Re: Re: Guevara on law of value and world terms of trade
At 26/08/02 15:27 -0400, you wrote: For personal reasons I could not respond to this interesting passage at the time. Nor can I do justice to the enormous subject of the law of value under socialism, without much more preparation. But in connection with the great disparities in the level of the productive forces on a world scale, Guevara seems to be arguing for conscious modification of effect of the law of value in trade within the socialist bloc in order to manage the terms of trade. Even though the socialist economic bloc is no more, these ideas might still be possible between blocs of countries opposed to the domination of the global economy by the USA and Europe. Chris Burford London Only if profit ceases to exist as an important goal in the capitalist world. Louis Proyect www.marxmail.org This has some connection with the terms of trade argument at the earth summit, and it seems to me with the sort of decision between Russia and China to settle their accounts in bilateral exchanges between their central banks rather than in dollars. The profit motive and commodity exchange are being extensively developed in both countries, contrary to what Guevara argued in this article, nevertheless such an arrangement could be made at governmental level, with or without an extensive use of profits within the countries concerned. This was my consideration. A wider question is what are the most progressive, and/or the most scientific, proposals in circulation at the earth summit, on addressing the terms of trade? Chris Burford London
RE: Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9
I'll admit as much as more coherent or more systematic but more scientific? That's like saying one astrologer is more scientific than another. I maintain that these slurs against astrology are misplaced; the Popperian definition of a science is that a field of study makes testable predictions, and the science of astrology gives me twelve testable predictions, every day, free with my daily newspaper. dd ___ Email Disclaimer This communication may contain confidential or privileged information and is for the attention of the named recipient only. It 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. (c) 2002 Cazenove Service Company or affiliates. Cazenove Co. Ltd and Cazenove Fund Management Limited provide independent advice and are regulated by the Financial Services Authority and members of the London Stock Exchange. Cazenove Fund Management Jersey is a branch of Cazenove Fund Management Limited and is regulated by the Jersey Financial Services Commission. Cazenove Investment Fund Management Limited, regulated by the Financial Services Authority and a member of IMA, promotes only its own products and services. ___
Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9
Title: Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9 Saying that a phenomenon is natural is a much less scientific way of describing something than doing so in simple descriptive terms (which are more coherent or systematic). The term natural implies you can't mess with Mother Nature and stuff like that -- or that somehow Adam Smith's natural liberty exists. Economists use the word natural in an mystical way, as part of the Holy Cult of the Invisible Hand. JD -Original Message- From: Tom Walker To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 8/26/2002 4:59 PM Subject: [PEN-L:29889] Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9 I'll admit as much as more coherent or more systematic but more scientific? That's like saying one astrologer is more scientific than another. Jim Devine wrote, The NAIRU is a more-scientific way to describe what Milton Friedman calls the natural rate of unemployment. His idea is that the economy gravitates toward the natural rate unless the government or central bank screws things up. Tom Walker 604 254 0470
RE: Re: Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9
Title: RE: [PEN-L:29890] Re: Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9 I didn't know that anyone was arguing about the right number. Why is it a trap? -Original Message- From: Eugene Coyle To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 8/26/2002 5:59 PM Subject: [PEN-L:29890] Re: Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9 Arguing about whether the right number is 8.5% or 4.9% or 0.5% is a trap. The figure for the NAIRU should not be a discussion we enter into. Gene Coyle Tom Walker wrote: I'll admit as much as more coherent or more systematic but more scientific? That's like saying one astrologer is more scientific than another. Jim Devine wrote, The NAIRU is a more-scientific way to describe what Milton Friedman calls the natural rate of unemployment. His idea is that the economy gravitates toward the natural rate unless the government or central bank screws things up. Tom Walker 604 254 0470
RE: RE: Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9
Title: RE: [PEN-L:29896] RE: Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9 FWIW, the NAIRU theory does make testable propositions. Its adherents said that 6 percent unemployment (or higher) was The Line We Shouldn't Cross. The US crossed that line in the 1990s -- and the theory's prediction failed. So the NAIRUvians are changing their minds, etc. Of course, there are always dogmatists out there, some in positions of power. JD -Original Message- From: Davies, Daniel To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Sent: 8/27/2002 4:21 AM Subject: [PEN-L:29896] RE: Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9 I'll admit as much as more coherent or more systematic but more scientific? That's like saying one astrologer is more scientific than another. I maintain that these slurs against astrology are misplaced; the Popperian definition of a science is that a field of study makes testable predictions, and the science of astrology gives me twelve testable predictions, every day, free with my daily newspaper. dd ___ Email Disclaimer This communication may contain confidential or privileged information and is for the attention of the named recipient only. It 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. (c) 2002 Cazenove Service Company or affiliates. Cazenove Co. Ltd and Cazenove Fund Management Limited provide independent advice and are regulated by the Financial Services Authority and members of the London Stock Exchange. Cazenove Fund Management Jersey is a branch of Cazenove Fund Management Limited and is regulated by the Jersey Financial Services Commission. Cazenove Investment Fund Management Limited, regulated by the Financial Services Authority and a member of IMA, promotes only its own products and services. ___
Re: Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9
John Bates Clark once said that natural theories were necessarily static. On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 06:40:42AM -0700, Devine, James wrote: Saying that a phenomenon is natural is a much less scientific way of describing something than doing so in simple descriptive terms (which are more coherent or systematic). The term natural implies you can't mess with Mother Nature and stuff like that -- or that somehow Adam Smith's natural liberty exists. Economists use the word natural in an mystical way, as part of the Holy Cult of the Invisible Hand. JD -Original Message- From: Tom Walker To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 8/26/2002 4:59 PM Subject: [PEN-L:29889] Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9 I'll admit as much as more coherent or more systematic but more scientific? That's like saying one astrologer is more scientific than another. Jim Devine wrote, The NAIRU is a more-scientific way to describe what Milton Friedman calls the natural rate of unemployment. His idea is that the economy gravitates toward the natural rate unless the government or central bank screws things up. Tom Walker 604 254 0470 -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
spinning brazil
Banks Vow To Maintain Brazil Credit Pledge Gives a Boost To IMF Bailout Effort By Paul Blustein Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, August 27, 2002; Page E01 The troubled international initiative to rescue the Brazilian economy got a shot in the arm yesterday as executives of 16 major banks, meeting in the presence of U.S. regulators and Brazilian officials, issued a statement voicing their intention to maintain credit lines to Brazil. The meeting at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York marked an important effort to shore up the International Monetary Fund's $30 billion bailout of Brazil by persuading banks to stop pulling money out of the country. Despite the announcement on Aug. 7 that Brazil would receive the largest loan in IMF history, an outflow of funds from the country has continued, threatening to undermine the U.S.