[PEN-L:4890] Re: Graduate programs with emphasis on wom
On April 28, Chris Murphy wrote: The University of Utah in Salt Lake City offers a field on the Political Economy of Women. They also offer development. One of the development courses in the field emphasizes women and development. The director of grad. studies is David Kiefer, his e-mail address is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chris Murphy University of Utah Salt Lake City Let me just add that the University of Utah's Economics faculty includes three outstanding feminist scholars. Two are women who are extremely active in Fem Econ (one enjoys a joint appointment in the U of U Women's Studies program) and the lone male is mostly active in issues surrounding women in the workplace, equity, labor market segmentation, etc. All three are well published and are active locally and nationally in women's issues. Once again it seems as if, "This is the place." :-) Scott McNabb University of Utah Department of Economics Salt Lake City, Utah
[PEN-L:4891] asset tax
Addendum to what may have become a dead thread:
I forgot to mention, that rather like Mike
Meeropol's suggestion, the Islamic zakat has a
"minimum necessary consumption" exclusion.
I may be less negative than I was on this
whole business. Have just attempted to answer
my own earlier as-yet-unanswered question: Are
there any countries that have incomes become
more equal in the last ten years?
Looking at World Bank reports I have found
SIX that actually appear to have had equality
increase, if even just a smidgeon, somewhere
during the 1980's (no data available since 1991).
The six are Pakistan (has state-collected zakat,
that is a 2.5% asset tax), Sri Lanka, Cote d'Ivoire,
Costa Rica, Malaysia (also has zakat), and the
Netherlands. There you have it folks!
BTW, the zakat does not tax land, but does
provide for a 5% tax on agricultural income ('ushr).
Are we having (Islamic) fun(damentalism) yet?
:-)
Barkley Rosser
James Madison University
[PEN-L:4892] Re: asset tax
On Mon, 1 May 1995 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are we having (Islamic) fun(damentalism) yet? :-) Yes! This reminds me of my puzzlement when I didn't find all of the bastard Keynesians shipping off to Tehran in the late 70's to help construct the "IS-LMic Republic"!
[PEN-L:4893] Re: asset tax
On Mon, 1 May 1995 09:51:36 -0700 Kevin Quinn said: On Mon, 1 May 1995 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are we having (Islamic) fun(damentalism) yet? :-) Yes! This reminds me of my puzzlement when I didn't find all of the bastard Keynesians shipping off to Tehran in the late 70's to help construct the "IS-LMic Republic"! But what about going to work for Syria's Hafez al AS-AD? We shall not be crucified on a Keynesian cross of gold! (author's name withheld in a vain effort to preserve dignity. :-) )
[PEN-L:4894] Re: Paramilitary groups (fwd)
I forwarded this original message to a friend of mine who teaches at another university, and I thought her response might be of interest - though it is not written from an economics perspective. Ellen J. Dannin California Western School of Law 225 Cedar Street San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-525-1449 Fax:619-696- -- Subject: Re: [PEN-L:4814] Paramilitary groups (fwd) Ellen: I am reasonably sure the public employees weren't the only target; rather, they acted as proxies (in much the way that the building was symbolic of) for a number of other things these groups fear and hate, and yet find themselves powerless to attack directly so that it must be a slaughter of innocents. We have been members of the Southern Poverty Law Center for some time, and because of that, I read a lot about these groups in their literature. One of their targets, certainly, is public employmees/government, but I think that there are other targets too. Race clearly plays a role in all of this. One of the first things I noted, and of course only the investigation and trial will reveal "true" motives to the extent we learn them at all, is how many of the victims were black. I based this on the pictures I saw, and the fact that the bomb most heavily destroyed the daycare and the social security office. My experience of public employees suggests a lot of the employees, particularly clericals, would be black (or Hispanic in OK) and probably use the daycare. And, minorities seemed to me to be likely to be a disproportionate user, perhaps, of social security. I suppose my thinking also went along these lines having recently read an article in the Washington Post Weekly which argued that some of this right-wing blacklash against government is a proxy for a reaction against blacks, and pointed out that the federal government is probably the largest employer of blacks and largest promoter of policies favoring blacks. Thus, I suppose I could concede that this is an attack against public employees, but would also add that minorities may have been an additional or overlapping target of these people. I suppose another motive would be a wake-up call to America as well as to the government qua systems of institutional response that these movements are to be taken seriously. So, I saw the message you forwarded as interesting but too unidimensional in its appreciation of the complexity of human motivations. Of course, that's not to say that public sector employees don't need to prod organized labor to get off its collective butt (They very much do) or just ignore organized labor and do grass roots organizing. That desparately needs to happen. As a public employee myself I'm sick of being told I should provide legal education for "free" i.e. low salary and be described as lazy and feeding at the public trough. But public employees and others concerned about the rise of the right (this week's New Yorker has a great article about the coming Republic agenda for this summer) need to form coalitions and find the common ground in this rather than privileging themselves as the only victims in the sorry state of what passes for politics in this country. I suspect this is more of a response than you expected (it was certainly more than I intended to say - I just got going on the topic). So what do you think? Take care, L.
