNew York [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How Much Is Enough
Simplifying radically: If the baseline budget projections show unemployment of 6.0, and we say 4.5 is a reasonable standard, we need a stimulus sufficient to move the rate 1.5 percentage points. OMB says you need a percent of real GDP to get half a percent less unemployment. So you need three percent real GDP, which means, say, five percent nominal GDP. In a $10 trillion economy, that's $500 billion. So if the multiplier is 1.5, must we advocate a $333 billion stimulus on an annual basis to force unemployment down to 4.5%? mbs
The eyes-glazing-over-factor strikes again
"Executives at the cable news networks acknowledged that Enron, while of enormous significance, is difficult to explain on television. "One senior network news executive said, 'It's the kind of story where you have to worry about the eyes-glazing-over factor.'" I say, "forget about Enron, forget about John Walker Lindh, let's hear more about this 'eyes-glazing-over-factor' thingy." Tom Walker
re: say it ain't so, Paul
Carl writes: Oh, that's OK then. I'll stop my carping and let PK continue his tireless task of speaking truth to power. I said: I know you're being ironic, but I'll reply in a non-ironic way: PK doesn't speak truth to power except within the usual political context of what's good for capital he now says: Seems to be bit of cognitive dissonance here. Reading Krugman's NY Times column today, I am given to understand that this whole flap over his Enron connections is really a right-wing attempt to defame Krugman because he is such a fire-breathing lefty, e.g.: ... reading those attacks [on me concerning Enron], you would think that I was a major-league white-collar criminal. It's tempting to take this vendetta as a personal compliment: Some people are so worried about the effect of my writing that they will try anything to get me off this page. But actually it was part of a broader effort by conservatives to sling Enron muck toward their left, hoping that some of it would stick. [http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/25/opinion/25KRUG.html] So, far from being a self-serving opportunist, Krugman is actually the left's last best hope. by the degraded standards of Washington, D.C., politics PK is a leftist or left of [a very right-wing] center. After getting rid of true left voices in public life -- e.g., making it normal to treat Chomsky as a paraiah -- the right-wingers would want to get rid of even the ersatz left. Of course, this kind of war against the left is what left much of the world outside the U.S. with only Osama bin Laden and his dreadful ilk as the opposition to the power of neoliberal globalizing capitalism. Jim Devine
Sociology Position - University of Wisconsin Green Bay
LECTURER IN SOCIOLOGY The Department of Social Change and Development at UW-Green Bay invites applications for a one-year, academic staff Lecturer's position in Sociology with an interest in either the sociology of law and crime and/or women studies. The successful candidate will teach Introduction to Sociology, Social Theory, Theories of Social Change, and additional courses in either Law and Justice or Gender and Women Studies. Ph.D or ABD in Sociology. Demonstrated excellence in undergraduate teaching preferred. Specializations in law and criminal justice and/or gender and women's studies preferred. Submit letter of application indicating teaching interests, teaching evaluations (if available), curriculum vitae, graduate transcripts, and three current letters of reference. Official transcripts required of finalists. Send materials to: Dr. Anthony Galt, Chair, Search and Screen Committee, Department of Social Change and Development, Mary Ann Cofrin Hall B310, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, 2420 Nicolet Drive, Green Bay, WI, 54311. (920) 465-2355, -2349. FAX: (920) 465-2791, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Full description at: http://www.uwgb.edu/personnl/ First screen March 15. Open until filled. UWGB is an AA/EO employer. Names of applicants who have not requested in writing that their names remain confidential will be released to the public upon request.
Re: The eyes-glazing-over-factor strikes again
The Frontline show on the dot.con scam was pretty clear -- and in many ways more convoluted than Enron. On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 08:38:43AM -0800, Tom Walker wrote: Executives at the cable news networks acknowledged that Enron, while of enormous significance, is difficult to explain on television. One senior network news executive said, 'It's the kind of story where you have to worry about the eyes-glazing-over factor.' I say, forget about Enron, forget about John Walker Lindh, let's hear more about this 'eyes-glazing-over-factor' thingy. Tom Walker -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: re: say it ain't so, Paul
From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] Carl writes: So, far from being a self-serving opportunist, Krugman is actually the left's last best hope. by the degraded standards of Washington, D.C., politics PK is a leftist or left of [a very right-wing] center. After getting rid of true left voices in public life -- e.g., making it normal to treat Chomsky as a paraiah -- the right-wingers would want to get rid of even the ersatz left. Of course, this kind of war against the left is what left much of the world outside the U.S. with only Osama bin Laden and his dreadful ilk as the opposition to the power of neoliberal globalizing capitalism. Thanks. Pass me the Prozac, please. Carl _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Re: The eyes-glazing-over-factor strikes again
Tom Walker wrote: Executives at the cable news networks acknowledged that Enron, while of enormous significance, is difficult to explain on television. One senior network news executive said, 'It's the kind of story where you have to worry about the eyes-glazing-over factor.' I say, forget about Enron, forget about John Walker Lindh, let's hear more about this 'eyes-glazing-over-factor' thingy. MEGO is an acronym that cynical mainstream journalists and editors in the U.S. use to dismiss a story - my eyes glaze over. As is often the case, I suspect senior network news executives are projecting their own anxieties about fomenting class conflict onto their audiences. Handled right (i.e., limiting explanations of degree-day derivatives or offshore partnership arrangements), the ENE story doesn't have to be boring at all. Doug
say it ain't so, Paul
Carl writes: Thanks. Pass me the Prozac, please. with a whiskey chaser? JD
Re: Re: re: the profit rate recession
Fred writes: 3. The current recession was caused by a sharp decline in investment spending, beginning in late 1990. The main point of disagreement seems to be - whether or not the decline of investment spending that caused the recession was itself caused by the decline in the rate of profit since 1997. However, it has been widely discussed in the business press that investment collapsed in 2001 as a result of rapidly deteriorating profitability. As we have discussed, the rate of profit turned down in 1997, and has continued to decline ever since, and finally took its toll on investment spending in late 2000. I raise a single question (and Doug your reply would doubtless be most illuminating--am I way off here?): Why did the drop off in investment spending *lag behind* the drop in profitability? So far we have not mentioned the effect of interest rates. In the wake of the Asia Panic, Greenspan flooded the market with liquidity which led to an asset inflation. With low rates and an ease in raising equity capital in this Age of the IPO, many very questionable long term R D projects and what the Hayekians would call higher order projects were undertaken. However since Greenspan seems to want to follow sensitive commodity prices, he was later forced to play catch up as the price of the basket of sensitive commodities fell; Greenspan aggressively raised rates to maintain confidence in the value of the currency. The successive rate hikes took the floor away from what were inviable long term, R and D intensive projects which were counting on cheap capital before they were completed. The Nasdaq balloon was pierced. Investment in so called higher order industries collapsed. And the effects of that have multiplied out. Greenspan's reversal has not since restored confidence. Just guessing. Rakesh
precautionary principle
reading a manuscript, I came upon the precautionary principle, defined as saying that when an activity raises threats of harm to the enviornment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically (from the Wingspread statement of 1998). (pen-l's Peter Dorman had an interesting paper on this subject at the recent URPE@ASSA conference.) The Enron and dot.con melt-downs suggest that a similar principle should be applied to accounting (in the face of new corporate forms that stretch traditional accounting norms). But can capitalism -- which centers on the aggressive accumulate-to-compete or compete-to-accumulate principle -- ever follow any precautionary principle without strict governmental restrictions? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: The eyes-glazing-over-factor strikes again
- Original Message - From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Handled right (i.e., limiting explanations of degree-day derivatives or offshore partnership arrangements), the ENE story doesn't have to be boring at all. Doug === Ok that's twice in 10 minutes on the ENE. What's it stand for? Ian
Re: Re: The eyes-glazing-over-factor strikes again
On Friday, January 25, 2002 at 09:43:32 (-0800) Ian Murray writes: - Original Message - From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Handled right (i.e., limiting explanations of degree-day derivatives or offshore partnership arrangements), the ENE story doesn't have to be boring at all. Doug === Ok that's twice in 10 minutes on the ENE. What's it stand for? ENron Energy? Bill
RE: Re: Re: The eyes-glazing-over-factor strikes again
Ok that's twice in 10 minutes on the ENE. What's it stand for? ENron Energy? ENthusiastic Ego?