-backed rescue, which is aimed at keeping South America's biggest economy from collapse. One of the problems has been the canceling of credit lines by foreign banks. Initially at least, the meeting and the statement issued afterward appeared to produce the desired effect. Brazilian financial markets have rallied in recent days in part because of the disclosure that the meeting would be held, and yesterday the country's main stock index jumped 4.35 percent. The Brazilian real, which has lost about one-quarter of its value against the U.S. dollar this year, edged 0.6 percent higher, and a benchmark government bond posted modest gains to close at about 59.6 cents per dollar of face value, close to the 61-cent level it reached right after the IMF rescue was unveiled. Summoning bankers to meetings at central banks for a bit of moral suasion is a rare but hardly unprecedented tactic when IMF-led rescues are faltering. The tactic was used to good effect to keep banks from cutting credit lines to South Korea in 1997 and to Brazil in 1999. The general idea is that while each bank may have an individual interest in pulling its money out from a crisis-stricken country, collectively they have an interest in avoiding a debt default that could cost them billions of dollars and drag down other economies as well. So their regulators -- central bank officials -- can help by steering the banks toward joint pledges to keep their credit lines open, without overtly intervening in the decisions of private financial institutions. Fed officials and bankers were at pains to dismiss any suggestion that yesterday's meeting involved the sort of arm twisting that went on in the earlier cases. The vast majority of talking at the meeting, which began at 10 a.m. and ended shortly before 1 p.m., involved presentations on Brazil's economic and political situation by Arminio Fraga, the president of Brazil's central bank, and Pedro Malan, the country's finance minister. Basically, there was no pressure from the official sector, William R. Rhodes, Citigroup's vice chairman, said in a phone interview. This was voluntary. It was basically a Brazilian operation, and the reason they held it at the Fed was that they wanted a neutral site. Peter Bakstansky, spokesman for the New York Fed -- the most important of the Federal Reserve System's 12 reserve banks -- agreed. We really just hosted, he said. But Fed officials have privately acknowledged in the past that when such meetings are held at central bank offices, they send a clear but unstated signal to the bankers present. William J. McDonough, the New York Fed president, opened the meeting with some remarks, and Terrence J. Checki, an executive vice president of the reserve bank, remained in the meeting. We always say that the banks make up their own minds, said Edwin Truman, who served more than two decades as the Fed's top international staffer before taking a similar post at the Treasury during the Clinton administration. But the implicit message to the banks in such meetings, he said, is: If you don't go along with this, it will be unpleasant for all of us. It's an important public policy issue, Truman added. Important enough so that the New York Fed -- or the Federal Reserve, since I'm sure this was cleared with Greenspan -- was willing to use its good offices, he said, referring to Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan. And although the U.S. Treasury, which declined comment, wasn't involved in the meeting, I would assume that the Treasury was very closely following the outcome of this meeting and would be very disappointed if it weren't successful. Rhodes maintained, however, that nobody had to be coerced to sign yesterday's statement, in which the banks expressed their intention to sustain their general level of business in the country including trade lines. A major reason for the banks' positive attitude, he said, was the endorsement of the IMF program by all the candidates in Brazil's October presidential election. Meeting with reporters after the meeting, Fraga declared the statement to be the strongest possible signal the banks
Re: dead economists
Michael Perelman wrote: Think of the URPE people who have moved to the right. E.g. Bruce Steinberg, former edit board member of RRPE, now chief economist, Merrill Lynch. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Russia turns to yuan
In a message dated 8/26/02 7:26:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Shortage of oil? Not in this world. The shortage is in our vision and imagination. Melvin P. Even under socialism, there would be dwindling supplies of oil just as there are dwindling supplies of water. Unless Melvin's "vision and imagination" includes serious and *measurable* proposals for how to conserve energy, water, etc., we can't be taken seriously as an alternative to the bourgeoisie. 125 years ago there was little difference between the bourgeoisie and Marxism over how to relate to nature. It was seen as both an unlimited tap for natural resources and a sink for industrial waste. We can no longer think in these terms. Socialism must first and foremost consider ways in which farming can be sustainable. This involves reintegration of the city and the countryside, just as Marx calls for in the CM. For some Marxists, this is an appalling prospect because it would sacrifice everything they hold dear such as Starbucks, McDonalds and other symbols of Empire. (Interesting, btw, that Hardt-Negri have zero to say about ecology.) It also requires us to reevaluate the use of automobiles and many other expressions of "civilization". In the final analysis, we'll all be better off because we won't have to go to war to fight over oil, water, etc. Louis Proyect www.marxmail.org Reply I agree with your underpinning concerning what to me appears to be a "leap" in the societal concern and estimate of nature, production and peoples interactive relationship. I most certainly agree with the need for a different vision of development, markedly different from that of the rising industrial epoch. The similarities of technical application between the capitalistic and Marxist industrial warriors whose shared and opposing visions of the same thing - societal reproduction, and man himself - produced destructive consequences. Even our "automobile culture" - mass transportation industry, is in need of complete overhauling. Not just transition to earth friendly and clean vehicles, but why 17 millions vehicles a year in the first place. Why continue to honor capital's vision of mass production and mass transpiration? A vast segment of the autoworkers supported Bush Jr. because they were opposed to replacing the internal combustion engine and believe in their head - not their heart, that automobiles for everyone is mass transportation. I would be repeatedly asked, "Why do you oppose your own job?" I worked in an engine plant. I would endlessly explain that I am not interested in my job but working on the one hand and having the means to provide for my family and enjoy life. The fight was for a different vision of society. The McDonald culture is horrible and produces "McPeople" who reproduce the McDonald's that reproduce the McPeople. The idea of consuming that, which cannot be assimilated by the body - at the molecular level, defines waste production that in turn cannot be assimilated back into the earth. We are slowly passing from producing material wherewithal's through consuming that, which cannot be assimilated or what is called biodegradable, to an era that will birth a new science of the law of assimilation. Assimilation as growth and evolution contains a distinct law system. The word "McPeople" - which McDonald's would have taken me to court for using if it became a popular cultural term indicating insanity, was used to try and paint a picture of another reality - vision. Even the Burger King mentality - "The Whopper" or bigger is better, is part of the industrial framework of conception. The seemingly innocent advertising slogan, "Aren't you hungry?" is the question of the social degenerate. The problem is that there does not exist a science that examines the law system governing consumption and the biology of consumption. We are leaving the industrial echoic and these frameworks are beginning to collapse on a mass scale. Bigger is not better. I am not freaking hungry? Look at how our peoples are horribly disfigured and the modern glorification of fat and "big people" or the "full size figure." The ideology of limitless consumption of that, which cannot be assimilated, has made our national cuisine that, which is nothing more than "heart attack on a plate." And is an impulse used for war preparation and war purposes. Here is the ideological and political problem I am grappling with: The immediate war danger does not grow out of dwindling oil supplies in the Middle-East or elsewhere, but rather the oversupply - glut, of oil on the world markets. Bush Jr. policy is to remove oil from the market and politically reconfigure the Middle East. In the final analysis, we'll all be better off if we won't have to go to war to fight over oil, water, etc. Each generation produces its own vision of society. The industrial warriors of the past - on the right and left, the capitalist, the Marxist and
RE: RE: Re: Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9
Title: RE: [PEN-L:29890] Re: Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9 My understanding has always been that the natural rate of unemployment and the NAIRU are technically different, though looking like and supporting some similar conclusions. Mat
RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9
Title: RE: [PEN-L:29905] RE: RE: Re: Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9 In some ways the choice of one vs. the other represents the political perspective of the economist (within the mainstream). The natural rate is Chicago-school lingo, whereas the NAIRU is more MIT or Yale (Modigliani, Tobin, etc.) in its feel. According to the MF, the natural rate is the unemployment rate ground out by a Walrasian general equilibrium system once a bunch of imperfections are introduced. (This, of course, ignores the fact that after one or two imperfections -- i.e., elements of the real world -- have been introduced, the Walrasian GE system becomes incoherent, producing multiple equilibria, etc.) The NAIRU, on the other hand, simply describes the threshold behavior: if unemployment gets too low, inflation takes off. This can be consistent with theories that base the NAIRU on bargaining power issues (e.g., Carlin Soskice, later aped by Blanchard Katz with attribution). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Forstater, Mathew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 8:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:29905] RE: RE: Re: Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9 My understanding has always been that the "natural rate of unemployment" and the "NAIRU" are technically different, though looking like and supporting some similar conclusions. Mat
