[PEN-L:3861] RE: Childcare
Justin said: >The question was whether publically provided care _could_ be adequate, or >good. Possibly privately provided care could be if properly funded--elite >private centers show that it can. But the university childcare examples >show that the the mere fact of public provision need not undermine and may >enhance provision. I don't suppose anyone but committed pro-planning >socialists--I know a few who aren't mad--object to the idea of privately >provided childcare. The problem, though, is that in the present context, >private childcare means a two tier system: good and relatively expensive >care, provided under moderately exploitative (for the providers) >conditions for those who can afford it, and mediocre or worse McKids care >provided under highly exploitative conditions for those who can't. That's >not an argument aginst private care. I must be a committed pro-planning socialist (now I see it all :-) knowing that. I think you have made the case against the private health care. It either becomes part of the elitist system of class reproduction or it puts our kids onto the misery queue. Lets argue this issue. Is everything reasonably considered a product which can be the basis of surplus extraction? Just b/c private centres can exist either with massive public subsidy or through the higher income earners being prepared to pay the high fees. but so what? I don't think that kids care should be considered a product. Of-course, being a CPPS i also don't think education per se should be a product. but capitalist production is always concerned with the bottom line. Caring for kids really has no bottom line. that is why the state should take full responsibility for child care. i fail to see how this applies only to CPPSs. The capitalist system also will require stable types who learn not to be anti-social. cheapo child care centres cannot help here. and child care for snobs is about as bad as privately provided schooling, but we have had the public school/private school debate before and i was in a minority of about one on that one. kind regards bill ** William F. MitchellTelephone: +61-49-215027 .-_|\ Department of Economics +61-49-705133 / \ The University of NewcastleFax: +61-49-216919 \.--._/*<-- Callaghan NSW 2308v Australia Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW Home Page: http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/~bill/billyhp.html **
[PEN-L:3860] the causes of unemployment
How much do you think that the relative weights would be for two causes of unemployment: corporate rationalization and the export of jobs? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:3859] Re: Citron's rationality
I believe that the same broker sold San Jose into near bankruptcy around 1983. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:3858] exports
Doug is certainly right about declining tariffs and non-tarriff barriers re: Grossman's drift toward protectionism." But can't we regard currency devaluations as "protectionist"? In the sense of protecting a country's exports as a whole, not particular export sectors. Mexico is the latest example. The low US dollar vis a vis the ten and mark has a lot to do with Clinton's and the US ruling class's strategy of "growth through exports." Many countries in the 1980s and early 1990s tried to expand exports by devaluation (South Korea, Sweden, the UK come to mind, and there are others I've forgotten). Dave Ranney raises an interesting question, i.e., what do companies producing in and exporting from the US do with their export earnings? If they exercise their "global options," clearly an export-led growth strategy wouldn't work. But I have no idea how empirically significant "global options" company policies are re: export earnings. Does anyone? Jim O'Connor
[PEN-L:3857] RE: Childcare
On Thu, 19 Jan 1995, Cotter_Cindy wrote: > In defense of the mysterious HG, who was willing to have the > government pay for child care but not provide it, hasn't the > superiority of government child care as described here in > many posts rested primarily on the fact that the government > can afford to pay more? Is there some reason to believe > private child care would not improve if it were funded by > the government at the same rates as the wonderful university > centers we're hearing about? Aren't matters of financing > being confounded with management issues? > The question was whether publically provided care _could_ be adequate, or good. Possibly privately provided care could be if properly funded--elite private centers show that it can. But the university