Re: Re: Re: re: the profit rate recession
Rakesh Bhandari wrote: I raise a single question (and Doug your reply would doubtless be most illuminating--am I way off here?): Why did the drop off in investment spending *lag behind* the drop in profitability? The financial mania, of course. There were plenty of outside funds to tap, and animal spirits were busily tapping them. As they say on Wall Street, the stock market wasn't just discounting the future, it was discounting the hereafter. So despite the dip in profitability, expectations were for endless good times. The financing gap - the difference between capital expenditures and internal cash flow - is very high for a recession (and got unusually wide during the boom). Normally it comes close to 0; now it's about 2% of GDP. Doug
Re: Re: Re: The eyes-glazing-over-factor strikesagain
Ian Murray wrote: Ok that's twice in 10 minutes on the ENE. What's it stand for? Stock ticker symbol for Enron. Saves two keystrokes - which add up, when you type ENE as often as I've been typing it in the last few weeks. Doug
RE: precautionary principle
Jim, I have thought about this recently and come to the conclusion that, first, unregulated or badly regulated capitalism is both macroeconomically unsatisfactory and environmentally unsustainable. Second, traditional policy approaches to both unemployment and environmental degradation are insufficient to achieve either satisfactory macro outcomes (e.g., full employment) or ecological sustainability. Moreover, policy approaches addressing either one of these (either full employment or environmental sustainability), even if successful, actually in most cases exacerbate the other one. So, e.g., attempting to achieve full employment through stimulating aggregate demand if successful would probably increase resource depletion and pollution. So it may be that 'sustainable capitalism' really is an oxymoron. Mainstream economics usually says that problems like discrimination or environmental degradation are due to market forces (e.g., competition) not being strong enough or associated institutions (e.g., private property) not being widespread enough. But it is much more likely that, as you suggest, these are the normal outcomes of a capitalist system. So the government intervention necessary to address these problems would probably be of a kind and of a degree that the resulting system would be something many would not define as capitalism. So the questions really come back to those that have long been at the heart of debates concerning socialism and communism and even various forms of anarchism: Is there any role for markets at all in a post-capitalist economy? Is there any role for money in a post-capitalist economy? Can a post-capitalist economy be attained without violence? Would a socialist society *necessarily* be environmentally sustainable (or non-racist or non-sexist)? And so on. Mat -Original Message- From: Devine, James [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 11:32 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [PEN-L:21886] precautionary principle reading a manuscript, I came upon the precautionary principle, defined as saying that when an activity raises threats of harm to the enviornment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically (from the Wingspread statement of 1998). (pen-l's Peter Dorman had an interesting paper on this subject at the recent URPE@ASSA conference.) The Enron and dot.con melt-downs suggest that a similar principle should be applied to accounting (in the face of new corporate forms that stretch traditional accounting norms). But can capitalism -- which centers on the aggressive accumulate-to-compete or compete-to-accumulate principle -- ever follow any precautionary principle without strict governmental restrictions? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: The eyes-glazing-over-factor strikes again
On 25 Jan 02, at 12:22, Doug Henwood wrote: MEGO is an acronym that cynical mainstream journalists and editors in the U.S. use to dismiss a story - my eyes glaze over. As is often the case, I suspect senior network news executives are projecting their own anxieties about fomenting class conflict onto their audiences. Handled right (i.e., limiting explanations of degree-day derivatives or offshore partnership arrangements), the ENE story doesn't have to be boring at all. Doug Indeed, for those of us fortunate to be able to listen to CBC last Sunday morning, Doug was very entertaining in commenting on ENE. Nicely done. Paul Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
Interest as form of sv
Hi Does anybody know the location of electronic material from a left standpoint on interest rates today. Karl
Re: Re: Re: The eyes-glazing-over-factor strikesagain
Paul Phillips wrote: Indeed, for those of us fortunate to be able to listen to CBC last Sunday morning, Doug was very entertaining in commenting on ENE. Nicely done. Why thanks. You listen to the show regularly? Michael Enright has interviewed me about 4-5 times, and I've been pretty impressed by him - lots smarter and more knowledgeable than any such American radio host. Is he always like this? Doug
Re: How Much Is Enough
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Simplifying radically: So if the multiplier is 1.5, must we advocate a $333 billion stimulus on an annual basis to force unemployment down to 4.5%? mbs Why would the spending multiplier be this low? If, simplifying very radically, it's 1/1-mpc+mpc(t)+mpm, and the tax rate is going down, and generally mpc is, what?, .6 or something, then why wouldn't the multiplier be much higher, like in the 2.5- 3 range? Christian
RE: re: say it ain't so, Paul
by the degraded standards of Washington, D.C., politics PK is a leftist or left of [a very right-wing] center. After getting rid of true left voices in public life -- e.g., making it normal to treat Chomsky as a paraiah -- the right-wingers would want to get rid of even the ersatz left. In fairness, the Krugman of the Enron board was somewhat younger than the Krugman of today, and he has become noticeably more left-wing since a) moving to the NYT and b) getting involved in the Social Security debate. I personally think that the epiphany arrived when he finally realised that constantly rewriting ideas that other people had already had was never going to win him the Nobel Prize. And I read on my screen that former Enron vice-chairman Cliff Baxter has committed suicide dd ___ Email Disclaimer This communication is for the attention of the named recipient only and should not be passed on to any other person. Information relating to any company or security, is for information purposes only and should not be interpreted as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security. The information on which this communication is based has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable, but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice. All e-mail messages, and associated attachments, are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business purposes. ___
BLS Daily Report
FRIDAY, January 25 New claims for unemployment insurance for the week ended Jan. 19 dropped to their lowest level since July, falling 15,000 to 376,000 seasonally adjusted, down from the previous week's revised total of 391,000, according to figures released by the Employment and Training Administration (Daily Labor Report, page D-1). Smaller pay gains and widespread layoffs held down personal income gains in most states during the third quarter of 2001, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. BEA says 33 states posted personal income gains of less than 1 percent (Daily Labor Report, page D-4). The number of workers filing new claims for state unemployment benefits fell last week to the lowest level in almost six months, the Labor Department reported today, a sign that companies are slowing the pace of dismissals (The New York Times, page C10). The U.S. economy, slumping for nearly a year, is showing enough signs of revival that there is no clear need for legislation to give it a short-term boost, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said yesterday. There have been signs recently that some of the forces that have been restraining the economy over the past year are starting to diminish and that activity is beginning to firm, Greenspan told the Senate Budget Committee (The Washington Post, page A1). Although a number of analysts now look for an economic recovery in the second half of 2002, indicators such as an unemployment rate that is expected to hover in the 6 percent range throughout the year could create a rocky environment for bargaining in several sectors in coming months (Daily Labor Report, 2002 Labor Outlook, page S-17). application/ms-tnef
RE: Re: How Much Is Enough
You're right. I'm using a conservative estimate of the multiplier, which ironically implies a higher required stimulus. Alternatively, I could use a more optimistic estimate that would imply less need for stimulus. --mbs So if the multiplier is 1.5, must we advocate a $333 billion stimulus on an annual basis to force unemployment down to 4.5%?mbs Why would the spending multiplier be this low? If, simplifying very radically, it's 1/1-mpc+mpc(t)+mpm, and the tax rate is going down, and generally mpc is, what?, .6 or something, then why wouldn't the multiplier be much higher, like in the 2.5- 3 range? Christian
Re: RE: re: say it ain't so, Paul
I don't think that PK has moved to the left. He seems to have a very narrow range of acceptable politics/economics. Anyone to the left or to the right is fair game. He can write well and is clever, so when he lashes out at the right, he can be pleasant to behold, but he often relies on rhetoric rather than political economy when making his case. On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 05:07:01PM -, Davies, Daniel wrote: by the degraded standards of Washington, D.C., politics PK is a leftist or left of [a very right-wing] center. After getting rid of true left voices in public life -- e.g., making it normal to treat Chomsky as a paraiah -- the right-wingers would want to get rid of even the ersatz left. In fairness, the Krugman of the Enron board was somewhat younger than the Krugman of today, and he has become noticeably more left-wing since a) moving to the NYT and b) getting involved in the Social Security debate. I personally think that the epiphany arrived when he finally realised that constantly rewriting ideas that other people had already had was never going to win him the Nobel Prize. And I read on my screen that former Enron vice-chairman Cliff Baxter has committed suicide dd ___ Email Disclaimer This communication is for the attention of the named recipient only and should not be passed on to any other person. Information relating to any company or security, is for information purposes only and should not be interpreted as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security. The information on which this communication is based has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable, but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice. All e-mail messages, and associated attachments, are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business purposes. ___ -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
rev and reform
CB: Yes, actually, I was going to type in some of Perlo's chapter The Rate of Profit. The funny thing is Perlo uses both the famous anti-consumptionist quote from Vol. II that you stand on and the ultimate cosuming power of society quote from Vol. III that shows your view is only part of Marx's view. Charles, I wrote a long reply to you that I do not block inadequate consumption from view; I attempt to explain in terms of difficulties in production. You never did reply. So I am not going through ground hog day with you. ^ CB: When was that ? In this most recent exchange or from before ? I believe I missed this. If you have it still, send it to me offlist. I sent you in the U.S. mail a copy of Rudy Fichtenbaum's essay. How does his combined view compare with yours ? When I get over this laziness, I will type in some of Perlo's discussion. Or if you send me your address again, I can copy and snail mail it.
