Robert Naiman wrote:
Shleifer should get a chutzpah award, writing about ethics, given his
history with USAID and Russia. He got fired from Harvard, no?
Hey, it takes one to know one. Why do you think FDR made Joe Kennedy
the first head of the SEC?
Doug
Forum and alternative development models
* Christopher Hitchens on Orwell and his new political affiliations
--
Doug Henwood
Left Business Observer
38 Greene St - 4th fl.
New York NY 10013-2505 USA
voice +1-212-219-0010
fax+1-212-219-0098
cell +1-917-865-2813
email mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
Michael Perelman wrote:
The foreign policy difference between Bush Kerry would probably be
that Kerry would
be less likely to instigate crises, such as Haiti
Clinton co-opted Aristide; Bush overthrew him. The first sucks but
the second is worse.
Doug
Kenneth Campbell wrote:
The lesson here is to remain militant in the streets,
not to back a bourgeois politician.
Ironically, this is, itself, a flawed analogy. Militant in the streets
is lingo from an era of ascendant working class interests -- in
particular, radical lingo from the 60s-70s.
Kenneth Campbell wrote:
Wel... I do not think it is an either/or thing... I think I said the
same thing as you, quoted above, in the last paragraph of that post of
mine that you quote...
Sorry, I wasn't responding to you really, but to the person you quoted.
Doug
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
The Fed raised the rate today. How committed are they to this course
of action in the next 12-18 months?
All depends on the data that comes out over the next 12-18 months.
They don't have any preconceived strategy; it's strictly a seat of
the pants operation.
Doug
on Empire (several times, the last June 2004)
* Judith Levine on kids sex
* Walden Bello on the World Social Forum and alternative development models
* Christopher Hitchens on Orwell and his new political affiliations
--
Doug Henwood
Left Business Observer
38 Greene St - 4th fl.
New York NY 10013-2505 USA
Julio Huato wrote:
Say, the labor force will grow at 4% per year in the future and per-capita
income at 1%. Then, the next best alternative is expanding global net
income at a rate of 5% per year. This growth rate is assumed constant
(since there's no risk, no volatility). So that's the global
Daniel Davies wrote:
Surely this is the entire problem at the heart of the Cambridge Capital
Controversy; you can't work out what the total amount of capital is without
making an assumption about the rate of profit and vice versa.
Yeah, but nobody cares about that anymore. It was an obsession of
Carrol Cox wrote:
What in the hell would a weak anti-depressant drug be?
White wine spritzers?
Doug
If there's a great untapped reservoir of leftish populism in the
American masses, why did Kucinich do so badly in the primaries, and
why is Nader now down around 2%?
Doug
Michael Perelman wrote:
Kucinich had no money supporting him
C'mon - he was in the debates, he was on the road a lot. He should
have done better than, what?, 2% of the primary vote.
Doug
Devine, James wrote:
BTW, one reason for the lack of Kerry bounce is that so many
pro-Bush people are hard-core and would never shift. Also,
Krugman's column in today's NY TIMES suggests that the media
did Kerry in.
Cruising the dial after the speech it seemed that all the pundits
pronounced
Charles Brown wrote:
What is the total wealth, networth, value of all the economies of
the world ? Do any economists estimate this ?
Wealth is tough. Income is easier. Acc to World Bank, per capita GDP
(PPP, with all Paul A's caveats incorporated by reference) in 2002
was $7,867.94. Cash money, no
Charles Brown wrote:
So, in a very abstract sense, if everybody had equal cut from GDP in 2002,
everybody would be poor, but not real poor ? Or do I misinterpret this ?
It's roughly at the level of Mexico, PPP-wise.
Doug
Ulhas Joglekar wrote:
Chris Doss wrote:
Reactionary is an understatement.
This is equally true of terrorists in Kashmir. About
70% of terrorists killed in Kashmir in the recent
years have been non-Kashmiris.