childcare examples show that the the mere fact of public provision need not undermine and may enhance provision. I don't suppose anyone but committed pro-planning socialists--I know a few who aren't mad--object to the idea of privately provided childcare. The problem, though, is that in the present context, private childcare means a two tier system: good and relatively expensive care, provided under moderately exploitative (for the providers) conditions for those who can afford it, and mediocre or worse McKids care provided under highly exploitative conditions for those who can't. That's not an argument aginst private care. It is an argument for a two-pronged strategy of increasing public funding, say by direct grants to parents, for use in either public or private centers, and increasing the amount and scope of public provision. And in the current Newtonian mood in which budgets for everything are being slashed, good luck! I'd feel marginally better about the prospects for popular resistance to Newtonianism as people realize that these cuts impose intolerable misery on wade swathes of the population, not just the mythical welfare queens in their Cadillacs, if the Democrats were not playing catch-up, caving in to pressure on the right whenever it is applied. Anyone who cannot see that the Democrats are hopeless and that we must now build a new party, one that doesn't fuse or truck with these GOP clones, is in the grip of either illusion or despair, and in any event ideology. --Justin Schwartz
[PEN-L:3856] Re: Citron's rationality
The leftish consensus around here is that the county to the south of L.A. went broke because (1) prop. 13 and other propositions reduced the county's ability to raise taxes, as did the the strong anti-tax movement among Orange County's middle-class and rich classes; (2) developers and corporations such as Disney pushed the county for more services, as did normal population growth. These pushed the county to break the normal approach of county treasurers (borrowing to invest in infrastructure) and instead engage in financial investment, often with borrowed money, in ways that would have a high return. The structural budget short-fall was covered by earnings from these investments. (Local governments jumped on the bandwagon because of the high return, though some were induced to do so by law.) Citron _and_ the county supervisors _and_ the voters saw that Citron's strategy was paying off and wanted to pursue it further. The opposition candidate in last year's election (a Republican, by the way) pointed out that with high returns come high risk, but was handily defeated. In this, the role of Merrill Lynch et al. was as a drug pusher approaching the junkie. A symbiotic relationship. Both sides of the deal pushed for deregulation that allowed county treasurers to do what Citron did. It's a mistake to focus on just Citron _or_ on just Merrill Lynch. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante.
[PEN-L:3855] Re: child care & the market
I think that pen-ler's may be interested in a little discussion I had with Teresa Amott (and I hope I'm not violating your privacy, Teresa!) In response to her comment on how good the US military's child-care system is these days, I said: it gives one an incentive to join the armed forces! To which she said: The way things are going, it may be the only full-time job with benefits left Seriously, isn't it weird that the military has decent child care? I'm connected with a bunch of socialist feminist child care types -- people who organize child care workers, etc. -- and we're all still a bit baffled. I mean, it's obvious that a volunteer army that relies on a largely poor younger workforce might need to tailor its benefits to attract higher "quality" recruits, but one would think that the military ideology would not exactly be suited to providing decent child care. I (Jim, that is) agree. It's eerily reminiscent of how the military sector of the old Soviet economy was one of the few efficient sectors. I guess military goals conquer all. I've had experience with two types of childcare, both private. One, a church-organized place partly subsidized by my university, was okay, but is currently being milked for cash by the congregation. The other, a parent-organized school that once "belonged" to a synagogue, follows the private-school tradition of cream- skimming. In short, they expelled my 4 1/2 year old son because he was a "discipline problem" (chip off the old block?) We'll see how the public schools deals with this. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante.