rev and reform
CB: So, the funny thing is your list position may end up closer to the Staliinist-Leninist economist analysis than you thought , ha ha. Rakesh:Have you read Richard Day's book on Soviet economic debates. I have. Varga prevailed, and it should be obvious to you that I reject his underconsumptionist theory. ^^ CB: No. I have read some Soviet economics books though. ^^ Moreover, I reject the whole Bolshevik (Lenin-Trotsky-Bukharin)deformation of the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat. I think Rosa Luxemburg, Paul Mattick, Hal Draper and Paul Thomas (my former teacher) are correct. CB: You do accept that dictatorship of the proletariat is Marx's formulation though, right ? So, what is the Luxemburg, Mattick , Draper, Thomas formulation of the dicatatorship of the proletariat ? I think we were moved further away from Marx by the Bolsheviks. That is the source of our present acrimony. You said that we all were reading Marx because of the Bolsheviks; you do not speak for me. By now, you should know that you do not speak for me. So why ignite matters with sloganeering? CB: You can't dismiss an argument by mislabelling it sloganeering. Put it this way, if not for the _fact_ of the Russian Revolution, regardless of the interpretation of Marx by the Bolsheviks, Marx would be as obscure as Compte or some other academic figure, and it is not as likely that your teachers would introduce you to him. Look how obscure Hegel is. It really is not a very controversial idea that Marx is famous because of the revolutions that were carried out in his name more than his writing by itself. I don't think you are focused in on what the orthodox Marxist position is in writing. what is the orthodox Marxist position. ^^ CB: I thought you referred to the orthodox position, and criticized it. I don't call it orthodox . I was just using your word. Rakesh: How does Perlo explain the turning points in the business cycle in which you had earlier informed us Marxists have little interest? Economic Crises and The Business Cycle is chapter 15 (out of 18 ) in Perlo's book. Similarly to Marx's leaving his direct discussion of crisis to Vol. III. The placement of the subject tells you something of the importance of it already. I don't think such conclusions can be drawn from placement. Marx's crisis theory comes together in the third volume. ^^ CB: It doesn't come together , according to Rudy Fictenbaum. It remains scattered. This is another, second, reason by which I infer that it was high priority. But the most direct reason I gave you on this, to which I have not noticed a reply from you, is that Marx doesn't think that the business cycle can be remedied under capitalism. Do you agree with that ? From that it follows that explaining the business cycle is of secondary importance to the Marxist project. The Marxist project is revolutionary: ending the business cycle by ending capitalism. What is your reply to that logic ? But back to the direct point on this, don't you agree that the Marxist ( Marx's ) position is that there is no taming the business cycle under capitalist relations of production ? No, the business cycle can indeed be tamed; contradictions deferred for some time. I already wrote this. CB: Oh I missed that. Where was it ? So, you are a reformist ? Are you saying that Marx's program was taming the business cycle, deferring it contradictions for some time ? ^^^ And that therefore, even if you have the perfect explanation of it, nonetheless that explanation cannot be implemented to stop crises ? One kind of explanation (underconsumption) may imply that certain reforms could tame them even if the analyst herself rejects that conclusion. The reasoning matters. So , business cycle theory has to be a secondary concern for Marxists ? no. What if the theory is one of widening and deepening business cycles? CB: Is that the crises getting better or worse ? I still don't think Marxism is a mainly a theory of business cycles. Marxists are against capitalism even during the boom phase of the business cycle. Business cycle moderation is a reform struggle, not that Marxists ignore reforms. And what is your reform program again ? I know you said it but one more time. No not one more time. Find the posts and respond to them. ^^ CB: So your reform is aimed at raising the rate of profit ? ^ And on reforms, it is common sense that an underconsumption claim is solved by giving the working masses something more to consume with, i.e. money. Isn't it obvious that Marxists' short term or reform solutions must be some version of raising the incomes of workers, not figuring out how to raise the rate of profit of those who profit. I don't know what you are responding to. ^ CB: I'm responding to your criticism
Re: reform and rev
Re: reform and rev by Rakesh Bhandari 24 January 2002 18:09 UTC CB: I am not familiar with Pashakunis' liquidation specifics, although I believe it was after the Bolsheviks were dissolved into the CPSU. How convenient that you are not familiar with the history of the Soviet Union that you have defended on email lists for six years! If it were isolated event, no. ^^^ CB: This seems to reply to my asking you whether Pashakunis' death was a major event in Soviet history. Nonetheless, the particulars of Pashakunis' death are not ciritical knowledge for understanding Soviet history. I am familiar with the intrigues, murders, etc. within the CPSU in the 30's etc. , and their role in Soviet history. If you want to discuss that ok. Put is this way, I don't think it is likely that Pashakunis was murdered because he had some good Marxist theory of jurisprudence, and Stalin wanted to cover up the good theory and put forth a bad theory of Marxist jurisprudence. Does that speak to what you are getting at ? Anti-Sovietism and Soviet baiting may make you feel good, and self-righteous but it doesn't make good argumentation. CB: The workers' are not the main owners of private property in capitalism. Nonetheless, what do you think is the important contribution in Pashakunis' writing ? Pashukanis seems to me to have demonstrated that legal relations do have some objective basis in the relations of exchange. He overstates the case, and he does not understand the connection to production. CB: Yes, and this point is Marxist jurisprudence 101 But drawing from Roger Cotterrell, I wrote on LBO a long time ago: Especially interesting, though I think incorrect, is his critique of Pashukanis's reduction of the autonomous Kantian subject to the codified illusion of the juridical subject (a dramatis personae) who since she presumably can freely dispose of whatever she happens to own can and should be bound by the contracts into which she enters. That is, legal reasoning cannot conceive of a contractual relationship except as a formally free agreement of wills. The fact that the actual freedom to negotiate is often non existent in contractual situations (in particular of course for the working class) does not allow us to dismiss this fundamental legal principle as irrelevant mystification because it is through this assumption, in defined circumstances, of free agreement that the general justification for making contractual terms binding is found and the binding obligations arising from the contracts are fixed in a predictable manner according to general principles. As soon as the idea of compulsory 'contract' is introduced--that is, as Pashukanis notes, agreement which the parties are compelled to make in furtherance of a plan imposing obligations on both or all of them--it becomes extremely difficult to fix, through contractual rules, the limits of their reciprocal obligations. ^^ CB: Yes, but this is more how I would discuss contracts in bourgeois jurisprudence. Most employers and employees don't have equal bargaining power, meeting of the minds is a fiction, contracts of adhesion, etc. But this way of discussing it seems devoid of a specifically Marxist approach What would be grounds for murder ? I am against capital punishment. rb
the profit rate recession
the profit rate recession by Fred B. Moseley -clip- The main point of disagreement seems to be - whether or not the decline of investment spending that caused the recession was itself caused by the decline in the rate of profit since 1997. I argue yes and you argue no. You argue that business investment decisions are not determined by short-run cyclical fluctuations in the rate of profit, but are instead determined by the long-run trend in the rate of profit, and also by the capacity utilization rate. CB: Fred, Hope your child is better. What if the decline in the rate of profit is due to failure to realize through sale of commodities, failure to complete fully the C-M' phase of M-C-M' ?
