[PEN-L:8462] re: Bougainville
do any of pen-l's ozzies* have any comments on the events
reported over pen-l concerning Bougainville?
*"ozzies" is ozzy slang for aussies.
OZ Bill here. the situation in Bougainville (B) is pretty complicated. The
people have been trying to take on a couple of huge multinational companies,
the PNG government propped up by the defence aid budget from the australian
government (even though the govt always swore black and blue that equipment
they gave to the PNG govt was only used for peaceful purposes - they lied and
brought shame on us...only slightly lesser in my view, than the way successive
OZ governments have sold out the fretilin in East Timor), and an apathetic
world (also the problem for east timor).
interestingly, the people have taken the companies on (well one of them BHP) in
the Australian courts over pollution damage from the OK-Tedi copper mine
on their island. they have had mixed success but it is a real david and goliath
effort (sort of like the mcdonalds prosecution in the UK). BHP turn up with
very expensive QCs in their fine silks and the B people hire a suburban lawyer
who ties the company up in litigation for ages. at present it is unresolved
although i think the Bs have lostthe undecided question is whether the
Australian courts have jurisdiction. the PNG, when it was initially decided
that they did, combined with BHp to appeal. the PNG govt and CRA and BHP are in
league in all of it. the pollution was a total disgrace and even BHP has
admitted it didn't take the proper safeguards. read: they dump raw and very
damaging poisonous waste into the main water channel of the people in the area
who lost their livelihoods and became ill.
as for the major struggle: well it is a classic National Liberation Struggle.
the Companies are raping the raw materials and destroying the local land
system. the companies say they are giving the people jobs. well yeh, in
dangerous tasks at low pay with high turnover through injury. and hey, they
already had jobs.they ran their own showsfarms etc. they companies
don't even pay the PNG govt much.
so the OZ govt are guilty. the OZ companies are guilty. the PNG govt is
hopelessly corrupt and guilty. and simplistically, the Bs are the fighting this
rather unlikely battle (in terms of resources and technology) against a
monolith with heaps of clout.
CRA has pulled out b/c the costs of vandalism/sabotage became too great and no
white executives were safe anywhere.
that is my view. there is also not enough anger among australians for this and
east timor, b/c in part we are being divided and conquered by our own govt
acting in the interests of capital.
hope this gives some info jim
it is a crying shame.
kind regards
bill
--
## William F. Mitchell
### Head of Economics Department
#University of Newcastle
New South Wales, Australia
###* E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
###Phone: +61 49 215065
# ## ###+61 49 215027
Fax: +61 49 216919
## http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/~bill/billyhp.html
[PEN-L:8461] re: Bougainville
do any of pen-l's ozzies* have any comments on the events reported over pen-l concerning Bougainville? BTW, was it a conscious decision to name the pro-independence groups "BIG" and "BRA"? *"ozzies" is ozzy slang for aussies. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
[PEN-L:8465] The Necessity For A World Outlook
Let us take up the necessity for a world outlook from the angle of the proverbial riddle (the chicken and egg riddle). Which came first: human beings or their world outlook? This is a riddle which can be easily solved by asking the question in this manner: "Which came first, theory or practice?" Human beings have gone through thousands of years of practice, or, one could say, evolution. What is known historically is that first there were some physical, anatomical, physiological changes, or, in sum, structural changes, followed by a change in function. It is not possible to explain the existence of human beings without, biologically speaking, various physiological and structural changes having taken place. One of the important changes was the development of vocal cords. For homo sapiens to stand erect on two legs, to become unique bipedal mammals, a lot of changes in their biological structure had to take place. Only once such changes were in place to a certain extent was it possible for the function itself to evolve into what we call the human, that is, to be able to use the hands consistently with the brain and thus change nature. In human social development, it is practice which had to develop to a certain level before theory could come into being and play its own directing role. Today too, without practice it is not possible to acquire a world outlook consistent with that practice. Of all the great struggles of the present era, the class struggle and the struggles for production and scientific experimentation, play the most dominant role in social development. It can be said that without waging the class struggle, it will not be possible to acquire a world outlook. Without acquiring a world outlook, it is not possible to further develop the class struggle. As regards the development of the species, it can be said with certainty that homo sapiens had no choice but to evolve. The conditions were crying out for nature to produce such a species as could not only think-in-itself and work according to habits acquired over millennia, transformed into spontaneous natural behavior, so determined by the structure and function of any organism within those conditions, but a species which could also think for others, which could abstract absence (i.e., conceptualize what is missing) in a profound way and make nature yield what was necessary for the humanization of both the social and the natural environments. Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8468] NAIRU/NRU