[PEN-L:3854] Society for Socialist Studies annual conference. Message is 765 lines
Learneds 1995: 3-6 June at UQAM in Montre%al The 1995 Learneds will be held at the Universite% du Que%bec a$ Montre%al. Our society dates are 3-6 June (Saturday-Tuesday). Patrick Bolland has agreed to coordinate the Montre%al local committee. David Mandel is our direct connection with UQAM. They will be in contact with the National Office to deal with such practical matters as room allocation, audio-visual needs and, of course, the famous Socialist Studies Party. More on these things in future Bulletins. Final Call for Papers For the sessions listed below you are encouraged to submit your proposals for a paper to the coordinator (note that in one session submissions must be made to three coordinators) and to the National Office: Society for Socialist Studies, University College, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg MB R3T 2M8, fax 204-261-0021, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] The deadline for the submission of paper proposals is 10 February. Note that several sessions have been added since the previous call for papers. Some of these are now cross-listed with the CSAA. Some comments re speakers: 1) Ordinarily, speakers must be (or become) members of the Society for Socialist Studies. Exceptions are (a) special guests who could not be expected to join the organisation otherwise, and (b) participants in joint sessions if they are members of the other group. 2) Speakers are expected to have a finished paper ready for distribution at the conference. 3) Being accepted as a speaker does not mean that funding for travel to the conference is available. Last year the requests for funds were triple the amount provided to us by SSHRC and SSFC (and a bit from our own resources). 4) SSHRCC rules preclude the payment of travel money to those living within 325km/200miles from the host university. 5) Our society has, for many years, used the following order of priority: (i) students, unemployed, commmunity activists, other low-income people; (ii) postdoctoral appointees, sessional academics; (iii) term and probationary appointees; (iv) tenured faculty members. Usually, only members of the first two groups receive (some) funding. 6) Ordinarily, only speakers are eligible for funding. 7) In accordance with a motion passed at the 1994 AMM, travel support is normally awarded (if at all) no more than twice in a row to any fully employed person. 8) No money will be paid for "income replacement". All confirmed speakers will be contacted by the National Office in March with further details. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- The following sessions have been proposed: Labour and the extreme right: the myths and the realities. Barrie Anderson, Sociology and Social Studies, University of Regina, Regina S4S 0A2. Fax 306-585-4815 Papers dealing with all aspects of the consequences for labour of an emerging neo-fascism are invited. Presentations concentrating on anti-Semitism, white-supremacist hate groups, anti-labour activities, anti-feminism, and strategies to fight back will be particularly welcome. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Genocide as a concern for socialist and feminist theory & practice (papers and/or round-table) Organiser: Dr. Sima Aprahamian (Simone de Beauvoir Institute, Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve W., Montreal, Que%bec H3G 1M8; H: 514-331-9571) Genocide is the ultimate destruction of life, therefore of all labour and work. Genocide is not a new issue. Although genocide as a political and legal terminology has only been in use in association with the Nazi-perpetrated Holocaust, as a systematic annihilation plan it has much deeper roots. In view of the recent massacres in Rwanda, Bosnia and the 80th anniversary of the unrecognized genocide of the Armenians I propose a forum to re-examine the politics of terminology and theories of genocide. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Health care in the 90s: re-visions, reorganization, research (with CSAA) Marie Campbell, Faculty of Human and Social Resources, University of Victoria, Victoria BC V8W 2Y2. Tel. 604-721-8203. Fax 604-721-7067. E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (one L!) This session covers critical and feminist analyses of current trends and research (population-based, community participation, regionalisation, "closer-to-home" care, etc.) in our health-care system. Questions to be be addressed include: What is happening in the name of progress and reorganization? How are researchers involved in such changes? In the face of fiscal restraint -- especially targetting social spending -- what kinds of research activity do health activists, professionals, policy makers and unionists find helpful in the struggle to maintain and improve health care? The CCF-NDP and the labour movement. Lorne Brown, Political Science, University of Regina, Regina SK S4S 0A2. Tel. 306-585- (w), 306-729-4558 (h). Fax 306-585-4815. The relationship of the CCF-NDP to the labour movement in Canada has some similarities with that between labour and social-democratic pa
[PEN-L:3853] RE: Childcare
>In defense of the mysterious HG, who was willing to have the >government pay for child care but not provide it, hasn't the >superiority of government child care as described here in >many posts rested primarily on the fact that the government >can afford to pay more? Is there some reason to believe >private child care would not improve if it were funded by >the government at the same rates as the wonderful university >centers we're hearing about? Aren't matters of financing >being confounded with management issues? > >Cindy Cotter >[EMAIL PROTECTED] I meant to suggest that yes, with adequate financing going into the right pockets, i.e. staff wages and benefits rather than profits, private centers could provide similar quality to the best publicly funded programs. Speaking of the form such financing might take, the Oregon Commission on Childcare recently recommended to the legislature a tax credit for child care teachers. While anything that puts more money in the hands of these providers is an improvement, this does seem like yet another subsidy to low wage employers. I'm not sure what financing mechanism the mysterious HG had in mind. Also, I'm not sure what it means to say "the government can afford to pay more." In our case it is students, who in general are hardly the group that can best afford quality child care, who voted to tax themselves through student fees to pay for the quality. In fairness there are some university in kind subsidies involved too. Steve Steven Hecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Labor Education and Research Center 1289 University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403-1289 telephone: 503-346-2788 fax: 503-346-2790