Re: Re: reform and rev
Charles and Rakesh, this dialogue is going nowhere. Can you take it offlist? On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 03:47:39PM -0500, Charles Brown wrote: Re: reform and rev by Rakesh Bhandari 24 January 2002 18:09 UTC CB: I am not familiar with Pashakunis' liquidation specifics, although I believe it was after the Bolsheviks were dissolved into the CPSU. How convenient that you are not familiar with the history of the Soviet Union that you have defended on email lists for six years! If it were isolated event, no. ^^^ CB: This seems to reply to my asking you whether Pashakunis' death was a major event in Soviet history. Nonetheless, the particulars of Pashakunis' death are not ciritical knowledge for understanding Soviet history. I am familiar with the intrigues, murders, etc. within the CPSU in the 30's etc. , and their role in Soviet history. If you want to discuss that ok. Put is this way, I don't think it is likely that Pashakunis was murdered because he had some good Marxist theory of jurisprudence, and Stalin wanted to cover up the good theory and put forth a bad theory of Marxist jurisprudence. Does that speak to what you are getting at ? Anti-Sovietism and Soviet baiting may make you feel good, and self-righteous but it doesn't make good argumentation. CB: The workers' are not the main owners of private property in capitalism. Nonetheless, what do you think is the important contribution in Pashakunis' writing ? Pashukanis seems to me to have demonstrated that legal relations do have some objective basis in the relations of exchange. He overstates the case, and he does not understand the connection to production. CB: Yes, and this point is Marxist jurisprudence 101 But drawing from Roger Cotterrell, I wrote on LBO a long time ago: Especially interesting, though I think incorrect, is his critique of Pashukanis's reduction of the autonomous Kantian subject to the codified illusion of the juridical subject (a dramatis personae) who since she presumably can freely dispose of whatever she happens to own can and should be bound by the contracts into which she enters. That is, legal reasoning cannot conceive of a contractual relationship except as a formally free agreement of wills. The fact that the actual freedom to negotiate is often non existent in contractual situations (in particular of course for the working class) does not allow us to dismiss this fundamental legal principle as irrelevant mystification because it is through this assumption, in defined circumstances, of free agreement that the general justification for making contractual terms binding is found and the binding obligations arising from the contracts are fixed in a predictable manner according to general principles. As soon as the idea of compulsory 'contract' is introduced--that is, as Pashukanis notes, agreement which the parties are compelled to make in furtherance of a plan imposing obligations on both or all of them--it becomes extremely difficult to fix, through contractual rules, the limits of their reciprocal obligations. ^^ CB: Yes, but this is more how I would discuss contracts in bourgeois jurisprudence. Most employers and employees don't have equal bargaining power, meeting of the minds is a fiction, contracts of adhesion, etc. But this way of discussing it seems devoid of a specifically Marxist approach What would be grounds for murder ? I am against capital punishment. rb -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: precautionary principle
Thanks for the plug, Jim. At another point in the manuscript, I mention in passing the role of Frank Knight in developing the distinction between risk and fundamental uncertainty. Knight's claim was that entrepreneurship is the specialty of people with an abnormal tolerance for plunging into the unknown. The system depends on the supply of such entrepreneurs who will put their (or other folks') money on the line, even when accountants haven't a clue what's going on. In the case of Enron, however, the murky accounting appears to have been deliberate. All debate over Knightian entrepreneurship aside, there is no evidence of it here. (The more that comes out, the more the whole business begins to look like a vast, interconnected Ponzi scam. Look at the story in the NYT today about the secret investment fund marketed on Wall St., which paid dividends out of all proportion to the actual underlying returns.) Peter Devine, James wrote: reading a manuscript, I came upon the precautionary principle, defined as saying that when an activity raises threats of harm to the enviornment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically (from the Wingspread statement of 1998). (pen-l's Peter Dorman had an interesting paper on this subject at the recent URPE@ASSA conference.) The Enron and dot.con melt-downs suggest that a similar principle should be applied to accounting (in the face of new corporate forms that stretch traditional accounting norms). But can capitalism -- which centers on the aggressive accumulate-to-compete or compete-to-accumulate principle -- ever follow any precautionary principle without strict governmental restrictions? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: RE: precautionary principle
Mat, How do you deal with the argument that the apparent tradeoff between growth (or full employment) and the environment is due to the failure of full cost internalization? The standard neoclassical position is that, for markets to function properly, they have to reflect true social costs and benefits. Without the polluter pays principle in effect (ideally enforced through markets for eco-externalities), we don't have a true market solution. I have my own problems with this argument, but I wonder what your take is? Peter Forstater, Mathew wrote: Jim, I have thought about this recently and come to the conclusion that, first, unregulated or badly regulated capitalism is both macroeconomically unsatisfactory and environmentally unsustainable. Second, traditional policy approaches to both unemployment and environmental degradation are insufficient to achieve either satisfactory macro outcomes (e.g., full employment) or ecological sustainability. Moreover, policy approaches addressing either one of these (either full employment or environmental sustainability), even if successful, actually in most cases exacerbate the other one. So, e.g., attempting to achieve full employment through stimulating aggregate demand if successful would probably increase resource depletion and pollution. So it may be that 'sustainable capitalism' really is an oxymoron. Mainstream economics usually says that problems like discrimination or environmental degradation are due to market forces (e.g., competition) not being strong enough or associated institutions (e.g., private property) not being widespread enough. But it is much more likely that, as you suggest, these are the normal outcomes of a capitalist system. So the government intervention necessary to address these problems would probably be of a kind and of a degree that the resulting system would be something many would not define as capitalism. So the questions really come back to those that have long been at the heart of debates concerning socialism and communism and even various forms of anarchism: Is there any role for markets at all in a post-capitalist economy? Is there any role for money in a post-capitalist economy? Can a post-capitalist economy be attained without violence? Would a socialist society *necessarily* be environmentally sustainable (or non-racist or non-sexist)? And so on. Mat
RE: Re: RE: re: say it ain't so, Paul
I don't think that PK has moved to the left. He seems to have a very narrow range of acceptable politics/economics. Anyone to the left or to the right is fair game. He can write well and is clever, so when he lashes out at the right, he can be pleasant to behold, but he often relies on rhetoric rather than political economy when making his case. it's not that PK has moved to the left as much as that the center has moved to the right (the selecton of Pres. Dubya, etc.) Of course, this indicates that the left/right metaphor doesn't hold up very well. JDevine
RE: Re: Re: Re: re: the profit rate recession
I raise a single question (and Doug your reply would doubtless be most illuminating--am I way off here?): Why did the drop off in investment spending *lag behind* the drop in profitability? Doug writes: The financial mania, of course. There were plenty of outside funds to tap, and animal spirits were busily tapping them. As they say on Wall Street, the stock market wasn't just discounting the future, it was discounting the hereafter. So despite the dip in profitability, expectations were for endless good times. The financing gap - the difference between capital expenditures and internal cash flow - is very high for a recession (and got unusually wide during the boom). Normally it comes close to 0; now it's about 2% of GDP. even without the financial mania, personal savings, a government surplus, and the inflow of foreign funds (the current account deficit) can be tapped to allow businesses to continue to invest in fixed capital even when cash flow is insufficient. In recent experience it's the inflow of foreign funds that's been most important in allowing U.S. investment to continue after the profit rate fell. Jim Devine
Re: Re: precautionary principle
- Original Message - From: Peter Dorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The more that comes out, the more the whole business begins to look like a vast, interconnected Ponzi scam. Look at the story in the NYT today about the secret investment fund marketed on Wall St., which paid dividends out of all proportion to the actual underlying returns.) Peter Maybe Ken Lay is Ponzi reincarnated? ;- Later in the century will Enron be the signifier of comparison that people reach for as quickly as we reach for Ponzi now? Ian
RE: Re: RE: precautionary principle
Hi Peter - I have taken a multi-pronged approach that includes arguments about valuation problems (criticisms of contingent valuation, travel cost, and other methods); an alternative view of social costs based on Kapp's work that includes cumulative causation; critique of optimality notions based on preferences, productivity, and profitability (all narrowly defined) and the inability of cost-benefit solutions to fully consider what I call biophysical conditions for a sustainable economy; critiques of neoclassical-Coasian-'tragedy of the commons' notions of 'property' and historical evidence concerning forms of property and the social institutions that mediate resource use; knowledge problems concerning human impact on the environment under conditions of radical or fundamental uncertainty (do you know the work of Ravetz and Funtowicz, by the way, some of the best stuff on this I know of?); alternative theories of price and value and critiques of neoclassical price theory; emphasis on the distinction between cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses; etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. If by the time I'm done my opponents are not convinced, at least they are worn out or asleep. I admit that I have made some mistakes in the past (wow!) and have had to modify some of my claims. Once when I was giving a job talk for a position that was a joint appt in economics and environmental studies, after a long day of individual and group interviews with faculty and students of both programs, after going through all the above, elaborating during a long q and a period, someone in the audience asked me: but why does it matter if humanity survives [or survives longer than the amount of time it will take to wear out the earth if we continue on the present path]? Mat -Original Message- From: Peter Dorman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 3:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:21908] Re: RE: precautionary principle Mat, How do you deal with the argument that the apparent tradeoff between growth (or full employment) and the environment is due to the failure of full cost internalization? The standard neoclassical position is that, for markets to function properly, they have to reflect true social costs and benefits. Without the polluter pays principle in effect (ideally enforced through markets for eco-externalities), we don't have a true market solution. I have my own problems with this argument, but I wonder what your take is? Peter