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Russia turns to yuan
Melvin: Lou, in my head I believe that every shortage of natural resources on earth is artificial and contrived. But this is not so. While there have been debates on PEN-L with Mark Jones about dwindling oil supplies, there obviously can be no debate about--for example--the decline of fish stocks. This is the reason I emphasized that expanding the forces of production in terms understood 125 years ago is not the answer. According to the Food and Agriculture Administration (FAO), a US agency, the present capacity of the world's fishing fleets is 200% of the world's available fisheries. Over the past 50 years, technological breakthroughs in the fishing industry have far exceeded nature's ability to reproduce itself. The biggest change has been the introduction of sonar, a wartime innovation. Many of the first new fishing trawlers were actually converted WWII submarine hunters. In the early 1950s, new ships were built from the ground up that could catch 500 tons of fish a day. Huge trawl nets brought the catch on the deck and dumped it into onboard processing and freezing facilities. In the past, ships had to return to port quickly before the fish spoiled. Now equipped with freezers they could spend months at sea, sweeping up vast quantities of fish. They roamed the planet in search of profits. In 1970 the tonnage of all fishing boats was 13,616. In 1992 it was 25,994, a 91% increase. Capital simply flowed to the profitable fishing industry with little regard to the long-term consequences. One of the consequences of the industrial trawling model is that large-scale production techniques generate huge amounts of waste. The nets draw unwanted species that are simply discarded. The FAO estimates that discarded fish total 27 million tons each year, about 1/3 of the total catch. This includes sea mammals, seabirds and turtles. While Greenpeace activists fight for the life of the unfortunate porpoise, many other species are disappearing without fanfare. The loss is serious since all of these species interact with each other in the marine ecosystem and make natural reproduction possible. All of these new technologies, from freezing to sonar, simply lead to the more rapid exhaustion of a key natural resource, namely seafood and fish. The wing of the socialist movement that has retained a kind of techno-optimism often tends to equate the need for environmental sustainability with Malthusianism, Luddism, romantic reaction or even green-Fascism. Obliviously socialism can solve lots of problems. But it cannot repopulate the oceans with Bluefin Tuna once they are extinct. Louis Proyect www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Russia turns to yuan
Minor correction. The FAO that Lou mentioned is part of the UN, not the US. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: dead economists
Patrick Clawson has gone much further. On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 10:56:46AM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote: Michael Perelman wrote: Think of the URPE people who have moved to the right. E.g. Bruce Steinberg, former edit board member of RRPE, now chief economist, Merrill Lynch. Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
over-fishing
Title: over-fishing [was: RE: [PEN-L:29907] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Russia turns to yuan] It's pretty basic economics that the existence of so-called common-property resources such as fish leads to over-fishing, the depletion of stocks. (For these CPRs, there is no way to define individual property rights unless some capitalist monopolizes the ocean, so they are common property.) This in turn implies the need for some sort of governmental (or, in the case of the oceans, world-governmental) control to make sure that the fisheries don't undermine their own existence. (A fishery that monopolizes the ocean ends up being very much the same as a government, though not a democratic one. Either way, it's an explicit socialization of production.) Of course, the fisheries lobby like crazy to avoid this kind of regulation: their attitude seems to be one of short-term survival and jump ahead of the competition, rather than a concern with the long-run health of the industry. Even when there are agreements, there is often free riding. So we see over-fishing. Oil has some aspects of a CPR (as with slant-drilling), but it's not the same thing at all. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Louis Proyect [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 8:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:29907] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Russia turns to yuan Melvin: Lou, in my head I believe that every shortage of natural resources on earth is artificial and contrived. But this is not so. While there have been debates on PEN-L with Mark Jones about dwindling oil supplies, there obviously can be no debate about--for example--the decline of fish stocks. This is the reason I emphasized that expanding the forces of production in terms understood 125 years ago is not the answer. According to the Food and Agriculture Administration (FAO), a US agency, the present capacity of the world's fishing fleets is 200% of the world's available fisheries. Over the past 50 years, technological breakthroughs in the fishing industry have far exceeded nature's ability to reproduce itself. The biggest change has been the introduction of sonar, a wartime innovation. Many of the first new fishing trawlers were actually converted WWII submarine hunters. In the early 1950s, new ships were built from the ground up that could catch 500 tons of fish a day. Huge trawl nets brought the catch on the deck and dumped it into onboard processing and freezing facilities. In the past, ships had to return to port quickly before the fish spoiled. Now equipped with freezers they could spend months at sea, sweeping up vast quantities of fish. They roamed the planet in search of profits. In 1970 the tonnage of all fishing boats was 13,616. In 1992 it was 25,994, a 91% increase. Capital simply flowed to the profitable fishing industry with little regard to the long-term consequences. One of the consequences of the industrial trawling model is that large-scale production techniques generate huge amounts of waste. The nets draw unwanted species that are simply discarded. The FAO estimates that discarded fish total 27 million tons each year, about 1/3 of the total catch. This includes sea mammals, seabirds and turtles. While Greenpeace activists fight for the life of the unfortunate porpoise, many other species are disappearing without fanfare. The loss is serious since all of these species interact with each other in the marine ecosystem and make natural reproduction possible. All of these new technologies, from freezing to sonar, simply lead to the more rapid exhaustion of a key natural resource, namely seafood and fish. The wing of the socialist movement that has retained a kind of techno-optimism often tends to equate the need for environmental sustainability with Malthusianism, Luddism, romantic reaction or even green-Fascism. Obliviously socialism can solve lots of problems. But it cannot repopulate the oceans with Bluefin Tuna once they are extinct. Louis Proyect www.marxmail.org
RE: over-fishing
Title: RE: [PEN-L:29910] over-fishing Because I was thinking in terms of oceans and the over-harvesting of whales, I forgot something below: the explicit socialization of production needed to prevent over-use of common property resources doesn't have to be in the form of restrictions imposed by the central government. It can be done in a more decentralized way, for more local common-property resources. See Eleanor Ostrom, GOVERNING THE COMMONS. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Devine, James [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 9:03 AM [was: RE: [PEN-L:29907] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Russia turns to yuan] It's pretty basic economics that the existence of so-called common-property resources such as fish leads to over-fishing, the depletion of stocks. (For these CPRs, there is no way to define individual property rights unless some capitalist monopolizes the ocean, so they are common property.) This in turn implies the need for some sort of governmental (or, in the case of the oceans, world-governmental) control to make sure that the fisheries don't undermine their own existence. (A fishery that monopolizes the ocean ends up being very much the same as a government, though not a democratic one. Either way, it's an explicit socialization of production.) Of course, the fisheries lobby like crazy to avoid this kind of regulation: their attitude seems to be one of short-term survival and jump ahead of the competition, rather than a concern with the long-run health of the industry. Even when there are agreements, there is often free riding. So we see over-fishing. Oil has some aspects of a CPR (as with slant-drilling), but it's not the same thing at all. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9