[PEN-L:4895] Re: Some Figures on Welfare
Could some pen-l comrade post figures for the US budget and show the share of "welfare" (however broadly defined). Please elaborate on the definition. Thanks. Anthony D'Costa
[PEN-L:4896] Welfare share in US budget
In response to -- From: Anthony D'Costa [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon, 1 MaCould some pen-l comrade post figures for the US budget and show the share of "welfare" (however broadly defined). Please elaborate on the definition. Thanks. A breakdown of federal outlays, FY1995: "Mandated": 53% Social security 21% Medicare 11% Medicaid 6% Federal pensions 4% Other (including veterans, unemployment fd stamps, EITax Credit) 11% Net interest on debt: 14% Defense:17% International:1% Domestic discretionary (including NASA): 15% Source: National Conf. State Legis. Marianne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:4897] Welfare spending
The numbers I forwarded for mandatory or entitlement spending, accounting for 53 % of FY95 federal budget, deserve some comment. Though entitlement spending has at times been used interchangeably with welfare spending, attacks on welfare spending are not directed to retirees receiving social security or federal retirees and veterans receiving retirement benefits. For such discussions, it is usually best to speak about individual programs. Some more numbers: Social security $335 Medicare 177 Medicaid 96 Federal retirement 74 Food stamps 26 Unemployment compensation 24 Supplemental security income 24 (under heavy attack by Wall St Journal) Veterans 20 AFDC 18 (this program is loosely referred to as "the" welfare program) Agricultural price supports 7 Other 34 All these are in billions of dollars, and are for FY95. Marianne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- From: Anthony D'Costa [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon, 1 May 1995 11:03:43 -0700 Subject: [PEN-L:4895] Re: Some Figures on Welfare Could some pen-l comrade post figures for the US budget and show the share of "welfare" (however broadly defined). Please elaborate on the definition. Thanks. Anthony D'Costa - forwarded message ends here -
[PEN-L:4898] Re: profit-rate equalization -Reply
Patrick Bond writes: "Whichever, my own point would be that such uneven development (over sectors or space or even scale) is exacerbated during those periods - like the 1980s `Deal Decade' - when financial capital is ascendant." suggesting that the 'Deal Decade' would tend NOT to be a period in which the tendency toward profit-rate equalization is dominant. I agree. In addition to uneven development, there were two signifi- cant recessions during the 1980s (or three, depending on how one dates the decade). Recessions, as with all other shocks, would counteract the tendency toward equalization. (Part of the equalization of profit rates involves new investment to invade high-profit-rate industries, but this would occur less if interest rates (and more generally the costs of investment) are high and/or profit rates are temporarily low due to recession. Gil made a point about the fact that differential risk, etc. will prevent equalization. This applies to the movement of financial rather than real capital. Marx said that profit rate equalization happens faster because of financial mecha- nisms. But of course, more risky operations would have to have higher yields, etc. (I believe Smith, Marx, and classical economists were aware of this: it is analogous to the story of compensating wage differentials, which Smith pioneered and Marx followed.) I'm not sure that the non-interest part of the profit rate would have similar "compensating differentials." Industrial and commercial profit involve a lot of risk, no matter what sector we're talking about. But I haven't thought enough about this matter and could be wrong. Happy May Day! 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 A.