Lately the resistance in Iraq has mainly been killing people at
open-air markets. The
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
Have you added up all the Iraqi civilians killed by various factions
of Iraqi and non-Iraqi terrorists and compared the number to that of
Iraqi civilians killed by US and other foreign troops who invaded and
have occupied Iraq and by economic sanctions before the invasion
Devine, James wrote:
yoshie writes:
Only those who do not vote for Kerry or Bush have the moral standing
to criticize foreign terrorists.
why so much emphasis on an essentially powerless and thus
meaningless act, an individual vote?
It's testimony to the powers of American assimiliation that
sartesian wrote:
So then why, Mr. Henwood, have you given credence to the notion that the US
presence might lend stability to Iraq?
I haven't, asshole.
Carrol Cox wrote:
the strongest argument against Chomsky's claim
that the u.s. is incomparably more civilized today than 40 years ago.
It just *can't* be true, can it? Everything is just awful, and
getting worse by the day. Never acknowledge any progress, which can
only come with The Revolution,
Charles Brown wrote:
CB: I notice they seem to just assume a 99% literacy rate for the U.S. (
footnote e ?) ? Is this a fudge ?
Yup. I used to have the Bush 41-era literacy reports - they were
appalling. Really high percentages of grownups who couldn't read a
bus schedule, a simple bar graph, or
Paul wrote:
It is not that I am against all indexes for all uses (and the HDI is among
the most benign).
I should have added that part of the impulse behind the development
of the HDI was to reduce pressure for redistribution - to shift the
focus from economic to social indicators. Of course,
Anthony D'Costa wrote:
There are other splits, which have been better handled, for example language.
Thus far 20 languages or so have been recognized by the government.
How widely used is English?
Doug
Michael Pollak wrote:
This sounds like a very good idea, or at least one worth trying. What's
the argument against it?
There are two basically: one, it's impossible, and two, you won't be able
to do anything with it. The reason is that the incentives are all on the
other side and that all state
Michael Pollak wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Doug Henwood wrote:
I think you're overstating things. The infiltration strategy could have
some influence on who gets elected, and also on the environment in which
other elected officials operate - they'll have to respond to and
compromise with a whole
Michael Pollak wrote:
Those can only be affected at the state level, -- which in our state,
means taking over governorship and the speakership. Nothing short of that
would have any effect at all.
This is curiously maximalist for you. Organized efforts can influence
incumbents if they feel like
Michael Hoover wrote:
people do different things, as for doug, he's a reporter (he may think
of himself in other terms), i've indicated number of times in past
impact that i think this has on his perspective re. certain things
I usually say journalist, but I won't complain about reporter. I'm
Ted Winslow wrote:
Greed in this context can't be translated into instrumentally
rational profit maximization.
Ted, all this squishy talk makes economists nervous.
Doug
michael wrote:
I recall that they jiggled to index to make the US look better. Is my
memory playing tricks on me?
That was long ago, in the HDI's early days. In the first iteration,
the U.S. scored badly. As someone in the UN told me, orders came
down from the top - the White House - to make the
Michael Hoover wrote:
This sounds like a very good idea, or at least one worth trying.
What's the argument against it?
Doug
in no particular order: dem party is thoroughly and hopelessly
capitalist, with some exceptions, dem party has dishonorable past, some
left folks' preference for
Daniel Davies wrote:
I'd be *very* careful how one went about this. It feels like entryism, and
the experience of the (UK) Labour Party in the 1980s suggests that the
'mainstream' Dems would react to it very badly indeed (by which I mean that
this, if it didn't work, would be the *end* of
Michael Perelman wrote:
Most of the fees and usurious interest rates and the like fall on
the backs of the poor.
Besides falling outside the CPI calculations, they also mean that
the distribution of
income is even more lopsided.
How do you know they do? They should be included in the CPI
Michael Perelman wrote:
I would be very interested to know if late fees or usurious interest
rates are included. I
have never heard anything about such inclusion. I would be very
happy to learn more about
it.
As it says on the top of every CPI release:
FOR TECHNICAL INFORMATION:
Patrick C.
Daniel Davies wrote:
they wouldn't, necessarily.
Fees most certainly should be included. Usurious interest rates
would be difficult to define in a world of 18-21% credit card rates.