Jim Devine wrote, Saying that a phenomenon is natural is a much less scientific way of describing something than doing so in simple descriptive terms (which are more coherent or systematic). Except that this distinction ultimately goes around in circles. Instead of attributing the mystical status directly to the rate itself, the NAIRU description defers its mysticism to the unexamined definitions of inflation and unemployment. Whatever the common sense notions of those two categories may be, their measurement is profoundly subject to manipulation by policy. For example, policy can count as employed someone who has worked one hour in the last week or can change the eligibility requirements for unemployment benefits and sickness benefits, thus redefining people out of the labour force. Hypothetically, one could design various procrustean policy regimes that would generate roughly just about whatever NAIRU one wished to designate as _the_ NAIRU, which takes us back to Looking Glass world where words mean precisely what Humpty-Dumpty wants them to mean. The reductio ad absurdum limit cases might be thought of as, on the one hand, a subsistence economy where there is no unemployment because there is no employment and there is no inflation because there are no prices. NAIRU would be zero. At the other extreme, if we define as unemployment all hours spent not engaged at designated workplaces in direct production of a set of standardized staple goods and define as active in the labour force all individuals physically capable of performing some minimal routine operation there would be an extremely high NAIRU, let's say somewhere in the neighbourhood of 90. Back in the real world, the definitional play of NAIRU may be more of the order of its estimated size, which is to say 4.9, give or take 4.9. And I'm 6' 2 give or take a couple of yards. What is the scientific status of statements like that? At some ethereal level there may well be intuitive appeal to the idea of a NAIRU -- it's one of those seductive reactionary thought experiments. But NAIRU mixes together vague definitions with an _intimation_ of precise measurement for the purpose of arriving at a pre-conceived policy prescription. We already know what that prescription is -- restrain wages. Assigning a number doesn't make the prescription more scientific. In this regard, it is no different than judging figure skating at the Olympics. Tom Walker 604 255 4812
Re: over-fishing
over-fishing - Original Message - From: Devine, James It's pretty basic economics that the existence of so-called common-property resources such as fish leads to over-fishing, the depletion of stocks. (For these CPRs, there is no way to define individual property rights unless some capitalist monopolizes the ocean, so they are common property.) The overwhelming number of fish stocks of the sea are non-property rather than cpr. They are in a Lockean SON as far as international law is concerned. Would that we could get some common property regimes going to ameliorate a disaster. The concept of private property has no inherent efficiency advantages on the scale of such large -and mobile- ecosystems. This in turn implies the need for some sort of governmental (or, in the case of the oceans, world-governmental) control to make sure that the fisheries don't undermine their own existence. (A fishery that monopolizes the ocean ends up being very much the same as a government, though not a democratic one. Either way, it's an explicit socialization of production.) Of course, the fisheries lobby like crazy to avoid this kind of regulation: their attitude seems to be one of short-term survival and jump ahead of the competition, rather than a concern with the long-run health of the industry. Even when there are agreements, there is often free riding. So we see over-fishing. Oil has some aspects of a CPR (as with slant-drilling), but it's not the same thing at all. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine = Perhaps the time for dusting off and modifying Arvid Pardo's concept of the common heritage of mankind arguments regarding the ocean floor is upon us and we can appropriate global public goods arguments for our own purposes. Ian http://www.russia-cislaw.com/books/itep.htm Intergenerational Trusts And Environmental Protection Catherine Redgwell is now University Lecturer in Public International Law and Fellow of St. Peter's College, Oxford. http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu25ee/uu25ee00.htm#Contents Environmental change and international law: New challenges and dimensions Edited by Edith Brown Weiss United Nations University Press The United Nations University, 1992 http://www.aae.wisc.edu/bromley/pdfs/URICONCEIT.pdf THE CONCEIT OF MANAGEMENT: NATURAL SYSTEMS AND HUMAN VOLITION http://www.aae.wisc.edu/bromley/pdfs/sjadbrom.pdf THE PREJUDICES OF PROPERTY RIGHTS: ON INDIVIDUALISM, SPECIFICITY, AND SECURITY IN PROPERTY REGIMES http://www.indiana.edu/~iascp/index.html [Elinor Ostrom's group]
RE: Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9
Title: RE: [PEN-L:29912] Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9 I wrote, Saying that a phenomenon is natural is a much less scientific way of describing something than doing so in simple descriptive terms (which are more coherent or systematic). Tom Walker changes the subject: Except that this distinction ultimately goes around in circles. Instead of attributing the mystical status directly to the rate itself, the NAIRU description defers its mysticism to the unexamined definitions of inflation and unemployment. These definitions aren't unexamined by me. I would be the last one to reify the official definitions of these concepts and to not question the mode of their measurement. The key thing is that given the present institutional structure of the US economy (the one I know most about), if the officially-measured unemployment rate rises, almost all unofficial measures of unemployment and measures of working-class ill-health also rise, as do measures of income inequality, poverty, and racial income disparities. So even though the official unemployment rate is poorly measured, it does seem to capture something about inadequate demand for labor-power (where inadequate is defined from a working-class perspective). (Baran Sweezy noticed this back in their MONOPOLY CAPITAL in the 1960s.) It does seem that institutional change -- such as weakening labor unions and more anemic unemployment insurance benefits -- has made a percentage point of official unemployment have more impact in terms of raising workers' economic insecurity in 2002 than it used to (say, in 1980). But that doesn't mean that we should simply throw out the official measure of unemployment, as Tom seems to be implying. Inflation measures are shakier in my book. For example, a bit more than a year ago (March/April 2001), I published an article in CHALLENGE magazine in which I presented an alternative cost of living measure of inflation, bringing in non-market aspects of inflation and the like. According to my estimates, for the years 1980 to 1988, my most conservative measure of cost-of-living inflation rose 0.7 percentage points per year faster then the official measure (using the personal consumption expenditure deflator). This implied a much steeper fall in estimated real wages during that period than did the official measures. Even so, the official measures of inflation move with mine over short periods, e.g., in recessions and booms. Whatever the common sense notions of those two categories may be, their measurement is profoundly subject to manipulation by policy. For example, policy can count as employed someone who has worked one hour in the last week or can change the eligibility requirements for unemployment benefits and sickness benefits, thus redefining people out of the labour force. All of this is familiar, at least to me and to anyone else who's studied labor economics. For many purposes, the fact that the official definition of unemployment doesn't change very often means that the number do say something about the inadequate demand for labor-power. (It's not like in England, where the Thatcherites manipulated the definitions deliberately to lower measured unemployment rates. In the US, Reagan tried that, but it never took hold.) Hypothetically, one could design various procrustean policy regimes that would generate roughly just about whatever NAIRU one wished to designate as _the_ NAIRU, which takes us back to Looking Glass world where words mean precisely what Humpty-Dumpty wants them to mean. The reductio ad absurdum limit cases might be thought of as, on the one hand, a subsistence economy where there is no unemployment because there is no employment and there is no inflation because there are no prices. NAIRU would be zero. At the other extreme, if we define as unemployment all hours spent not engaged at designated workplaces in direct production of a set of standardized staple goods and define as active in the labour force all individuals physically capable of performing some minimal routine operation there would be an extremely high NAIRU, let's say somewhere in the neighbourhood of 90. yeah, but the people who do the defining -- in the US, the Bureau of Labor Statistics -- don't conspire with the macro-econometricians to do these kinds of tricks. Back in the real world, the definitional play of NAIRU may be more of the order of its estimated size, which is to say 4.9, give or take 4.9. And I'm 6' 2 give or take a couple of yards. What is the scientific status of statements like that? if the standard error of the estimate of the NAIRU is high (as it is), that's a serious strike against the theory, which is why people like Krueger Solow dedicate entire books like their THE ROARING NINETIES to re-examine such questions. A mystical theory -- such as astrology or the core theory behind neoclassical economics -- can't be undermined that way. At some ethereal level