Re: rev and reform
CB: Yes, actually, I was going to type in some of Perlo's chapter The Rate of Profit. The funny thing is Perlo uses both the famous anti-consumptionist quote from Vol. II that you stand on and the ultimate cosuming power of society quote from Vol. III that shows your view is only part of Marx's view. Charles, I wrote a long reply to you that I do not block inadequate consumption from view; I attempt to explain in terms of difficulties in production. You never did reply. So I am not going through ground hog day with you. ^ CB: When was that ? In this most recent exchange or from before ? I believe I missed this. If you have it still, send it to me offlist. Answer it yourself Charles: how can a shortage of surplus value be manifested either as inadequate demand for the commodities that have already been produced or--what is the same thing--as a surplus of commodities vis a vis demand? Look at the posts that you never responded to on 10/23 and /24. Note again the challenge that I put to you offlist that you never answered: Charles, you need to read vol II. demand for dept II is not the only source of demand. Have you been reading a word of what Jim D has been saying? Sure there is an attempt by each capitalist to reduce wages, and thus the purchasing power, of its own workers. This is a source of realization problems for the producers of wage goods. But as Carchedi has explained if lower real wages were simply determined by capital's attempts to increase profits, the concomitant decrease in purchasing power for wage goods could be tendentially self correcting. Realization problems in the wage goods sectors would cause lower profits in that sector and eventually capital movemnts to other sectors. The reduced supply of wage goods could thus be tendentially brought into line with their social demand. Rakesh
Re: rev and reform
CB: You do accept that dictatorship of the proletariat is Marx's formulation though, right ? So, what is the Luxemburg, Mattick , Draper, Thomas formulation of the dicatatorship of the proletariat ? It's not the Bolshevik one, don't you know. CB: You can't dismiss an argument by mislabelling it sloganeering. Put it this way, if not for the _fact_ of the Russian Revolution, regardless of the interpretation of Marx by the Bolsheviks, Marx would be as obscure as Compte or some other academic figure, evidence? and it is not as likely that your teachers would introduce you to him. Look how obscure Hegel is. It really is not a very controversial idea that Marx is famous because of the revolutions that were carried out in his name more than his writing by itself. Well yes but there are others who have tried to make Marx famous for what he did in fact write, not infamous as the putative father of Bolshevism which he would have repudiated. You claimed we read Marx because of the Bolsheviks; I read Marx independently of and in contradiction to Bolshevik interpretation. You do not speak for me. ^^ CB: It doesn't come together , according to Rudy Fictenbaum. It remains scattered. This is another, second, reason by which I infer that it was high priority. You obviously don't know the quotes in which Marx described the importance that he gave to his solution to the FROP. But the most direct reason I gave you on this, to which I have not noticed a reply from you, is that Marx doesn't think that the business cycle can be remedied under capitalism. Do you agree with that ? From that it follows that explaining the business cycle is of secondary importance to the Marxist project. No reasoning given why Y follows from X. The Marxist project is revolutionary: ending the business cycle by ending capitalism. What is your reply to that logic ? ending capitalism to put an end to widening and deepening business cycles? so you are implying that the business cycle is important, no? but let's be frank why you are doing all this bizarre dancing around the business cycle. What you are trying to avoid is the fact that crises of general overproduction happen *periodically* which does not make sense if their cause is simple underconsumption since the consumption of the masses is *constantly and always* restricted by their exploitation. You have yet to explain this; knowing that you can't explain periodic crises of general overproduction with your simple underconsumption theory, you have denied that Marx wanted to explain the business cycle, i.e., periodic general crises, at all. RB CB: Oh I missed that. Where was it ? So, you are a reformist ? Are you saying that Marx's program was taming the business cycle, deferring it contradictions for some time ? These are such dishonest questions I see no reason to continue this dialogue. Mat F had no trouble understanding me. So I attribute a refusal to understand to you. Good bye, Rakesh
Re: RE: Re: RE: precautionary principle
- Original Message - From: Forstater, Mathew [EMAIL PROTECTED] Once when I was giving a job talk for a position that was a joint appt in economics and environmental studies, after a long day of individual and group interviews with faculty and students of both programs, after going through all the above, elaborating during a long q and a period, someone in the audience asked me: but why does it matter if humanity survives [or survives longer than the amount of time it will take to wear out the earth if we continue on the present path]? Mat === And the answer is? ;- Ian
Re: Re: reform and rev
Put is this way, I don't think it is likely that Pashakunis was murdered because he had some good Marxist theory of jurisprudence, and Stalin wanted to cover up the good theory and put forth a bad theory of Marxist jurisprudence. Does that speak to what you are getting at ? In part. The murder could well have also been somewhat arbitrary so as to terrorize the population as well. CB: Yes, and this point is Marxist jurisprudence 101 The point I made was not Marxist jurisprudence 101. In fact I made no point. I only indicated what the points of criticism may be. CB: Yes, but this is more how I would discuss contracts in bourgeois jurisprudence. Most employers and employees don't have equal bargaining power, meeting of the minds is a fiction, contracts of adhesion, etc. But this way of discussing it seems devoid of a specifically Marxist approach Yes the free suject of contract theory is a fiction but it is a fiction the origins of which has to explained and that the law may not be able to do without; and it is a fiction that may undergird the law in general, not simply the law of contracts. The compatability of law and socialism thus became a topic of investigation. And for raising such questions, Pashakunis was murdered. RB
Re: Re: rev and reform
please take it off list. Thanks. On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 03:48:01PM -0800, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: CB: You do accept that dictatorship of the proletariat is Marx's formulation though, right ? So, what is the Luxemburg, Mattick , Draper, Thomas formulation of the dicatatorship of the proletariat ? It's not the Bolshevik one, don't you know. CB: You can't dismiss an argument by mislabelling it sloganeering. Put it this way, if not for the _fact_ of the Russian Revolution, regardless of the interpretation of Marx by the Bolsheviks, Marx would be as obscure as Compte or some other academic figure, evidence? and it is not as likely that your teachers would introduce you to him. Look how obscure Hegel is. It really is not a very controversial idea that Marx is famous because of the revolutions that were carried out in his name more than his writing by itself. Well yes but there are others who have tried to make Marx famous for what he did in fact write, not infamous as the putative father of Bolshevism which he would have repudiated. You claimed we read Marx because of the Bolsheviks; I read Marx independently of and in contradiction to Bolshevik interpretation. You do not speak for me. ^^ CB: It doesn't come together , according to Rudy Fictenbaum. It remains scattered. This is another, second, reason by which I infer that it was high priority. You obviously don't know the quotes in which Marx described the importance that he gave to his solution to the FROP. But the most direct reason I gave you on this, to which I have not noticed a reply from you, is that Marx doesn't think that the business cycle can be remedied under capitalism. Do you agree with that ? From that it follows that explaining the business cycle is of secondary importance to the Marxist project. No reasoning given why Y follows from X. The Marxist project is revolutionary: ending the business cycle by ending capitalism. What is your reply to that logic ? ending capitalism to put an end to widening and deepening business cycles? so you are implying that the business cycle is important, no? but let's be frank why you are doing all this bizarre dancing around the business cycle. What you are trying to avoid is the fact that crises of general overproduction happen *periodically* which does not make sense if their cause is simple underconsumption since the consumption of the masses is *constantly and always* restricted by their exploitation. You have yet to explain this; knowing that you can't explain periodic crises of general overproduction with your simple underconsumption theory, you have denied that Marx wanted to explain the business cycle, i.e., periodic general crises, at all. RB CB: Oh I missed that. Where was it ? So, you are a reformist ? Are you saying that Marx's program was taming the business cycle, deferring it contradictions for some time ? These are such dishonest questions I see no reason to continue this dialogue. Mat F had no trouble understanding me. So I attribute a refusal to understand to you. Good bye, Rakesh -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: the profit rate recession
Doesn't fraud also accompany a falling rate of profit? I have thought about this relationship quite a bit, but I have seen relatively little written about it. As profit rates fall, companies resort to more and more risky behavior to compensate for the fall into rate of profit. In the process, they resort to first flaky and then fraudulent behavior. Any thoughts on this? Devine, James wrote:. even without the financial mania, personal savings, a government surplus, and the inflow of foreign funds (the current account deficit) can be tapped to allow businesses to continue to invest in fixed capital even when cash flow is insufficient. In recent experience it's the inflow of foreign funds that's been most important in allowing U.S. investment to continue after the profit rate fell. Jim Devine -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
the genius of capitalism.