[PEN-L:3852] RE: Childcare
Cindy said: >In defense of the mysterious HG, who was willing to have the >government pay for child care but not provide it, hasn't the >superiority of government child care as described here in >many posts rested primarily on the fact that the government >can afford to pay more? Is there some reason to believe >private child care would not improve if it were funded by >the government at the same rates as the wonderful university >centers we're hearing about? Aren't matters of financing >being confounded with management issues? exactly. I mentioned the other day that in OZ the federal budget allocation to private long day centres which make profits is about (a few $ here and there) the same as they spend on the public centres. Yet the public day care is overwhelmingly favoured by the consumers b/c of higher quality service, better hours, and the like. the fact is that the public sector manages this function significantly better (on average) than the private sector "firms". management for the public sector is about looking after kids and giving them creative things to do all day, and making sure they get fed properly (although i note they do not have a full vegetarian menu - so that is a blip!). the managerial function in the private firms is about making a profit by keeping costs as low as possible. the kids are incidental to the surplus creation process. just like a plastic toy really, or a tonne of coal. So i would not defend the mysterious HG one bit. His (oops - a bit of the mystery just got exposed) claims the superiority of private sector management acting to price incentives. in OZ at least, this claim is patently false in child care. the only reason the private sector can stay in business is b/c of public subsidy. the only reason the public sector subsidises the private sector when it is patently a lower grade service is b/c of this weird belief that having private sector involvement is intrinsically good, keeps the industry honest and provides competition. Sorry to disappoint, but all of these reasons are meagre free market dogma and do not bear empirical scrutiny. Kind regards bill ** William F. MitchellTelephone: +61-49-215027 .-_|\ Department of Economics +61-49-705133 / \ The University of NewcastleFax: +61-49-216919 \.--._/*<-- Callaghan NSW 2308v Australia Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW Home Page: http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/~bill/billyhp.html **
[PEN-L:3851] Re: child care & th
>Steve Hecker raises an important point about daycare: the cost of providing a >true living wage to daycare workers and getting high quality care for the kids >is more than most parents can pay. ... > >The problem with the cost of daycare is like the problem with the cost of >health care; they are both sporadic--intense at some times, nonexistent at >others. ... More like education than healthcare, I think. Daycare isn't really a crisis service. Further, daycare is a need largely because of the full time working status of both parents, which in turn represents (largely) the dramatic decline in wages that has led to the need for two incomes, and the inflexibility of the job market that makes few good quality part time jobs or temporarily reduced hours arrangements available. The component of social change is also present in that working outside the home is now seen as desirable by most adults, male and female, and the "couple and kids in a house" style of life has replaced more meaningful relationships to neighbors and extended families (caregivers of a previous time). There is also the factor of improved knowledge about child development and rearing, the rich environment possible in shared facilities, and the social advantages of contact with other children that is now present in some childcare. Solutions? I'd say true family wage jobs with flexibility, rebuilding functioning communities (co-housing?), and tax support for enriching young children's lives. Paul Harrison
[PEN-L:3850] RE: Childcare -Reply
Comrades, I second Cindy on this. (Sorry, a re-intro: I'm a social policy wonk just returned from South Africa, now based at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.) Interestingly, around 1990 the SA Left came up with the neat slogan, "strong but slim state," in order to characterize a desired government with tough redistributive and regulatory powers (the latter aimed at hyper-speculative financial markets), but one slim enough to avoid excessive bureaucratization in service delivery (and consequent formation of a civil service-based, petty-bourgeois class which typically denudes African nationalism of so much of its energy and progressive potential). In this model, community-based and workplace-based instruments of poor and working people (i.e., within "_working-class_ civil society") are meant to be given not merely increased responsibilities for social reproduction, but also - in contrast to the US AID/World Bank/UN model - the _resources_ from the social surplus to carry forth their own often implicitly-radical alternatives. (There are limits, of course, in the areas of infrastructure and certain services, but quite a lot has been envisaged and accomplished in the way of self-governing, community-based "soviets" from within SA townships like Alexandra, just outside Johannesburg.) There is quite a bit of official ANC policy, in something called the Reconstruction and Development Programme, as well as in agit-prop from the SA National Civic Organisation, to operationalize these concepts. In reality, though, it looks like the New SA is retaining more weak and fat characteristics in these respects, in large part, dare I say it, thanks to the enormously uneven legacy of the late Joe Slovo.