RE: Re: over-fishing
Title: RE: [PEN-L:29913] Re: over-fishing I wrote: It's pretty basic economics that the existence of so-called common-property resources such as fish leads to over-fishing, the depletion of stocks. (For these CPRs, there is no way to define individual property rights unless some capitalist monopolizes the ocean, so they are common property.) Ian writes: The overwhelming number of fish stocks of the sea are non-property rather than cpr. They are in a Lockean SON as far as international law is concerned. Would that we could get some common property regimes going to ameliorate a disaster. The concept of private property has no inherent efficiency advantages on the scale of such large -and mobile- ecosystems. I thought I said that. Oceanic fish are officially treated as the world's common property, but the countries of the world haven't gotten together to deal with the over-fishing problem (due to the power of the fisheries, of course). But I repeat myself... It's not the Lockean state of nature, since he assumed that in that state, people would respect others' life, liberty, and property. It's more like his state of war (or Hobbes' state of nature). JD
universal welfare accounts
Is this a new trend? What are pen's economists take on this.. Can you explain how they work a bit? Cheers, Ken Hanly Assessing Welfare Accounts BY: STEFAN FOELSTER Confederation of Swedish Enterprise Swedish Research Institute of Trade (HUI) ROBERT GIDEHAG Swedish Research Institute of Trade (HUI) J. MICHAEL ORSZAG Watson Wyatt Worldwide Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) DENNIS J. SNOWER University of London, Birkbeck College Department of Economics and Finance Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) Document: Available from the SSRN Electronic Paper Collection: http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=325326 Other Electronic Document Delivery: ftp://ftp.iza.org/dps/dp533.pdf SSRN only offers technical support for papers downloaded from the SSRN Electronic Paper Collection location. When URLs wrap, you must copy and paste them into your browser eliminating all spaces. Paper ID: IZA Discussion Paper No. 533 Date: July 2002 Contact: DENNIS J. SNOWER Email: Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Postal: University of London, Birkbeck College Department of Economics and Finance 7-15 Gresse Street London WIT 1LL,UNITED KINGDOM Phone: +44 171 631 6408 Fax: +44 171 631 6416 Co-Auth: STEFAN FOELSTER Email: Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Postal: Confederation of Swedish Enterprise Storgatan 19 SE-114 82 Stockholm,SWEDEN Co-Auth: ROBERT GIDEHAG Email: Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Postal: Swedish Research Institute of Trade (HUI) S-103 29 Stockholm,SWEDEN Co-Auth: J. MICHAEL ORSZAG Email: Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Postal: Watson Wyatt Worldwide 6707 Democracy Boulevard Suite 800 Bethesda, MD 20817-1129 UNITED STATES ABSTRACT: The paper examines the possible effects of introducing a large-scale welfare reform in Sweden, namely, the introduction of comprehensive welfare accounts. Under this policy, individuals make mandatory contributions to accounts, which they can top up with voluntary contributions. In return, individuals' welfare benefits are paid from their accounts. The paper uses a large panel of individual income data to examine how the adoption of universal welfare accounts may affect economic activity. We find that this policy could be designed so as to reduce social insurance expenditure considerably, improve the incentives to work and save, all with relatively small redistributive impact. Keywords: Welfare Reform, Welfare Accounts, Social Insurance, Taxes, Welfare State Benefits
Re: RE: Re: over-fishing
RE: [PEN-L:29913] Re: over-fishing - Original Message - From: Devine, James I wrote: It's pretty basic economics that the existence of so-called common-property resources such as fish leads to over-fishing, the depletion of stocks. (For these CPRs, there is no way to define individual property rights unless some capitalist monopolizes the ocean, so they are common property.) Ian writes: The overwhelming number of fish stocks of the sea are non-property rather than cpr. They are in a Lockean SON as far as international law is concerned. Would that we could get some common property regimes going to ameliorate a disaster. The concept of private property has no inherent efficiency advantages on the scale of such large -and mobile- ecosystems. I thought I said that. Oceanic fish are officially treated as the world's common property, = Non-property is not the same as common property. Ian It's not the Lockean state of nature, since he assumed that in that state, people would respect others' life, liberty, and property. It's more like his state of war (or Hobbes' state of nature). JD = Not the people, the resourcesThe *appropriation* from the Lockean SON is the conversion of non-property into either common property or private property. Ian
Re: Re: Re: Guevara on law of value and world terms of trade
Only if profit ceases to exist as an important goal in the capitalist world. Louis Proyect This has some connection with the terms of trade argument at the earth summit, and it seems to me with the sort of decision between Russia and China to settle their accounts in bilateral exchanges between their central banks rather than in dollars. Chris Burford I have no idea what settling accounts in yuans has to do with Che Guevara. Che Guevara died in a struggle to emancipate Bolivian peasants from poverty and cultural degradation. He hoped that Cuba's ability to supersede the law of value could be replicated in Bolivia. His only mistake was to adopt a schematic 'foquismo' approach to making a revolution and relying on the Bolivian CP. In sharp contrast, Vladimir Putin and Jiang Zemin are doing everything they can to sharpen class distinctions in the name of capital accumulation. You might as well compare Tony Blair to Lenin, as some self-deceiving ex-CP'ers in Great Britain probably have done in the pursuit of lucrative government careers. Louis Proyect www.marxmail.org
Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9
Jim Devine wrote, Tom Walker changes the subject... ... and then proceeded to 'counter' my arguments with material that basically confirmed what I was saying. What I was saying, distilled to its essence, is that NAIRU is rhetorical and not scientific in the sense of some disinterested search for truth. What Jim responded with was examples of why the rhetoric of NAIRU is understandable, given a capitalist society and a profoundly reactionary political culture in the U.S. I have no particular objection to viewing NAIRU in that way. Now, I really will change the subject. What we are _really_ talking about here is green cheese and why capitalists have to tell workers that the green cheese factory is on the moon. Tom Walker 604 255 4812
RE: Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9
Title: RE: [PEN-L:29919] Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9 I wrote, Tom Walker changes the subject... and then according to Tom: ... and then proceeded to 'counter' my arguments with material that basically confirmed what I was saying. What I was saying, distilled to its essence, is that NAIRU is rhetorical and not scientific in the sense of some disinterested search for truth. What Jim responded with was examples of why the rhetoric of NAIRU is understandable, given a capitalist society and a profoundly reactionary political culture in the U.S. I have no particular objection to viewing NAIRU in that way. I never mentioned any disinterested search for truth and don't see why it's relevant here. The MF, who along with Edmund Phelps developed the idea of the natural rate of unemployment (which became the NAIRU for others), is not now and has never been a disinterested seeker of truth. The number of disinterested seekers of truth is very small in academia, especially among economists. The NAIRU theory can be seen as marginally scientific, in that it makes real-world predictions. (And as I said before, the NAIRU is a more scientific concept than the natural rate of unemployment theory, which is truly rhetorical in intent and effect.) These have proven wrong, something that can't happen in astrology. Of course, in order to replace the NAIRU theory, a better one needs to be found. It's not enough to simply criticize the language or to point to the theory's empirical failure. JD
Re: RE: Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9
Devine, James wrote: The number of disinterested seekers of truth is very small in academia, especially among economists. David Card comes to mind. Anyone else? Doug
RE: Re: RE: Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9
Title: RE: [PEN-L:29921] Re: RE: Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9 none here. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Doug Henwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 1:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:29921] Re: RE: Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9 Devine, James wrote: The number of disinterested seekers of truth is very small in academia, especially among economists. David Card comes to mind. Anyone else? Doug
time to strike?!