I hope that people remember O'Neil's cavalier attitude toward bankruptcy the next time some industry comes along asking for a bailout. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Re: the profit rate recession
Michael Perelman wrote: Doesn't fraud also accompany a falling rate of profit? I have thought about this relationship quite a bit, but I have seen relatively little written about it. As profit rates fall, companies resort to more and more risky behavior to compensate for the fall into rate of profit. In the process, they resort to first flaky and then fraudulent behavior. In the US, the profit rate rose from the early 80s until around 1997. Funny accounting also increased over the period - in bull markets, people don't want to hear bad news, and they want profits to grow rapidly forever. The bursting of a speculative bubble brings calls for tighter accounting. Doug
Re: Re: Re: the profit rate recession
I don't disagree with you, except to the extent that I think that the real rate of profits has been declining since the late 1960s. It got a boost from the decline in regulation and in the power of labor, as well as from the opening up of new markets. None of these could be expected to continue to increase more. Of course, I can muster no specific numbers to support my theory, although Fred's work in does seem to lend some credence to it. Right, Fred? On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 07:24:07PM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote: Michael Perelman wrote: Doesn't fraud also accompany a falling rate of profit? I have thought about this relationship quite a bit, but I have seen relatively little written about it. As profit rates fall, companies resort to more and more risky behavior to compensate for the fall into rate of profit. In the process, they resort to first flaky and then fraudulent behavior. In the US, the profit rate rose from the early 80s until around 1997. Funny accounting also increased over the period - in bull markets, people don't want to hear bad news, and they want profits to grow rapidly forever. The bursting of a speculative bubble brings calls for tighter accounting. Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: Re: RE: precautionary principle
Thanks! Could you post some specific references for Ravetz and Funtowicz? I agree with a lot (I think most) of the specifics you raise, but such a diffuse critique runs the risk of not communicating itself beyond the small circle of people who go through the whole thing systematically. Is there a bumper sticker version? Peter Forstater, Mathew wrote: Hi Peter - I have taken a multi-pronged approach that includes arguments about valuation problems (criticisms of contingent valuation, travel cost, and other methods); an alternative view of social costs based on Kapp's work that includes cumulative causation; critique of optimality notions based on preferences, productivity, and profitability (all narrowly defined) and the inability of cost-benefit solutions to fully consider what I call biophysical conditions for a sustainable economy; critiques of neoclassical-Coasian-'tragedy of the commons' notions of 'property' and historical evidence concerning forms of property and the social institutions that mediate resource use; knowledge problems concerning human impact on the environment under conditions of radical or fundamental uncertainty (do you know the work of Ravetz and Funtowicz, by the way, some of the best stuff on this I know of?); alternative theories of price and value and critiques of neoclassical price theory; emphasis on the distinction between cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses; etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. If by the time I'm done my opponents are not convinced, at least they are worn out or asleep. I admit that I have made some mistakes in the past (wow!) and have had to modify some of my claims. Once when I was giving a job talk for a position that was a joint appt in economics and environmental studies, after a long day of individual and group interviews with faculty and students of both programs, after going through all the above, elaborating during a long q and a period, someone in the audience asked me: but why does it matter if humanity survives [or survives longer than the amount of time it will take to wear out the earth if we continue on the present path]? Mat
Nurse-to-patient staffing minimums are a reform victory
Concerning the California governor's announcement discussed here recently: The nurse-to-patient staffing minimums won by the California Nurses Association constitute a reform victory for patients and nurses. They give bedside nurses a tool to fight terrible situations of overwork and impossible-to-meet responsibility. CNA points out that lots of nursing labor is available. Nurses have been running away from acute care hospitals because of the horrible working conditions. A year or so ago, Victoria, Australia adopted staffing minimums and quickly expanded the number of nurses in hospitals by 13%. Also, a high percentage of nurses work part-time, and as working conditions improve, some of them will add a few hours per week. I agree with the comments by Phillips and Walker that the U.S. should put more resources into nursing education rather than rely on Canada, England, the Philippines, etc. to do it. See the CNA Web site for more details. http://www.calnurse.org Charles Andrews Web site for my book is at http://www.laborrepublic.org
Re: RE: precautionary principle
Mat, I see another dimension to your statement about the lack of regulation and the lack of sustainability. In my Natural Instability book I made the case that increasing pressure on the input side -- such as through higher wages or greater environmental restrictions -- can create a simulated competition in the sense that they impose market pressures without the deflationary pressure of product marketing competition. Forstater, Mathew wrote: Jim, I have thought about this recently and come to the conclusion that, first, unregulated or badly regulated capitalism is both macroeconomically unsatisfactory and environmentally unsustainable. Second, traditional policy approaches to both unemployment and environmental degradation are insufficient to achieve either satisfactory macro outcomes (e.g., full employment) or ecological sustainability. Moreover, policy approaches addressing either one of these (either full employment or environmental sustainability), even if successful, actually in most cases exacerbate the other one. So, e.g., attempting to achieve full employment through stimulating aggregate demand if successful would probably increase resource depletion and pollution. So it may be that 'sustainable capitalism' really is an oxymoron. Mainstream economics usually says that problems like discrimination or environmental degradation are due to market forces (e.g., competition) not being strong enough or associated institutions (e.g., private property) not being widespread enough. But it is much more likely that, as you suggest, these are the normal outcomes of a capitalist system. So the government intervention necessary to address these problems would probably be of a kind and of a degree that the resulting system would be something many would not define as capitalism. So the questions really come back to those that have long been at the heart of debates concerning socialism and communism and even various forms of anarchism: Is there any role for markets at all in a post-capitalist economy? Is there any role for money in a post-capitalist economy? Can a post-capitalist economy be attained without violence? Would a socialist society *necessarily* be environmentally sustainable (or non-racist or non-sexist)? And so on. Mat -Original Message- From: Devine, James [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 11:32 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [PEN-L:21886] precautionary principle reading a manuscript, I came upon the precautionary principle, defined as saying that when an activity raises threats of harm to the enviornment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically (from the Wingspread statement of 1998). (pen-l's Peter Dorman had an interesting paper on this subject at the recent URPE@ASSA conference.) The Enron and dot.con melt-downs suggest that a similar principle should be applied to accounting (in the face of new corporate forms that stretch traditional accounting norms). But can capitalism -- which centers on the aggressive accumulate-to-compete or compete-to-accumulate principle -- ever follow any precautionary principle without strict governmental restrictions? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
BECAUSE WE ARE ALL ARGENTINES
Friends, This is a call some anarchist comrades sent to the Mayday2k list. Being the only anarcho-leninist (whatever this means) I know of, I thought this would be of interest to you. Best, Sabri + Call to action: CACEROLAZO GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL CALL TO ACTION C A C E R O L A Z O G L O B A L IN SOLIDARITY WITH THE RESISTANCE OF THE ARGENTINE PEOPLE AGAINST THE EXPLOITERS (Transnationals, Banks, Corrupt Government Thieves), meeting at the World Economic Forum/WEF (Davos) in New York. SATURDAY/SUNDAY FEBRUARY 2/3, 2002 - Concrete place, time and format of the action to be decided in each city. NEIGHBORS AND CITIZENS OF THE WORLD: Lets make our Caceroles sound together! All of the worlds Caceroles sounding off at the same time in a HUGE CACEROLAZO GLOBAL. AS WE SHOUT TOGETHER WITH THE PEOPLE OF ARGENTINA IN REBELLION: DOWN WITH THEM ALL; NOT EVEN ONE WILL REMAIN! WHAT IS A CACEROLAZO? When hundreds, thousands or hundreds of thousands of people get together and bang on their caceroles (pots and pans) as loudly as humanly possible, moving forward or standing still, in collective protest. The Cacerolazo has become the symbol of Argentine popular rebellion against the neoliberal order, and is fast becoming associated with the global resistance to transnational capitalism. Why ARGENTINA? Argentina is not a poor country, but rather a country that has been destroyed. It is the latest example that transnational capitalism works like a neutron bomb: destroying all living things. A large part of the population of Argentina, once the breadbasket of the world with tremendous natural resources - the hope and destiny of many millions of poor immigrants from around the world- is now going hungry. Fifteen of the 36 million Argentines are living below the poverty line. Five million live in extreme poverty. ARGENTINA IS A GLOBAL MIRROR OF NEOLIBERAL CAPITALISM. ARGENTINA IS YOUR FUTURE. ARGENTINA IS A GLOBAL SCENARIO. The current crisis in Argentina, the top student of the IMF and the WASHINGTON CONSENSUS, is the culmination of 25 years of the neoliberal economic model imposed through significant bloodshed by the military dictatorship in Argentina (1976-1983; 30,000 dissappeared, hundreds of millions tortured, jailed and exiled), which was supported by the IMF and the government of the United States. But Argentina has also been during the past few years, and especially since the popular rebellion on December 19 and 20, 2001 (that forced the pseudodemocratic government of De la Rua to resign), an example of a society, a people, and a citizenry that said ENOUGH!: No more victims! The cacerolazos have produced an irreversible and irreperable rupture in the established order. Local, self-generated calls to action are coming from the grassroots through neighborhood assemblies, which are totally self-managed, horizontal and democratic. A profound transformation of the political culture is rapidly emerging among wide sectors of the population. Many solidarity actions with the Argentine people have been carried out or are about to be carried out in diverse cities throughout the world, such as Barcelona, Bilbao, Paris, Toronto, Montreal, Oviedo, Berlin, Madrid, London, Porto Alegre and New York. Why February 2/3, 2002? There will be a huge demonstration and cacerolazo in New York City on Saturday, February 2 against the World Economic Forum (which used to take place in Davos, bringing lobbies, transnationals and banks together with government leaders), along with demonstrations and cacerolazos on the same day in cities throughout the world, particularly in Canada, Europe (above all in Spain) and Latin America (especially the city of Porto Alegre, Brazil, where the World Social Forum will be meeting at the same time, and in Buenos Aires). WHY A CACEROLAZO? The Cacerolazois globalizing as a form of protest; as a method it has many advantages: It is absolutely non-violent. It is loud and clearly visible. It is an extremely simple and grassroots method; it does not require expensive technology, training or special abilities. THE ENTIRE FAMILY can participate and any community or city can organize one. It is festive, carnavalesque and it symbolizes the social response to the big winners in the Argentine Crisis and the global neoliberal order more generally. PROPOSAL for ACTION in EACH LOCALE: 1) Organize a CACEROLAZO shaming those who are responsible for the crisis. 2) Write a text to denounce the situation. 3) Spread the word throught the mass and alternative media. 4) Communicate progress and results through the internet and other global communication networks. NEIGHBORS AND CITIZENS OF THE WORLD: BECAUSE WE ARE ALL ARGENTINES ON SATURDAY/SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 2/3 LET'S CREATE THE SOUND OF A GLOBAL CACEROLAZO.. MAY OUR RESISTANCE AND SOLIDARITY BE AS GLOBAL AS CAPITAL!