[PEN-L:3849] Re: New Party piece
At 10:42 AM 1/19/95, S. Lerner wrote: >Give em hell, Elaine! Hope to talk (and walk) New Party with you soon. Sally By the way - how is the NDP, the NP's ostensible model, doing these days? Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA 212-874-4020 voice 212-874-3137 fax
[PEN-L:3848] trip to New Orleans?
Anyone out there interested in attending the Southern Economic Association meetings in New Orleans next November 18-20 and perhaps organizing a "radical" session? I have been asked by John Seigfreid of Vanderbilt, the incoming President of the SEA who is in charge of the program, to organize such a session. Seigfried mentioned the subject of "what's left of Marxism?", but is open to any subject. The session would consist of 3 papers. Seigfried has promised to enlist the discussants, if necessary. If you are interested, please send me a message, including your ideas about other possible participants, as soon as possible directly to me at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks.
[PEN-L:3847] Re: New Party piece
Bob Fitch may write well on New York City but his thesis that big money deliberately drove industrial jobs out of NYC so as to provide space for office towers is absurd. Big Money wants both, it doesn't discard one profitable thing to make room for another.
[PEN-L:3846] RE: Childcare
In defense of the mysterious HG, who was willing to have the government pay for child care but not provide it, hasn't the superiority of government child care as described here in many posts rested primarily on the fact that the government can afford to pay more? Is there some reason to believe private child care would not improve if it were funded by the government at the same rates as the wonderful university centers we're hearing about? Aren't matters of financing being confounded with management issues? Cindy Cotter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:3845] Re: child care & th
Steve Hecker raises an important point about daycare: the cost of providing a true living wage to daycare workers and getting high quality care for the kids is more than most parents can pay. Here is a suggestion off the top of my head; tell me if there is anything to it The problem with the cost of daycare is like the problem with the cost of health care; they are both sporadic--intense at some times, nonexistent at others. Over a life cycle they can be afforded (given a reasonable distribution of income), but it is difficult to come up with all the money at once. For health care everyone recognizes that insurance is needed, not only to pool risks across the population, but to spread payment over the life cycle. Isn't there a need for a corresponding mechanism for smoothing out childcare payments as well? In other words, isn't the case for public support for daycare not simply one of income redistribution, but also one of expense smoothing? The policy remains the same--public financing--but is it a little easier to explain as a life cycle mechanism? Peter Dorman
[PEN-L:3844] Re: rationality
>Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 11:35:33 -0800 >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: Robin Hahnel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >The essential issue, I believe, is whether or not particular social >institutions promote socially productive or socially unproductive >behavior. [I'm sure we could argue for a while about how to define >what is socially productive and unproductive, but let's assume we >could agree on that for the moment.] Well, how does an institution >promote one kind of behavior rather than another? For the most part, >or if you wish to be more cautious in statements, certainly to some >extent, institutions promote one kind of behavior rather than another >by making one kind of behavior individually rational, IR as you say, >and other kinds of behavior individually irrational. People do NOT >always have to behave in IR ways in order for this phenomenon to >occur. And people are always "free" to choose to behave in ways that >are NOT IR for various reasons -- one of which might be moral or pol- >itical committments. As one who as frequently chosen individually >irrational courses of action -- as I'm sure you are too -- I know that >the pressure from