Tom writes: ... Stay tuned for "The End of NAIRU," coming soon to a listserv near you. Two years from now you won't be able to find an economist anywhere who will admit to having believed in the 'natural rate of unemployment'... Blair asksBut why should this be so? I remember Yellen, Reich, and several others, last spring (as quoted in a WSJ article I could dig up but don't really want to), making the point that NAIRU is not given and unchanging but depends on the social context. So that in any given conjuncture there is some level of unemployment below which inflation will accelerate, but what that level is varies from conjuncture to conjuncture. One might think this vitiates the concept of NAIRU, but it allows an effective out from just the sort of squeeze Tom suggests is coming. Do I misunderstand something? I think we need to theoretically separate the NAIRU from the Natural Rate of Unemployment (NRU). The NRU is just one theory of the NAIRU but there are others. The NRU starts with a model of perfect labor markets (with wages determined by auctions, with workers being allocated to jobs efficiently, so that the U rate = 0) and then introduces "natural" imperfections such as frictions, information problems, barriers to labor-market adjustments, mismatches between the skills and location of job-seekers and the available jobs, minimum wages, unions, demographic factors, etc. This "explains" why U 0 at "full employment" (a term considered normative and obsolete), or why labor markets are inefficient at allocating workers between jobs. More "scientifically," there exists a threshold, the NRU, so that if U NRU, we either have accelerating inflation or (with incomes policies) steadily growing shortages; it is assumed that this threshold is "natural" in origin. The NRU also assumes symmetry, so that if U NRU, we see decelerating inflation (and eventually accelerating deflation). The theory does _not_ say that the NRU is constant: demographic factors can change (e.g., the larger propensity for youth to be unemployed combines with a greater labor force participation rate of youth). And the government has an impact: it could abolish the minimum wage which in (orthodox-neoclassical) theory would lower the "natural" unemployment rate. This kind of thing is behind the common neoclassical and neo-liberal call for increased "flexibility" of labor markets. The NAIRU (non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment) theory is a more general theory that simply says that at any one time, there exists a threshold unemployment rate below which inflation tends to accelerate. This may or may not be due to the "natural" forces that the NRU theory posits. For example, I'm sure that people like Yellen, Reich, et al. would say that the NAIRU is determined by a combination of "natural" and _institutional_ factors. (The latter are factors that though originally human-made have taken on lives of their own, independent of technology and tastes, indeed affecting the development of technology and tastes, contrary to hard-core neoclassical theory.) Some of the institutions might be such as the minimum wage, but there's a more (New Deal-type) liberal alternative: the excess of the NAIRU over what's explained by "natural" factors would be the normal market failure of labor markets, e.g., the existence of macroeconomic externalities. (Instead of being an external imposition on the assumed workings of a perfect market, this is a problem inherent in the normal workings of labor markets.) For example, paying efficiency wages can be part of a profit- maximizing strategy for an individual capitalist but ends up causing higher unemployment by interfering with the normal labor- market supply-and-demand process. Similarly, people like Doeringer and Piore have argued that the existence of segmented labor markets (which can be seen as institutional rather than "natural") raises the amount of U at "full employment." Some sort of government-sponsored restructuring or tax program might fix the problem, make the labor market work as desired. Of course, the more liberal sorts emphasize the need for improved training of labor, something that really doesn't go beyond the NRU theory. I can imagine that Marx could accept an institutional conception of the NAIRU: if there isn't "enough" of a reserve army of the unemployed (from a capitalist perspective), either profits are squeezed (as in the vol. I scenario, which assumes zero inflation) or there is accelerating inflation -- as workers are able to push up wages and cut back on work effort. (I'm assuming that Marx's posited fall in the rate of accumulation of capital in response to profit squeezes (or accelerating inflation) is temporarily counteracted by government spending or monetary policy.) A key difference of this Marxian theory from the NRU is the emphasis on work discipline; more important is that Marx saw
[PEN-L:8469] Re: Is this a consensus?