Re: BECAUSE WE ARE ALL ARGENTINES
what is an anarcho-leninist? On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 06:53:30PM -0800, Sabri Oncu wrote: Friends, This is a call some anarchist comrades sent to the Mayday2k list. Being the only anarcho-leninist (whatever this means) I know of, I thought this would be of interest to you. Best, Sabri + Call to action: CACEROLAZO GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL CALL TO ACTION C A C E R O L A Z O G L O B A L IN SOLIDARITY WITH THE RESISTANCE OF THE ARGENTINE PEOPLE AGAINST THE EXPLOITERS (Transnationals, Banks, Corrupt Government Thieves), meeting at the World Economic Forum/WEF (Davos) in New York. SATURDAY/SUNDAY FEBRUARY 2/3, 2002 - Concrete place, time and format of the action to be decided in each city. NEIGHBORS AND CITIZENS OF THE WORLD: Lets make our Caceroles sound together! All of the worlds Caceroles sounding off at the same time in a HUGE CACEROLAZO GLOBAL. AS WE SHOUT TOGETHER WITH THE PEOPLE OF ARGENTINA IN REBELLION: DOWN WITH THEM ALL; NOT EVEN ONE WILL REMAIN! WHAT IS A CACEROLAZO? When hundreds, thousands or hundreds of thousands of people get together and bang on their caceroles (pots and pans) as loudly as humanly possible, moving forward or standing still, in collective protest. The Cacerolazo has become the symbol of Argentine popular rebellion against the neoliberal order, and is fast becoming associated with the global resistance to transnational capitalism. Why ARGENTINA? Argentina is not a poor country, but rather a country that has been destroyed. It is the latest example that transnational capitalism works like a neutron bomb: destroying all living things. A large part of the population of Argentina, once the breadbasket of the world with tremendous natural resources - the hope and destiny of many millions of poor immigrants from around the world- is now going hungry. Fifteen of the 36 million Argentines are living below the poverty line. Five million live in extreme poverty. ARGENTINA IS A GLOBAL MIRROR OF NEOLIBERAL CAPITALISM. ARGENTINA IS YOUR FUTURE. ARGENTINA IS A GLOBAL SCENARIO. The current crisis in Argentina, the top student of the IMF and the WASHINGTON CONSENSUS, is the culmination of 25 years of the neoliberal economic model imposed through significant bloodshed by the military dictatorship in Argentina (1976-1983; 30,000 dissappeared, hundreds of millions tortured, jailed and exiled), which was supported by the IMF and the government of the United States. But Argentina has also been during the past few years, and especially since the popular rebellion on December 19 and 20, 2001 (that forced the pseudodemocratic government of De la Rua to resign), an example of a society, a people, and a citizenry that said ENOUGH!: No more victims! The cacerolazos have produced an irreversible and irreperable rupture in the established order. Local, self-generated calls to action are coming from the grassroots through neighborhood assemblies, which are totally self-managed, horizontal and democratic. A profound transformation of the political culture is rapidly emerging among wide sectors of the population. Many solidarity actions with the Argentine people have been carried out or are about to be carried out in diverse cities throughout the world, such as Barcelona, Bilbao, Paris, Toronto, Montreal, Oviedo, Berlin, Madrid, London, Porto Alegre and New York. Why February 2/3, 2002? There will be a huge demonstration and cacerolazo in New York City on Saturday, February 2 against the World Economic Forum (which used to take place in Davos, bringing lobbies, transnationals and banks together with government leaders), along with demonstrations and cacerolazos on the same day in cities throughout the world, particularly in Canada, Europe (above all in Spain) and Latin America (especially the city of Porto Alegre, Brazil, where the World Social Forum will be meeting at the same time, and in Buenos Aires). WHY A CACEROLAZO? The Cacerolazois globalizing as a form of protest; as a method it has many advantages: It is absolutely non-violent. It is loud and clearly visible. It is an extremely simple and grassroots method; it does not require expensive technology, training or special abilities. THE ENTIRE FAMILY can participate and any community or city can organize one. It is festive, carnavalesque and it symbolizes the social response to the big winners in the Argentine Crisis and the global neoliberal order more generally. PROPOSAL for ACTION in EACH LOCALE: 1) Organize a CACEROLAZO shaming those who are responsible for the crisis. 2) Write a text to denounce the situation. 3) Spread the word throught the mass and alternative media. 4) Communicate progress and results through the internet and other global communication networks. NEIGHBORS AND CITIZENS OF THE WORLD: BECAUSE WE ARE ALL
ghosts of Enron Past
Keats, Charles. 1982. Magnificent Masquerade: The Strange Case of Dr. Coster and Mr. Musica (NY and London: Garland). Philip Musica, a NY swindler, who created the false identity of Dr. Coster, took over McKesson Robbins. He weathered the Depression by creating fictitious profits from a Canadian firm. false invoices were forged to obtain very positive financial reports for auditors. His machinations went unnoticed until 1940, when internal political difficulties rather than a failure to pay dividends led to the discovery. I believe that he was seriously considered as a person with presidential potential. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: BECAUSE WE ARE ALL ARGENTINES
Whoever you want them to be :-) Ian - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 7:41 PM Subject: [PEN-L:21926] Re: BECAUSE WE ARE ALL ARGENTINES what is an anarcho-leninist? On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 06:53:30PM -0800, Sabri Oncu wrote: Friends, This is a call some anarchist comrades sent to the Mayday2k list. Being the only anarcho-leninist (whatever this means) I know of, I thought this would be of interest to you. Best, Sabri + Call to action: CACEROLAZO GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL CALL TO ACTION C A C E R O L A Z O G L O B A L IN SOLIDARITY WITH THE RESISTANCE OF THE ARGENTINE PEOPLE AGAINST THE EXPLOITERS (Transnationals, Banks, Corrupt Government Thieves), meeting at the World Economic Forum/WEF (Davos) in New York. SATURDAY/SUNDAY FEBRUARY 2/3, 2002 - Concrete place, time and format of the action to be decided in each city. NEIGHBORS AND CITIZENS OF THE WORLD: Lets make our Caceroles sound together! All of the worlds Caceroles sounding off at the same time in a HUGE CACEROLAZO GLOBAL. AS WE SHOUT TOGETHER WITH THE PEOPLE OF ARGENTINA IN REBELLION: DOWN WITH THEM ALL; NOT EVEN ONE WILL REMAIN! WHAT IS A CACEROLAZO? When hundreds, thousands or hundreds of thousands of people get together and bang on their caceroles (pots and pans) as loudly as humanly possible, moving forward or standing still, in collective protest. The Cacerolazo has become the symbol of Argentine popular rebellion against the neoliberal order, and is fast becoming associated with the global resistance to transnational capitalism. Why ARGENTINA? Argentina is not a poor country, but rather a country that has been destroyed. It is the latest example that transnational capitalism works like a neutron bomb: destroying all living things. A large part of the population of Argentina, once the breadbasket of the world with tremendous natural resources - the hope and destiny of many millions of poor immigrants from around the world- is now going hungry. Fifteen of the 36 million Argentines are living below the poverty line. Five million live in extreme poverty. ARGENTINA IS A GLOBAL MIRROR OF NEOLIBERAL CAPITALISM. ARGENTINA IS YOUR FUTURE. ARGENTINA IS A GLOBAL SCENARIO. The current crisis in Argentina, the top student of the IMF and the WASHINGTON CONSENSUS, is the culmination of 25 years of the neoliberal economic model imposed through significant bloodshed by the military dictatorship in Argentina (1976-1983; 30,000 dissappeared, hundreds of millions tortured, jailed and exiled), which was supported by the IMF and the government of the United States. But Argentina has also been during the past few years, and especially since the popular rebellion on December 19 and 20, 2001 (that forced the pseudodemocratic government of De la Rua to resign), an example of a society, a people, and a citizenry that said ENOUGH!: No more victims! The cacerolazos have produced an irreversible and irreperable rupture in the established order. Local, self-generated calls to action are coming from the grassroots through neighborhood assemblies, which are totally self-managed, horizontal and democratic. A profound transformation of the political culture is rapidly emerging among wide sectors of the population. Many solidarity actions with the Argentine people have been carried out or are about to be carried out in diverse cities throughout the world, such as Barcelona, Bilbao, Paris, Toronto, Montreal, Oviedo, Berlin, Madrid, London, Porto Alegre and New York. Why February 2/3, 2002? There will be a huge demonstration and cacerolazo in New York City on Saturday, February 2 against the World Economic Forum (which used to take place in Davos, bringing lobbies, transnationals and banks together with government leaders), along with demonstrations and cacerolazos on the same day in cities throughout the world, particularly in Canada, Europe (above all in Spain) and Latin America (especially the city of Porto Alegre, Brazil, where the World Social Forum will be meeting at the same time, and in Buenos Aires). WHY A CACEROLAZO? The Cacerolazois globalizing as a form of protest; as a method it has many advantages: It is absolutely non-violent. It is loud and clearly visible. It is an extremely simple and grassroots method; it does not require expensive technology, training or special abilities. THE ENTIRE FAMILY can participate and any community or city can organize one. It is festive, carnavalesque and it symbolizes the social response to the big winners in the Argentine Crisis and the global neoliberal order more generally. PROPOSAL for ACTION in EACH LOCALE: 1) Organize a CACEROLAZO shaming those who are responsible for the crisis. 2) Write a text to denounce the situation. 3) Spread the word throught the mass and