social institutions does not always succeed in getting >me to behave in a particular way. But, that does not obviate the fact >the social institution promoted, or pressured me and others, to behave >in a particular kind of way, and forced me to behave in a way that in >some meaningful sense was counter to my own self-interests as I see >them. I don't see why we have to give such pride of place to a subjectivist notion of individual rationality. Institutions may promote one kind of behavior over another, but it seems unnecssary to add that they do so by making one kind of behavior IR. Institutions constrain, empower, and pressure for some behaviors over others, and it seems almost besides the point to worry if individuals consciously choose these behaviors. I cannot plan an effective course of action counting on my vassels' oaths of fealty to provide me with labor when I need it, but I might be able to count on my savings account serving the same purpose. The prospects of feudal labor relations are so remote from my real possiblities that I do not even consider them. There must be an infinite set of alternatives I do not even consider, my actual actions must have an infinite set of implications I am not even aware of; ditto for motivations. It seems more meaningful to talk of the institutional detemination of the scope for possible conscious action before we worry about the rationality of those actions. In other words, the path to human action does not necessarily pass through consciousness. > >It is in this sense that I think progressive critics of capitalism >can argue that markets and private enterprise promote socially unpro- >ductive behavior. And I don't see how that conclusion is contradicted >by the fact that many people -- perhaps all people -- to some extent >resist the pressure to behave in the ways markets promote, and even >that the very viability of market systems hinges on people NOT always >behaving in the ways that markets push them. Marsh Feldman Community Planning Phone: 401/792-2248 204 Rodman Hall FAX: 401/792-4395 University of Rhode Island Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kingston, RI 02881-0815 "Marginality confers legitimacy on one's contrariness."
[PEN-L:3843] Re: rationality
I agree completely: I'm playing right into their hands! The goofiness was
just too hard to resist: ("Tall buildings, High interest rates": in this
sequel to Bright Lights, Big City we get the bratpack's investment
philosophy). Actually the larger causes of the OC thing are interesting:
what Citron was buying was what the industry calls the "toxic waste"
thrown off of mortgage-baked securities--or so I remember reading
somewhere recently. The risk was all taken out and concentrated and
shipped off to Texas to be sold to unsophisticated investors by the
"tin-men" of
the industry, so Wall Street could peddle a nice risk-free instrument
with a clear conscience. --Thanks for the warning!
On Thu, 19 Jan 1995, John E. Parsons wrote:
> On Thursday, Jan 19, Kevin Quinn wrote...
>
> > Speaking of rationality, did people catch the WSJ article on Robert
> > Citron, Orange County's erstwhile Treasurer? Apparently he was
> > loony-tunes and had been for some time. When his huge bet that interest
> > rates would fall became questionable as rates rose last Fall, he
> > explained to the oversight board why this would be reversed:
> >
> > "We do not have the large inflationary wage increases, runaway building
> > both in homes, commercial and those tall glass-office buildings. Few, if
> > any, tall office buildings are being built.."
> >
> > The reporter asked the source whether this sort of pretzel logic didn't
> > worry the Board---no, because he'd always "reasoned" this way, and they'd
> > been raking it in earlier!
> >
>
> Careful Kevin. The WSJ and a large part of the investment
> management community feel a need to scapegoat Citron in
> order to protect the investment advisor industry. He may
> have been off in a variety of ways, and certainly he did
> something plain wrong, but he was a perfect match, a
> perfect component, for an industry that needs to be
> criticized.
>
> There is an old saying in business that "You can't cheat an
> honest man." It's the ones who want a deal that really is
> too good to be true that can be made into suckers.