On 4 Feb 97 at 15:03, Tom Walker wrote: Yeah, but. Stay tuned for "The End of NAIRU," coming soon to a listserv near you. Two years from now you won't be able to find an economist anywhere who will admit to having believed in the 'natural rate of unemployment'. Print this prediction and paste it on your monitor, if it doesn't come true, send me the paper and I'll eat it. That seems to be a pretty bold prediction. Please elaborate. MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:8470] Re: Is this a consensus?
On 4 Feb 97 at 15:03, Tom Walker wrote: Yeah, but. Stay tuned for "The End of NAIRU," coming soon to a listserv near you. Two years from now you won't be able to find an economist anywhere who will admit to having believed in the 'natural rate of unemployment'. Print this prediction and paste it on your monitor, if it doesn't come true, send me the paper and I'll eat it. That's seems like a pretty bold prediction. What makes you say it? MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:8466] Re: intern needed
Doug Henwood wrote: Being the petty capitalist exploiter of youthful labor that I am (hi Jerry Levy!) I'm in desperate need of a reporter/researcher/intern. $50 for 5-10 hours a week of work. Must be in NYC and have access to a good library. Hi Doug! How generous of you to offer $5-10/hr. for skilled help! Are you offering health benefits? Jerry
[PEN-L:8471] NAIRU/NRU
Let me follow up on what Jim Devine and Blair Sandler have said. There are already a lot of fairly establishment economists, including an increasing number who are somewhere right of center, who accept that "NAIRU can change," which kind of vitiates the concept as a policy holy grail. The current line is probably, "Yes there is a NAIRU, but it shifts with conditions," and in an older argument less accepted, in response to the state of past unemployment. This is the hysteresis or persistence argument (now, bill, let's not have a technical lecture here on trend stationarity vs difference stationarity!). The NRU is supposedly the rate to which the economy will "naturally" go if it is an unregulated laissez-faire state. According to the Friedman and his ilk that should reflect some normal level of frictional and structural unemployment. But, although there has been a strong tendency to identify the two, there is nothing in theory to show that they would necessarily be one and the same, even if we grant their existence. They do not have to equal each other and they can both change. So, why bother with them? Obviously, they do become a cover for justifying the reserve army in the hands of most economists, but their essential emptiness is becoming increasingly apparent. Barkley Rosser -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8472] Re: Is this a consensus?