oh, them bankers
UBS Warburg fires four bankers Jill Treanor Saturday January 26, 2002 The Guardian Four investment bankers at UBS Warburg have been sacked for accessing a competitor's website and copying its research. The bankers used the website set up by Morgan Stanley to give its customers access to its analysts' research. While many banks swap website information, it is understood that the Warburg bankers entered unauthorised pages on Morgan Stanley's site. The sites are not the publicly accessible main portals for the banks but are protected with passwords to allow clients to receive crucial research on stocks, bonds and currencies as quickly as possible. It is understood that the copied research was spotted by a client of Morgan Stanley shortly after one of its salesmen joined UBS Warburg. The salesman is thought to have taken his former colleagues' passwords with him and given them to his new colleagues at Warburg. The four bankers who have left UBS Warburg are Derek Braun, a salesman who joined from Morgan Stanley six months ago, Nick Tudball, head of sales in the credit fixed-income department, Beate Muensterman and Ralph Gasser, two research analysts in UBS Warburg's credit fixed-income department. The incident is an embarrassment for Warburg, which is thought to have been conducting an inquiry for some months into the similarity between its research and that by analysts at Morgan Stanley. A spokesman for UBS Warburg confirmed last night that four members of staff had left, although it refused to identify them. We can confirm that following an investigation into the conduct of four employees they have left us with immediate effect. We consider the matter is now closed, a UBS Warburg spokesman said. The spokesman also confirmed that the access to Morgan Stanley's website had been unauthorised. Morgan Stanley refused to comment.
Re: Re: BECAUSE WE ARE ALL ARGENTINES
That is not true Ian, I am still working on the definition. I will let both of you know when I am done! Best Sabri Whoever you want them to be :-) Ian - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 7:41 PM Subject: [PEN-L:21926] Re: BECAUSE WE ARE ALL ARGENTINES what is an anarcho-leninist?
Re: Re: Re: BECAUSE WE ARE ALL ARGENTINES
that's why I had the :-) at the end...Sorry if it's misunderstood Ian - Original Message - From: Sabri Oncu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PEN-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 9:15 PM Subject: [PEN-L:21930] Re: Re: BECAUSE WE ARE ALL ARGENTINES That is not true Ian, I am still working on the definition. I will let both of you know when I am done! Best Sabri Whoever you want them to be :-) Ian - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 7:41 PM Subject: [PEN-L:21926] Re: BECAUSE WE ARE ALL ARGENTINES what is an anarcho-leninist?
man bites dog in the ME
Unrest a Chief Product of Arab Economies By Paul Blustein Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, January 26, 2002; Page A01 CAIRO -- The economic misfortunes that fuel resentment among young Arab men emerge through the cigarette smoke at a street-side cafe, where a table full of Egyptians in their twenties and thirties erupts in bitterness over their dreary prospects. It's really degrading. The only thing we can do is move from one petty job to another, said Fahmi Hanafi, a burly, mustachioed 33-year-old. It is not poverty that drives their discontent so much as an economy that provides few chances for interesting work and upward mobility. While many countries in Asia and Latin America have taken advantage of Western money, technology and markets as a means to fashion dynamic economies, much of the Arab world remains stuck in a time warp, with large state bureaucracies weighing down the private sector and government service offering the most appealing option to much of the workforce. Like the others at his table, Hanafi graduated from a technical school and expected to land a cushy, secure government job, only to be told repeatedly by government bureaucrats that he would have to wait. For the past 15 years he has supported himself by working a few weeks at a time in food markets and gas stations. The outcome is a flat nothing -- for me, since 1986, he said. It's a problem that has no solution. The economic system is a total failure. Similar woes afflict millions of young people in the Middle East and North Africa, where unemployment averages 15 percent -- in Algeria, it is close to 30 percent -- and is particularly prevalent among the relatively well-educated. Their plight was a matter of no great interest in the West before Sept. 11, but it is stirring anxiety now, especially since some of the men identified as carrying out the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were educated -- notably their apparent ringleader Mohamed Atta, a 33-year-old Egyptian with an engineering degree. Economic questions about the Middle East and North Africa suddenly loom large: Why has the region reaped such paltry rewards from globalization? And why aren't the United States, its rich allies and international lenders doing more to help these countries succeed economically? Egypt's experience illustrates some of the answers. As in most other Arab countries (Lebanon being an exception), an authoritarian regime has for decades maintained a heavily state-managed economy that discouraged private investment, entrepreneurship and dynamism of the sort that has powered growth in other developing countries. A few of Egypt's neighbors, notably Tunisia, have dismantled much of their state economic apparatus and enjoyed modest booms.But elsewhere in the region, economies are often either steered by a royal family or, as is the case in Egypt, managed by governments that still reflect the socialism embraced in earlier decades. The result is a private sector that falls woefully short of the vitality needed to employ a burgeoning population. One statistic vividly highlights the feebleness of industry in this part of the world: Aside from oil, exports from the Middle East and North Africa (excluding Israel) are about the same as Denmark's, a country with less than one-fiftieth the population. Egypt's record also shows that lifting these economies out of their ruts will be a formidable challenge. Thanks largely to Egypt's willingness to make peace with Israel and ally itself with the United States, the country has received more than $55 billion in aid over the past quarter-century from Western governments, international lending organizations such as the World Bank, and oil-rich Arab neighbors. Only India has gotten more. Ironically, this aid -- motivated by a desire for stability in the Middle East -- helped the Egyptian government maintain a system whose failings are now recognized as a source of the alienation that may stir unrest worldwide. The problem is not that the system generates widespread deprivation; on the contrary, poverty rates are relatively low in Egypt and other Arab countries as well. But the lack of opportunities for the young and educated translates into deeply frustrated aspirations. At another Cairo cafe, Hassan Saber, a university-trained engineer, lamented the joblessness he has endured for the past two years. I understand this is the fate of Third World nations, but I had the hope that things might become better, said Saber, 37, adding that among the unemployed people he knows, a number have been drawn to the preachings of radical clerics. As the economy gets worse, the religious fundamentalists and extremists are capitalizing on it, he said. The greater the decline, the more violence we're going to see. Socialism's Legacy Charismatic and cosmopolitan, Gamal Abdel Nasser set Egypt on a course that seemed to suit his country well following the 1952 revolution that brought him to