Academic calls for 'strike' over environment EducationGuardian.co.uk Donald MacLeod Tuesday August 27, 2002 An Oxford academic has called on scientists to join a knowledge strike in protest against world leaders' continued non-action on environmental issues. Steve Rayner, professor of science in society at the university's Saïd business school, said scientists must stop allowing themselves to be aligned with governments' failure to make decisions. Governments were hiding behind the excuse that more research is necessary and scientists should refuse to go along with this until there was action. At Johannesburg, scientists may have more impact on policy by declaring the opposite and telling policy makers at the summit that they will not offer new information on the state of the planet until we see some action on what we already know, said Professor Rayner today. Politicians representing the world's 'haves' often argue for deferring effective environmental policy-making until better information is available that can guarantee that policies are efficient. I agree that better knowledge is generally a good thing, but we already know enough to start taking decisive steps to protect the planet and address the needs of its poorest citizens. He added: Many politicians are susceptible to the myth of the perfectibility of science. That is, that we will have a better idea in the future of what needs to be done. There may have been some justification for this thinking at Rio, but progress in science over the past decade has been rapid and wide ranging. Science has already told us a great deal and certainly enough to now act decisively on issues such as climate change. Professor Rayner is one of the original advocates of what have become known as Type 2 approaches to environment and development involving local communities and business. He continues: Private sector partnerships, local communities and regional and local authorities need to be encouraged to take direct action on a more localised basis. While diplomacy and legislation (the Type 1 approach) provide an important framework, Type 2 measures, which I and a number of colleagues have been advocating since the mid-1980s, are empowering, directly relevant to the individuals concerned and potentially more effective in actually changing behaviour.
Re: universal welfare accounts
A comprehensive welfare account is rather similar to the IDAs (individual development accounts) that have been tried in the US. Clinton actually proposed an expansion of them in his final state of the union address. Here, they are closely associated with the work of Michael Sheradeen at Washington University in St. Louis. The basic idea is that an individual saves a little, and the government matches it at ratios that vary from 9-1 (the theory) to 2-1 (the actual practice so far). The money can then be spent on tuition, a downpayment on a house, or starting a business.,etc It is very much an individualistic, human capital investment approach, which substitutes one person's failure to save for an udnerstanding based on relations between classes. Joel Blau ken hanly wrote: 005401c24dff$b538e840$5f49c8cd@hppav"> Is this a new trend? What are pen's economists take on this..Can you explain how they work a bit?Cheers, Ken Hanly "Assessing Welfare Accounts" BY: STEFAN FOELSTER Confederation of Swedish Enterprise Swedish Research Institute of Trade (HUI) ROBERT GIDEHAG Swedish Research Institute of Trade (HUI) J. MICHAEL ORSZAG Watson Wyatt Worldwide Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) DENNIS J. SNOWER University of London, Birkbeck College Department of Economics and Finance Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR)Document: Available from the SSRN Electronic Paper Collection: http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=325326 Other Electronic Document Delivery: ftp://ftp.iza.org/dps/dp533.pdf SSRN only offers technical support for papers downloaded from the SSRN Electronic Paper Collection location. When URLs wrap, you must copy and paste them into your browser eliminating all spaces.Paper ID: IZA Discussion Paper No. 533Date: July 2002 Contact: DENNIS J. SNOWER Email: Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Postal: University of London, Birkbeck College Department of Economics and Finance 7-15 Gresse Street London WIT 1LL,UNITED KINGDOM Phone: +44 171 631 6408 Fax: +44 171 631 6416 Co-Auth: STEFAN FOELSTER Email: Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]< br> Postal: Confederation of Swedish Enterprise Storgatan 19 SE-114 82 Stockholm,SWEDEN Co-Auth: ROBERT GIDEHAG Email: Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Postal: Swedish Research Institute of Trade (HUI) S-103 29 Stockholm,SWEDEN Co-Auth: J. MICHAEL ORSZAG Email: Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Postal: Watson Wyatt Worldwide 6707 Democracy Boulevard Suite 800 Bethesda, MD 20817-1129 UNITED STATESABSTRACT: The paper examines the possible effects of introducing a large-scale welfare reform in Sweden, namely, the introduction of comprehensive welfare accounts. Under this policy, individuals make mandatory contributions to accounts, which they can top up with voluntary contributi ons. In return, individuals' welfare benefits are paid from their accounts. The paper uses a large panel of individual income data to examine how the adoption of universal welfare accounts may affect economic activity. We find that this policy could be designed so as to reduce social insurance expenditure considerably, improve the incentives to work and save, all with relatively small redistributive impact. Keywords: Welfare Reform, Welfare Accounts, Social Insurance, Taxes, Welfare State Benefits
Glut or not?