> Unfortunately some people in the industry forget that that
> still leaves them cheating whoever or however one might
> describe their prey.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John Parsons
> Graduate School of Business
> Columbia University
> 116th St. & Broadway
> New York, NY 10027
> (212) 854-3783
> (617) 288-4367
>
[PEN-L:3842] Re: New Party piece
Give em hell, Elaine! Hope to talk (and walk) New Party with you soon. Sally >Come'on Doug, play nice. In the same spirit that I took up >J. Case, I'm sure you don't mean CP as a term of endearment. >Play nice boys! There's some real politics here, so cut out >the red baiting bullshit. I think the real CP, Trotskyist, >New Left, American Left legacy is ignoring political differences >and real discussion and decending everything to the level of >name calling. If you don't agree with me, you're a (fill in >the gap) and therefore your criticism is unworthy of further >concern or debate. > >On the issue of NYC I tend to think that it is rather unusual. >The largest city in the country, with strange, strange, politics. >I wish Mike Davis who move there and do for NY what he did >for LA in CITY OF QUARTZ. However, that aside, I do think >that in building a grassroots, democratic, membership based >political party that Madison, Milwaukee, Little Rock, etc >will be more typical than NYC. > >As for the fusion tactic, the difficulty here is keeping as >a tactic, and only a tactic, to gain state wide (or city wide >or whatever level the group is interested in apply it) ballot >status. The barriers that the state has set up in this country >to prevent democratic self-organization in elections is worthy >of a totalitarian state. It's a real barrier and problem for >any third party. > >My view is there will be opportunists in the New Party, and >sectarians, and we'll go too slow sometimes and too quickly >other times. But in a grassroots democratic party if we >build a culture of real debate, over policy and tactics >I believe we will be able to resolve differences -- and >in fact, on occasion operate quite differently in different >states and communities depending on the strength of the >organization and it's level of organization (that is, has >it elected people, does it have access to ballot status, >has it been able to reform election laws...) > >Because I believe this discussions are absolutely essential >to the growth and development of any third party, I think >it's important for leftist, who agree or are critical of >specific tactics, actions or policies to aid in creating >a political culture where these issues can be debated and >discussed on their merits -- not on who is an trot or who >is a stalinist. > >Elaine Bernard
[PEN-L:3841] Re: rationality
On Thursday, Jan 19, Kevin Quinn wrote... > Speaking of rationality, did people catch the WSJ article on Robert > Citron, Orange County's erstwhile Treasurer? Apparently he was > loony-tunes and had been for some time. When his huge bet that interest > rates would fall became questionable as rates rose last Fall, he > explained to the oversight board why this would be reversed: > > "We do not have the large inflationary wage increases, runaway building > both in homes, commercial and those tall glass-office buildings. Few, if > any, tall office buildings are being built.." > > The reporter asked the source whether this sort of pretzel logic didn't > worry the Board---no, because he'd always "reasoned" this way, and they'd > been raking it in earlier! > Careful Kevin. The WSJ and a large part of the investment management community feel a need to scapegoat Citron in order to protect the investment advisor industry. He may have been off in a variety of ways, and certainly he did something plain wrong, but he was a perfect match, a perfect component, for an industry that needs to be criticized. There is an old saying in business that "You can't cheat an honest man." It's the ones who want a deal that really is too good to be true that can be made into suckers. Unfortunately some people in the industry forget that that still leaves them cheating whoever or however one might describe their prey. John Parsons Graduate School of Business Columbia University 116th St. & Broadway New York, NY 10027 (212) 854-3783 (617) 288-4367
[PEN-L:3840] Re: child care & the market
>On another list, an irrepressible born-again market enthusiast we'll call >only H.G., after dismissing public jobs programs as "a joke" and "a waste >of money," declared that government should do no more than finance child >care, not provide it - provision being best left to private providers. In >an answer to a follow-up question, H.G. said yes, all of 'em, when asked if >these include nonprofits, co-ops, and/or MacKids. > >Any comments from pen-l'ers on other countries' experiences with public >child care? Is the state a terrible provider? > >Doug Henwood >[[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Left Business Observer >250 W 85 St >New York NY 10024-3217 >USA >212-874-4020 voice >212-874-3137 fax As a member of my (public) university's child care committee I wrestle with these questions regularly. The idea that government is somehow inherently inferior as a provide of child care is ludicrous. Our continual struggle is over quality and affordability. We have high quality child care on campus because we pay teachers and assistant teachers living (union) wages. We are only able to do this because the students have voted to tax themselves to subsidize the operation of the centers and keep costs reasonable. We are about to begin construction of a new child care facility, intended primarily for staff and