And if they're not changing, but just constantly high, it's a
distributional issue, a form of secondary
Michael Hoover wrote:
maybe the three million or so people who voted for nader in 2000 should
take control of local democratic executive committees, use structure in
place to recruit candidates, slag off on dems who suck, use available
funds to issue policy statements and press releases one after
Michael Perelman wrote:
I would include check cashing businesses, rent to own,
Doug, are you saying that they should or they are included?
I may have misunderstood you. I thought you were talking about fees
in general. If you're talking about finance-related fees (and
interest), then those
Daniel Davies wrote:
On the other hand, no statistical body on earth has the
resource to monitor the proliferation of mobile phone payment plan options;
even the consumer press gets confused on this one regularly.
The BLS has a page devoted to cell phones in the CPI:
Daniel Davies wrote:
I forgot to mention that this is the main reason why it is always vitally
important when considering whether or not to lend your support to some
well-meaning social benefit package, that it should always be indexed to
average wages and not to CPI.
It's been a while, but don't
Carl Remick wrote:
I think _What the Matter With Kansas?_ is a great book, but Frank doesn't
really provide any explanation for conservatives' amazing, Lamont
Cranston-style ability to cloud men's minds and substitute preposterous
cultural issues for economic concerns that have life-and-death
on kids sex
* Walden Bello on the World Social Forum and alternative development models
* Christopher Hitchens on Orwell and his new political affiliations
--
Doug Henwood
Left Business Observer
38 Greene St - 4th fl.
New York NY 10013-2505 USA
voice +1-212-219-0010
fax+1-212-219-0098
cell +1-917
Diane Monaco wrote:
Dmytri, foreign inputs don't appear to be ignored in the formula you've
given above, but I would definitely agree with you that as cheaper foreign
labor inputs displace domestic labor inputs, productivity would rise.
A productivity guy at the BLS told me that foreign labor
Diane Monaco wrote:
Would have little impact on which productivity figures, Doug? If foreign
labor inputs are displacing domestic labor inputs, and domestic labor
inputs are counted in domestic productivity figures, wouldn't there be an
impact on domestic productivity figures?
(domestic labor
The Federal Reserve began raising interest rates in 1972 - gently at
first, but more aggressively in 1973. The fed funds rate broke 10% in
July 1973 for the first time ever. Inflation had been rising - from
under 3% in mid-1972 to 6% a year later - and the monthly inflation
rate was hitting an
development models
* Christopher Hitchens on Orwell and his new political affiliations
--
Doug Henwood
Left Business Observer
38 Greene St - 4th fl.
New York NY 10013-2505 USA
voice +1-212-219-0010
fax+1-212-219-0098
cell +1-917-865-2813
email mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
webhttp
Perelman, Michael wrote:
I believe that he was shot at while in Iraq.
I'm making an exception to my usual rule of ignoring Proyect, but
this really pisses me off. Christian has spent a total of nearly
three months in Iraq. He's been in the middle of firefights and met
with insurgents who
Michael Perelman wrote:
He was running around with Dar Jamil, who has been regularly
reporting for KPFA. Dar
was in the middle of everything, so I assume that Christian was also.
Again, the personal stuff adds nothing here. I don't agree with some of what
Christian says, but you can just point
Devine, James quoted Jamie Galbraith:
As the chart shows, the index reached highs on three occasions. The first
was just after President Reagan's stinging midterm election defeat in 1982.
The second was just as Bush the elder was beaten in 1992. And the third
peak came in 2003, with a trivial
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
In short, a politically sensible compromise between the Nader/Camejo
and Cobb/LaMarche factions within the Green Party would have been
Camejo's proposal for free states, i.e., the Green Party at the
national convention endorsing both campaigns and leaving each state
Green
Michael Perelman wrote:
I recently attended a history of economic thought conference in
Toronto. Judy Klein,
who has unremarkable work
I assume that sound recognition software's way of rendering done
remarkable work.
about the overwhelming influence of military thought on
both economics and
--
Doug Henwood
Left Business Observer
38 Greene St - 4th fl.
New York NY 10013-2505 USA
voice +1-212-219-0010
fax+1-212-219-0098
cell +1-917-865-2813
email mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
webhttp://www.leftbusinessobserver.com
Michael Hoover wrote:
first problem with above article: venue environment that author viewed
film,
get out some man, go see film in mass. equivalents of kissimmee fl,
ocala, fl, eustis, fl (places where film is playing, towns where no
films like this ever play)...