At 25/08/2002 16:13, Melvin P. wrote: There is a glut of oil in the world. Wrote Mark Jones: Er, well. Even BP don't quite agree. They, like Shell, think we are at the end of the oil age. Only the satanic hordes at Exxon think otherwise for some reason.' COMMENT: Well, would one expect the purveyors to agree there is a lot of the stuff aroun? Hari
From Julian Simon-ites-To Iraqi Stalingrads-More Hyperbole
ORIGINAL: Proyect: The problem is that many Marxists retain a kind of Julian Simon productivist notion that advances in the means of production--even under capitalism--can solve the environmental crisis. At this stage of the game, I would have to characterize this stance as counter-revolutionary REPLY: Sorry to betray so obvious ignorance yet again - but do explain the Julian bit. As for your ending - you swing between patronisation sweeping hyperbole yet again - as in the equation of Iraqi self-defence against USA imperialism with USSR self-defence against Hitler. Boy oh boy. Hari
Tuna Stocks
ORIGINAL: PROYECT: Obliviously socialism can solve lots of problems. But it cannot repopulate the oceans with Bluefin Tuna once they are extinct. REPLY: Hey Proyect-Englishy-Teacher- it is Obviously Or do I mean obviously? Yes?? However, real point is: i) The possibility of regeneration of the environment from acute pollution is not to be under-estimated. Witness: The Alaska spills; The Whale resurgence in numbers. ii) Your line actually objectively detracts from the fundamental matter- Socialism or Capitalism how? Sorry to be so simplistic. Hari
Re: From Julian Simon-ites-To Iraqi Stalingrads-MoreHyperbole
Hari Kumar wrote: Sorry to betray so obvious ignorance yet again - but do explain the Julian bit. As for your ending - you swing between patronisation sweeping hyperbole yet again - as in the equation of Iraqi self-defence against USA imperialism with USSR self-defence against Hitler. Boy oh boy. Julian Simon is a well-known self-described anti-Malthusian. He believes that capitalist science and technology can solve any problem. His antagonist is a neo-Malthusian named Paul Erlich who reduces our environmental crisis to too many people. They once had a bet: Simon offered Ehrlich a bet centered on the market price of metals. Ehrlich would pick a quantity of any five metals he liked worth $1,000 in 1980. If the 1990 price of the metals, after adjusting for inflation, was more than $1,000 (i.e. the metals became more scarce), Ehrlich would win. If, however, the value of the metals after inflation was less than $1,000 (i.e. the metals became less scare), Simon would win. (http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/People/julian_simon.html) Neither of these characters have anything to do with Marxism, but they both figure in debates between Marxists over the ecological crisis. For example, David Harvey argued that MR editor John Bellamy Foster was veering in the same direction as people like Erlich because he titled his book The Vulnerable Planet. Harvey argued that we might despoil the planet, but it will survive. This was a distinction lost on both John and me. Then you had a bizarre sect in Great Britain that used to publish the magazine Living Marxism when they called themselves the Revolutionary Communist Party. After dropping the 'iving' 'arxism', the magazine was sold as LM and featured articles in strong agreement with Julian Simon--which is far more radical than anything found in David Harvey. Over the past 2 or 3 years they have mutated into a libertarian formation which is pushing the same basic line, but without any Marxist pretensions. Basically they argue in favor of more nuclear energy, GM, hydroelectric dams, etc. I don't think anything useful can come from that pole of the dialectic. On the other hand, much useful information is produced by the Worldwatch Institute, which is run by a neo-Malthusian named Lester Brown. Despite their questionable politics, they do produce yearly reports which Marxists must grapple with. For example, my post on overfishing was based on their 1997 findings. From Worldwatch and company, you get the sense of urgency that is necessary and the data to support it. From communism, you get the revolutionary agenda that can transform society and nature to achieve a more humane and sustainable world. There are no guarantees, even under communism, that everything will fall neatly into place. But without it, we are certainly doomed to a world of pigeons, rats, Starbucks and Mcdonalds in the advanced countries--and hunger and disease in the underdeveloped world. Haiti write large in other words. -- Louis Proyect www.marxmail.org
Re: Tuna Stocks
Hari Kumar wrote: i) The possibility of regeneration of the environment from acute pollution is not to be under-estimated. Witness: The Alaska spills; The Whale resurgence in numbers. That regeneration is a product of activism and nothing else. ii) Your line actually objectively detracts from the fundamental matter- Socialism or Capitalism how? Sorry to be so simplistic. Sorry, but socialism or capitalism and how strikes me as a sterile question. Although I am no longer a Trotskyist, I agree with James P. Cannon, the founder of American Trotskyism, that the art of politics is knowing what to do next. -- Louis Proyect www.marxmail.org
Fwd: U.S. - Uighur
A while ago I mentioned that there are some Turkic separatists even in China. They are the so-called Uighur. Purely as a matter of coincidence, at a picnic here in California, I had met a few young Uighur separatists. It was amazing to me that I understood most of what they said in their own language. Never thought before that I would understand some people who came from China speaking their own language so effortlessly. They had a flag with them: it was identical to the Turkish flag except that it was in light-blue instead of red the Turkish flag is in. The article below is from Stratfor, so read it at your own risk, assuming that your are interested of course. It came to me with the above subject line but I am not sure if it is the best choice. It is obviously more than to be about US - Uighur. But I left the subject line as it is. Sabri Washington, Beijing Maneuvering Ahead of Crawford Summit 27 August 2002, Stratfor Summary U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage recently called an ethnic Uighur militant group in western China a terrorist group. Officials in Beijing viewed Armitage's statement as a vindication of its domestic policies. Both Washington and Beijing are laying the groundwork for a meeting between Chinese President Jiang Zemin and U.S. President George W. Bush in October -- a meeting that may set the tone for Chinese-U.S. relations for years to come. Analysis During a two-day visit to Beijing Aug. 25 and 26, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said that, after careful study, Washington had determined that the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) was a terrorist group that had committed acts of violence against unarmed civilians without any regard for who was hurt. Beijing has spent nearly all of the last year trying to convince Washington and others that the group and other Muslim Uighur separatists from China's western Xinjiang region are part of the larger international terrorist threat. Armitage was not alone in granting diplomatic concessions during the trip. Just prior to his arrival, Beijing announced new regulations to tighten control over the export of missile parts and technology, something Washington had been urging for years. Both sides are trying to shore up relations prior to Chinese President Jiang Zemin's highly symbolic October visit to U.S. President George W. Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas. As the date approaches, the rhetoric from both sides will take on a more congenial tone, although they still harbor serious differences. But, more important than appearances, the Crawford meeting may set the tone for Chinese-U.S. ties for years to come. Relations between the two plummeted after the April 2001 collision of a Chinese fighter and a U.S. surveillance aircraft near the southeastern Chinese coastline. The shifting U.S. foreign policy after the Sept. 11 attacks did little to improve the situation, as China was relegated to the backburner of U.S. interests and Washington used basing agreements with several Central Asian states to gain a presence in China's backyard. In the past few months, Beijing and Washington have slowly moved to ameliorate this dismal state of affairs. Peter Rodman, the U.S. assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, traveled to Beijing in June to discuss the re-establishment of bilateral military ties curtailed after the April collision. A month later, following the release of a U.S. Congressional report warning of China's growing military and economic threat, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell downplayed the danger and said it was natural that China would transfer some of its growing economic strength into modernizing its military. More recently, the U.S. commander of the Pacific Air Forces, Gen. William Begert, told reporters Aug. 23 that China had been very professional in monitoring U.S. surveillance aircraft over its coast, which would be a noted change from the aggressive actions of Chinese pilots that led to the April 2001 incident. And during his visit to Beijing, Armitage told his Chinese counterparts that Washington had made no decision on attacking Iraq yet and would consult with China before taking action. The latter comment was particularly pleasing to Chinese officials, as it seemed to confirm Beijing's impression of itself as a major player in international events. Yet not everything is well in Beijing-Washington relations, as Armitage's visit made clear. China still opposes U.S. military action in Iraq, and Beijing hosted Baghdad's foreign minister just hours after Armitage left. On the contentious issue of Taiwan, Armitage stated that the United States did not support Taiwanese independence, a comment much repeated in the official Chinese media. But he added that Washington did not necessarily oppose independence either. And even Armitage's declaration of the ETIM as a terrorist organization may prove a mixed blessing for Beijing. State Department officials in