faculty, built with funds raised privately through the university's foundation. For the past two years we have been juggling the numbers endlessly to figure out how it could be operated without subsidies at affordable rates paying union scale for staff. It cannot be done (The numbers are something like $700/month for infant/toddler care). Private centers live off cheap labor with no benefits, which means high staff turnover and reduced quality. There is pressure to contract out our new center to a private entity. We argue against the hypocrisy of running a center based on wages that result in more working parents who then cannot afford care for their own children. I don't know what the nuances are of the argument about government financing versus government operating child care. I do know what the private market looks like here now, and it's not a pretty sight. There are exceptions, of course, such as private nonprofits that offer very good care, but they tend to be high-priced and elite. Steve Steven Hecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Labor Education and Research Center 1289 University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403-1289 telephone: 503-346-2788 fax: 503-346-2790
[PEN-L:3839] re: rationality
I've been following the discussion about rationality and institutions with interest. While I don't have time to develop a full response, I'd like to point interested parties in the direction of Frank Knight's famous articles on "The Ethics of Competition," and "Ethics and the Economic Interpretation", which provide a critique of the rationality assumption and of the market as a social institution on lines similar to those pursued in recent postings. Knight basically argues that market societies (i.e., societies shaped by the institutional structure of capitalism) produce people who do not qualify as ethical by any of the major ethical systems of our world. You can find the two essays in *The Ethics of Competition*. Ross Ross B. Emmett, Augustana Univesity College, Camrose, Alberta CANADA T4V 2R3 voice: (403) 679-1517 fax: (403) 679-1129 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:3838] Re: rationality
I agree with Jim that a full-blown homo economicus is nuts, because I think that "our" practices, properly articulated, would support this judgement. Speaking of rationality, did people catch the WSJ article on Robert Citron, Orange County's erstwhile Treasurer? Apparently he was loony-tunes and had been for some time. When his huge bet that interest rates would fall became questionable as rates rose last Fall, he explained to the oversight board why this would be reversed: "We do not have the large inflationary wage increases, runaway building both in homes, commercial and those tall glass-office buildings. Few, if any, tall office buildings are being built.." The reporter asked the source whether this sort of pretzel logic didn't worry the Board---no, because he'd always "reasoned" this way, and they'd been raking it in earlier! Well I think we need more evidence on this: e.g., in DC, where there are height restrictions on buildings, are interest rates lower? Kevin Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:3837] New party - and (fwd) FAIR ad in NYT
My pessimistic posting on the unfeasibility of a radical U.S. party gaining majority influence, due to (among other things) the media (and campaigning) situation in same country, is substantiated by the following, no? It is forwarded from another list. Trond Andresen - Begin Included Message - From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jan 18 01:27:36 1995 Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 01:27:36 GMT Reply-To: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sender: Activists Mailing List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Organization: ? Subject: FAIR ad in NYT The following "Media Beat" column, written by Jeff Cohen (FAIR's executive director) and Norman Solomon (a FAIR associate), is the basis for an FAIR op-ed page advertizement in tomorrow's (Wed, 1/18/95) New York Times. If you would like to see this type of hard-hitting media criticism each and every week in your local newspaper, let the editorial page editor know. Dailies can get the column from Creators Syndicate, a mainstream syndicate (310-337-7003). Alternative weeklies can get it from AlterNet (415-284-1420). You can find more of this type of media criticism in EXTRA!, FAIR's magazine. To subscribe, call 1-800-847-3993 (from 9 to 5 ET). Be sure to let them know you heard about it on-line. You might want to ask about getting the book "Adventures in Medialand" -- a collection on Cohen and Solomon columns -- as a premium. Info on FAIR material on-line can be gotten by sending a blank e-mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (originally written Oct. 5, 1994 -- ITAL means italics) JUST IMAGINE: A MEDIA CRUSADE AGAINST BIG-MONEY POLITICS By Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon After campaign finance reform died recently in the U.S. Senate and health care reform was buried beneath the biggest avalanche of political donations in the history of Congress, we came across an astounding Washington Post column by Norman Ornstein, aka "Dr. Soundbite." One of the most quoted experts in media history, Ornstein argued that campaign money "has a very limited impact" on Congress -- and criticized the press for its "obsession" with the subject. Ornstein's through-the-looking-glass view sparked a vivid fantasy, which we'd like to share with our readers. What if news media actually ITAL>wereaveragedweakenWake up, folks! Time to return from Fantasyland.