Max Sawicky asked (about NAIRU), That's seems like a pretty bold prediction. What makes you say it? I don't want to quarrel with Jim Devine's useful discussion of the distinction between NAIRU and NRU. Somewhere, buried in this mountain of scraps of paper with notes on them I've got a reference to an article that catalogued the various species of NAIRU. As I recall there is not a single NAIRU theory but six vague and incomplete versions, each borrowing haphazardly parts from some of the others to fill in its own gaps and inconsistencies. Maybe there's as many versions of NRU. I think it was Nietszche who used the expression, "mobile army of metaphors". As a metaphysical concept, I've got no more problem with NAIRU than I do with angels dancing on the heads of pins. It's as a guide to policy that I predict the rats will soon desert the NAIRU ship -- and it won't be for technical or theoretical reasons. I've got a deadline that I'm working to on another issue, so I can't go into a detailed analysis of my speculation on NAIRU, other than to say that NAIRU ruled only so long as it seemed to underpin a pragmatic policy direction (TINA) that business and governments were already inclined to follow for political, not economic, reasons. It wasn't the theory (theories) that drove the policies, but the policies that sought out the theory for self-justification. Jerry Levy will no doubt be amazed at how quickly the ideologues will start singing another tune when the bandwagon starts rolling in the other direction. Remember what happened in the so-called East Bloc a decade ago? Repeat over and over to yourself: "It can't happen here. It can't happen here." Feel better? BUT, don't ask what direction the bandwagon is going to start rolling in or what the new tune is going to be. All I know is the old one's come to it's last refrain. Regards, Tom Walker ^^ knoW Ware Communications | Vancouver, B.C., CANADA | "Only in mediocre art [EMAIL PROTECTED] |does life unfold as fate." (604) 669-3286| ^^ The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm
[PEN-L:8473] UnemploymentNAIRU etc.
I am having a little difficulty believing I am on a 'progressive' economics network and yet reading the stuff that is being posted. 1. during the war (2nd WW) the unemployment rate fell to around 1% without any structural and frictional constraints but within the framework of a strict f (that should be) fiscal and monetary policy framework. So it is not the economic constraints that determine the rate of unemployment, but the political (class power) constraints. 2. In the post-war studies, the Phillips curve analysis gave an approximate trade-off of 3-4% inflation for 3-5% unemployment. What has changed? What is the great structural change that caused this tradeoff to jump to this new, mythical, NAIRU (or NRU) of which there is nothing natural except the gullibility of the population and the culcability of the polititians. 3. The dual (segmented) labour market analysis is so much more sophisticated and complex than the version given here that I weep for our profession. It is frustrating to see such simplistic first-year neoclassical analysis passing off as so-called radical analysis. Get with it! Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
[PEN-L:8463] intern needed
Being the petty capitalist exploiter of youthful labor that I am (hi Jerry Levy!) I'm in desperate need of a reporter/researcher/intern. $50 for 5-10 hours a week of work. Must be in NYC and have access to a good library. Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:8474] Re: Is this a consensus? (Tom Walker)
Comrade Walker wrote Somewhere, buried in this mountain of scraps of paper with notes on them I've got a reference to an article that catalogued the various species of NAIRU. I would be overwhelmed with joy if you could provide this reference for me Cheers Bill Cochrane
[PEN-L:8475] drop from discussion group
To whom it may concern From George Wright I would like to be dropped from your economics e-mail discussion group immediately. Thank You. George Wright
[PEN-L:8467] Re: End of NAIRU?
Does it really matter whether "they" keep NAIRU or not? Isn't the real, underlying, issue one of keeping a reserve army without labeling it as such. Whether by fiddling with unemployment definitions, failing to distinguish the numbers of contract workers with 2 or more jobs, or by other means? It seems quite reasonable to me that some Economic Genius will shoot down NAIRU one day and proclaim its twin as supreme. Plus ca change n'est-ce-pas? Or am I missing something fundamental here? Best regards, Larry Shute At 03:03 PM 2/4/97 -0800, you wrote: Sid Shniad quoted, "Karl Marx argued that capitalism needs a 'reserve army' of unemployed labor to restrain wage demands and safeguard profits. Most economic policy makers still think the same way, but recent experience in the U.S. and Britain suggests the army might need fewer troops than it used to." And Doug Henwood replied, Yes, I'd say this is the ruling class consensus now. Yeah, but. Stay tuned for "The End of NAIRU," coming soon to a listserv near you. Two years from now you won't be able to find an economist anywhere who will admit to having believed in the 'natural rate of unemployment'. Print this prediction and paste it on your monitor, if it doesn't come true, send me the paper and I'll eat it. Regards, Tom Walker Laurence Shute Voice: 909-869-3850 Department of Economics FAX: 909-869-6987 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