I saw it in Danvers, Mass., on a
David B. Shemano wrote:
How would it work in PEN-Ltopia?
Simon Garfunkel would have been sent to the glue factory long ago.
Doug
What Marxist would deny that incentives affect behavior? Didn't Old
Whiskers say somewhere that an 800% return would draw forth capital
from the moon?
Doug
Kenneth Campbell wrote:
Respectfully, I have to disagree. Michael is an excellent moderator.
Michael does something akin to actual life: keep differing ideas in
contact, because there is something that comes out of it that's better
than the sectarianism Jim mentioned in a separate thread.
I am
Grant Lee wrote:
The wonders of the internet. Here is Sowell explaining his shift away
from Marxism: http://www.salon.com/books/int/1999/11/10/sowell/index1.html
David Shemano
From that interview:
So you were a lefty once.
Through the decade of my 20s, I was a Marxist.
What made you turn
Michael Perelman wrote:
I suspect that the Sowell thread is exhausting itself into
repetition, but he did make me think about the
program that Doug did with Bhagwhati. Each time this renowned
economist gave a simplistic answer to Doug's
question, he would giggle.
I was kind in the editing, and
Michael Perelman wrote:
Nike just sent me a large packet c/o my publisher describing all the wonderful
corporate responsibility activities that they support. Very slick indeed.
There's so much attention on them now that they may indeed behave
better than other shoe and garment makers.
Doug
Carrol Cox wrote:
Let's remember that very few if any of the subscribers to this list have
much in the way of discretionary investment.
How do you know? A lot of PEN-Lers are professors with retirement
accounts that invest in stocks and bonds. Many, maybe most, are in
the upper quintile of their
Devine, James wrote:
I said that the superficial stuff of volume III
I missed this. What's superficial in v 3?
Doug
Chris Doss wrote:
but you don't know _when_ the flame-war or long obscure discussion or
predictions of instant doom will happen. In the SM, it's the timing
that's crucial.
jd
---
You can make a good guess based on the email addresses of the
participants. I've just been here a couple months, and I
Sabri Oncu wrote:
One typical example you would find in many a papers is the Royal Dutch/Shell
phenomenon. Here is what Thaler says about it:
Consider the example of the Royal Dutch/ Shell Group, as documented in
Rosenthal and Young (1990) and Froot and Dabora (1999). Royal Dutch
Petroleum and
sartesian wrote:
And I stand by what I said: behind every free market, behind every
investment instrument there's a death squad. Plain and simple.
Well yeah, so? Do you have a pension plan at the railroad? Do you
think people should spend their golden years eating catfood?
Doug
sartesian wrote:
One more thing, and I promise to come off it The query about Marxist
financial advice devolved, or evolved, into a discussion of efficient
markets, as if somehow markets were an abstraction from the social
relations that drive free exchange; as if in fact, free markets did
Devine, James wrote:
I'd like to think that he is sitting up on some cloud
somewhere getting a chuckle over how he still generates
such controversy.
I'd better start sinning now, so I won't end up in the same place as Mark.
I'm already doomed, since I cheered on the slaughter of Afghan babies.
Devine, James wrote:
BTW, the stock market is basically unpredictable _even though_ it
doesn't fit the efficient markets hypothesis.
Again, I must turn into a pedant and ask just what you mean by that.
There are several forms of the EMH. Quoting myself from Wall Street,
characterizing Eugene
Devine, James wrote:
The anomalies that have been identified over the years - that low P/E
stocks outperform high P/E ones, for example - imply that stocks are,
at least to some degree, predictable.
the SM is predictable in the sense that pen-l is predictable.
My god, if the stock market were
Daniel Davies wrote:
The more hazy idea behind
efficient markets theory is that stock market prices are in some way the
best forecast of discounted value of future cash flows.