Re: From Julian Simon-ites-To Iraqi Stalingrads-More Hyperbole
let's cool the rhetoric. On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 07:38:58PM -0400, Hari Kumar wrote: ORIGINAL: Proyect: The problem is that many Marxists retain a kind of Julian Simon productivist notion that advances in the means of production--even under capitalism--can solve the environmental crisis. At this stage of the game, I would have to characterize this stance as counter-revolutionary REPLY: Sorry to betray so obvious ignorance yet again - but do explain the Julian bit. As for your ending - you swing between patronisation sweeping hyperbole yet again - as in the equation of Iraqi self-defence against USA imperialism with USSR self-defence against Hitler. Boy oh boy. Hari -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: From Julian Simon-ites-To Iraqi Stalingrads-More Hyperbole
Why is the distinction lost on you? Surely it is likely that the planet will survive. The idea of a vulnerable planet is a bit weird in itself except that a meteorite or MAD atomic blast might destroy it. What is vulnerable are some species and perhaps humans are one of them. I really dont know. But surely not all species are likely to be destroyed and even some members of the human species will probably survive a considerable amount of environmental degradation but not with a standard of living such as we now have. So what is it you mean when you claim not to understand Harvey's distinction? Or does he mean something different that what I described above? Cheers, Ken Hanly ) Neither of these characters have anything to do with Marxism, but they both figure in debates between Marxists over the ecological crisis. For example, David Harvey argued that MR editor John Bellamy Foster was veering in the same direction as people like Erlich because he titled his book The Vulnerable Planet. Harvey argued that we might despoil the planet, but it will survive. This was a distinction lost on both John and me.
Re: Re: Re: From Julian Simon-ites-To Iraqi Stalingrads-MoreHyperbole
ken hanly wrote: Why is the distinction lost on you? Surely it is likely that the planet will survive. The idea of a vulnerable planet is a bit weird in itself except that a meteorite or MAD atomic blast might destroy it. What is vulnerable are some species and perhaps humans are one of them. The problem is I think political. Suppose Foster et al are substantially correct in their arguments about resources and their vulnerability. So? Either the danger can be confronted and overcome under capitalism or it cannot. If it can, then (on the assumption Foster others make) the political implications are essentially reformist. We had a united front against Germany in the 1940s, a far lesser threat to the human species. If the present ecological threat is so great, why not a united front against it, subordinating revolutionary aims to this desperate need. Now my prediction is that _most_ (not all) of those who see the ecological threat in such terms _will_ follow this united front logic. Such panic fear of the future is simply incompatible with a stable marxist world view. I hold that so long as capitalism survives, there will be no real change in environmental practices. That means (given the position advanced by Foster) that we face Luxemburg's either/or, socialism or barbarianism, in its ultimate form. The problem is then not ecological but political: that of struggling to achieve the working-class unity necessary for the destruction of capitalism. Ecology is undoubtedly an important part of that struggle -- but the kind of emphasis which some are putting on impending ecological doom (even if they are empirically correct) is simply self-defeating. They will have to choose eventually between their marxism and their moral fervor. Carrol
Sueddeutsche Zeitung builds up JD's ego
Title: Sueddeutsche Zeitung builds up JD's ego the following article comes from the Sueddeutsche Zeitung, today. Since I don't know German, I don't know what it says, so it might be that I'm a poop-head (as someone once called me when I was being interviewed on Pacifica). But I see neither scheiss nor kopf appearing below. George W. Bush macht sich wieder zum Gespött der Medien: "Es ist traurig, dass ich nicht öfter joggen kann" Der Sommer des Missvergnügens Langer Urlaub, kurzer Atem - ein Jahr nach dem Schock steht der US-Präsident als ein entzauberter Führer da, der nicht mehr die Debatte bestimmt ... Der Schatten des Vaters ist lang, und immer öfter wird bereits spekuliert, ob der 43. US-Präsident nicht ebenso über die Wirtschaft stolpern wird wie Nummer 41, Poppy Bush. Denn niemand will so recht glauben, dass die Rezession in den USA wirklich schon ausgestanden ist, und die Experten streiten in erster Linie darüber, ob der Einbruch die Form eines U (flach und lang) oder eines V (steil und kurz) hat. Was aber, wenn auf das erste V ein zweites folgt? Das wäre dann die W- Rezession, wie in W für Dubya. Der Wirtschaftsprofessor James Devine von der Loyola Marymount Universität in Los Angeles, der den Begriff geprägt hat, ärgert sich schon jetzt, dass er keine Urheberrechte darauf angemeldet hat. Denn er ist überzeugt davon, dass sie in die Wirtschaftsgeschichte eingehen wird: die Dubya-Rezession. JD
Re: Re: RE: Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9
Date sent: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:41:15 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[PEN-L:29921] Re: RE: Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9 Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Devine, James wrote: The number of disinterested seekers of truth is very small in academia, especially among economists. David Card comes to mind. Anyone else? Doug Richard Freeman? Paul
Re: Harvey
I think Harvey means something close to what you write below about the destruction of the planet. I don't really know if his criticism of Foster as an exemplar was fair, but he complained about the lack of a ''class line' (my term) in Foster's suggestion that there is a common interest by humanity to stop despoiling the earth, or in Barry Commoner-like 'laws' of ecology ( 'nature knows best', etc). Harvey argues the eco-socialist program is still under-developed (my term). He has emphasize the environmental justice movement (e.g. against toxic sites in poor/Black/Latino neighbourhoods) as an under-rated site of eco/class struggle. Louis P. describes such criticism as 'brown Marxism', but I think that is off the mark. Bill Burgess At 10:24 PM 8/27/2002 -0700, Ken wrote: Why is the distinction lost on you? Surely it is likely that the planet will survive. The idea of a vulnerable planet is a bit weird in itself except that a meteorite or MAD atomic blast might destroy it. What is vulnerable are some species and perhaps humans are one of them. I really dont know. But surely not all species are likely to be destroyed and even some members of the human species will probably survive a considerable amount of environmental degradation but not with a standard of living such as we now have. So what is it you mean when you claim not to understand Harvey's distinction? Or does he mean something different that what I described above? Cheers, Ken Hanly ) Neither of these characters have anything to do with Marxism, but they both figure in debates between Marxists over the ecological crisis. For example, David Harvey argued that MR editor John Bellamy Foster was veering in the same direction as people like Erlich because he titled his book The Vulnerable Planet. Harvey argued that we might despoil the planet, but it will survive. This was a distinction lost on both John and me.