Yup. It's been ages since I read this stuff, but some of the more
honest economists conceded there was a joint hypothesis
Daniel Davies wrote:
That point (which is, incredibly, very well established and true) is that
40% of the entire volatility of the NYMEX contract in September Frozen
Concentrated Orange Juice occurs in the single day on which the Department
of Agriculture releases its forecasts for orange
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
The anti-war/anti-occupation movement has been far bigger -- perhaps
the biggest in history, counting participants worldwide -- under Bush
than it was under Clinton.
That's because the wars and threat of future wars were bigger. If
Bush decided to invade Iran, the antiwar
Chris Doss quoted Anatol Lieven:
Yet the bitterly anti-Western ideology
These days, that sort of bitter ideology passes for anti-imperialism
in some circles. If it had been the Red Army killing Chechen rebels,
that would have been fine. But now Putin's Russia has gone over to
the dark side, so
Sabri Oncu wrote:
Jim:
diversify, diversify, diversify. hold for long-term, not short.
Hold more bonds (and fewer stocks) when old; reverse that when
young.
This is what you are taught at ivy league business school finance classes if
they still adhere to the efficient market hypothesis of
Sabri Oncu wrote:
Doug:
Market prices are efficient in that they instantly
react to buying and selling,
Rubbish! You know, my new PhD is in this, right?
I didn't. What's your argument?
Doug
Eugene Coyle wrote:
What's Wrong With Kansas, the new book by Thomas Frank is interesting.
His acknowledgements include a roster of Pen-L ers.
Including, if I'm remembering correctly, Eugene Coyle.
Doug
Funke Jayson J wrote:
For people on this list fortunate enough to have some personal
financial considerations to think about (retirement funds etc), how
do you handle planning for your financial future while reconciling
those actions with your personal convictions? How do (fortunate?)
Marxist
Michael Perelman wrote:
Are wage increases outstripping benefit cuts?
In the U.S., real wages (ex benefits) are about flat, though they
stayed positive through mid-2003 or so. The compensation measures in
the productivity series are rising, mainly because health insurance
premiums are up
H, I think it's worth testing the hypothesis that when PEN-L gets
a thread going on economic vulnerability, the economy is about to
accelerate. This is a good real-time test.
Doug
Devine, James wrote:
in which the global downward harmonization of wages and social
benefits is dragging down consumption
Where are wages falling? And where is consumption falling (even after
subtracting debt growth)?
Doug
Michael Pollak wrote:
[Well here's a creative tactic in a labor dispute making it onto the front
page of the WSJ. I just asked a friend who is a reporter there and he
says yep, it's on -- he has a front page piece tomorrow running with no
byline and considers it a matter of pride. Things are
Radicals trying to parse bourgeois discourse around oil now should
remember that a lot of it is infected by market sentiment, and with
oil up 250% over the last five years, market sentiment is very
frothy. (Sentiment follows prices, it doesn't lead them.) A lot of
the recent gains were driven by
Michael Perelman wrote:
A week or so ago, Ian Masters interviewed Fadel Gheit, Vice
President for Oil and Gas
Research with Oppenheimer Inc. He was explaining how many $$ each
international
flash point added to the price of oil. Several dollars each for
Nigeria, Venezuela,
Saudi Arabia Iraq. I
and his new political affiliations
--
Doug Henwood
Left Business Observer
38 Greene St - 4th fl.
New York NY 10013-2505 USA
voice +1-212-219-0010
fax+1-212-219-0098
cell +1-917-865-2813
email mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
webhttp://www.leftbusinessobserver.com
Andre Gunder Frank wrote:
Iraqi oil is again being priced in US dollars and no longer in Euros
as under the dreadful Saddam Hussein.
Not exactly. You could argue that the sharp rise in oil prices is a
reflection of dollar weakness. Since the December 2001 low, oil is up
about 106% in dollar terms,
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
It's fascinating that the concept of time is missing in all the PEN-l
discussions of oil, except in Tom's postings.
At 6:47 PM -0400 6/1/04, Doug Henwood wrote:
Someday we may run out of oil, but I suspect we'll choke ourselves or
ruin the climate completely before we do
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
At 4:41 PM -0400 6/2/04, Doug Henwood wrote:
So do you think we'll run out of oil - in the economic, not
physical sense - before we choke on the smoke and CO2?
Before is a time-related concept, no?
Doug
Yeah, but saying before we choke on the smoke and CO2 and saying
before
Michael Perelman wrote:
Hasn't been a decade since a major oil discovery has occured?
So do you think we'll run out of oil - in the economic, not
physical sense - before we choke on the smoke and CO2?
Doug
sartesian wrote:
Which gets us to another point, and the one where industry, ideology, and
cash flow meet: The Hubbertists have created a veritable industry out of
predicting catastrophe.
Which brings me to a question about the politics of this. Mark Jones,
may he rest in peace, was a big fan of
Ted Winslow wrote:
Like the sadism to which they are closely linked, envy and
insatiable greed are protean. Marx points to them as the
psychological basis of crude communism.
General envy constituting itself as a power is the disguise in
which greed re-establishes itself and satisfies itself,
Michael Hoover wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 5/31/2004 2:06:42 PM
Gitlin is a repulsive character, but everything he says in this
passage is, sadly, true:
But there is no evidence that nonvoters differ from voters in any
ideological way.
poli sci guy stephen earl bennett's 1990 'deconstruction'
sartesian wrote:
Anybody interested in knowing just how flexible and elastic the
speculations about peaks really are would do well to read the original
peakist himself, the petroleum Malthus, M. King Hubbert. Take a look at
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/nehring.pdf and you will read the
michael a. lebowitz wrote:
Dissent Magazine, Spring 2004
Ralph Nader and the Will to Marginality
by Todd Gitlin
Yes, I love it! The new slogan: 'A Vote for Nader is a vote against
Todd Gitlin' is sure to mobilise old SDS'ers.
Gitlin is a repulsive character, but everything he says in this
passage
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
the problem of Anybody But Bush
Democrats
So what's your alternative? Nader? He wants what you've rejected in
the past - a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops, their replacement by
an international force under a UN mandate, and internationally
supervised elections. That's a
In Bed with Susie Bright: Work Ethics with Doug Henwood
http://www.audible.com/huffman/store/productEntry.jsp?source_code=AUDP0286BN
092001productID=PF_SUZY_040507
Author: Susie Bright
Audio Original Nonfiction
Non AudibleListener Price: $5.95
Audio Length: 33 min.
Provider: Susie Bright
Year
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is the American work ethic ruining our sex lives?
Without wanting to devalue the intellectual property
inherent in this, what was the answer? :-)
What's your guess, given the predilections of both interviewer and interviewee?
Doug
development models
* Christopher Hitchens on Orwell and his new political affiliations
--
Doug Henwood
Left Business Observer
38 Greene St - 4th fl.
New York NY 10013-2505 USA
voice +1-212-219-0010
fax+1-212-219-0098
cell +1-917-865-2813
email mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
webhttp
Chris Doss wrote:
Don't even get me started on the truly crap reporting on Russia that
goes on in Western newspapers. For one thing, they interview the
same goddamn people all the time. It's Yavlinsky, Khakamada,
Chubais, yada yada yada over and over and over again (why? these
people are
Someone wrote:
the same sorts of bad
boys who write for Russ Smith's NY Press, including veteran ranter Matt
Taibbi.
Russ Smith no longer owns the NY Press, and hasn't for over a year.
Taibbi is part of the new gang at the paper, and his politics are
decidedly to the left. His stuff for the eXile
Isn't there someone here who can tell us how the BJP is really the
lesser of two evils?
Doug
ravi wrote:
Doug Henwood wrote:
Isn't there someone here who can tell us how the BJP is really the
lesser of two evils?
i am a bit confused by the above. i think the BJP is the worse of the
many evils. are you asking for a contrary opinion to mine? or did you
misunderstand mine
Devine, James wrote:
all I noticed was that the King (who speaks English as a second
language) seemed more articulate than the Pres.
I guess standards vary among hereditary monarchs.
Doug
Carrol Cox wrote:
I mention this as a possibility, that would explain a good deal of the
clashes between me and some others over the last several years.
I have never _once_ written about what I think the u.s. should do. I
don't think what I think about that is going to butter any parsnips.
My
1 - 100 of 3753 matches
Mail list logo