[PEN-L:4899] Re: Welfare spending
Marianne: why is SSI under heavy attack from the Wall Street Journal? (I haven't been reading it.) It's been a pretty uncontroversial program since the 1970s. (It was first detested by the southern congressional delegation in the 1930s, then was greatly enhanced in the only part of the Nixon welfare reform bill that passed in 1971. The federal takeover and higher guaranteed incomes of SSI that started at this time didn't even bother the southerners.) Thanks -- Elaine McCrate emccrate @ uvmvm.uvm.edu
[PEN-L:4901] Asset Tax versus Change of Asset Ownership Tax
I'd like to suggest that a tax on assets at the time of transfer of ownership would be more difficult for stockholders and other wealthholders to pass on to others. It also addresses the question so dear to the heart of conservatives of the "disincentive" effect of taxing assets--how adversely affected would the "animal spirits" of the "entrepreneur" be by the knowledge that whomever s/he transferred his/ her wealth to would be subject to a tax? It is true that to raise an amount close to that of an asset tax, the rate would be much higher--I could see giving some credit to the families affected e.g. the Rockefellers could have their name linked to scholarships for minority students, to job training programs for the poor, etc. Marianne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- From: Nathan Newman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon, 1 May 1995 14:24:15 -0700 Subject: Government's Slick Deal for Oil Industry (fwd) -- Forwarded message -- Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 11:52:35 -0400 From: Janice Shields [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Government's Slick Deal for Oil Industry C O R P O R A T E W E L F A R E -- Policy Notes May 1, 1995 REPORT ANNOUNCEMENT The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) has released this report: DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR LOOKS THE OTHER WAY: THE GOVERNMENT'S SLICK DEAL FOR THE OIL INDUSTRY POGO has compiled substantial evidence that indicates the federal government is owed more than 1.5 billion dollars in uncollected royalties, interest and penalties from seven of the largest oil companies -- Texaco, Shell, Mobil, ARCO, Chevron, Exxon and Unocal -- for their production of crude oil from federal lands in California. POGO has also obtained a draft Department of Interior (DOI) Inspector General report that concludes that over a four year period, royalties alone "may have been underpaid by as much as $29.5 million from 1990 through 1993 and may continue to be underpaid as long as pipelines continue to operate as private carriers." Crude oil is produced on federal lands by both "integrated" and independent producers. The seven companies identified are "integrated" -- which means they produce crude, in all but one case (Exxon) they own the pipelines that transport the crude to the refineries, and they own the refineries themselves. The only way for any oil producer to transport the crude to refineries efficiently is through the intrastate pipelines owned by these integrated oil companies. For decades, these companies have artificially depressed the price of crude oil, though their refined product prices are comparable to those in the rest of the nation. As a result, it makes economic sense for the integrated companies to push their profits downstream to the refinery end. This way the integrated companies squeeze out competition from the independent producers and refiners, and pay the government less in royalties, as royalties are based on the price of the crude oil. The June 1994 language accompanying the congressional appropriation for DOI's FY-95 budget required DOI to come up with a plan "for recovering royalties and interest from supposed undervaluations" when submitting the DOI FY-96 budget request in April 1995. The House Report language concludes, "every effort should be made to act as quickly as possible on this issue to avoid further losses due to the Statute of Limitations." After a year, the only action the DOI has taken is to take another six months to prepare to audit two California companies for three selected years. DOI, the agency responsible for collecting these royalties, is a willing partner in this corporate welfare program. In addition to the forthcoming Inspector General report, DOI has ignored the following: The U.S. Department of Commerce -- "It seems that all we have seen to this point clearly establishes that there is a problem. . . MMS (DOI's Mineral Management Service) needs to do something now to avoid creating the impression that these events have not occurred!" The U.S. DOI Office of Policy Analysis -- "I suggest that the Department proceed immediately to ascertain the amount of additional royalties due, including interest and criminal penalties, if any, and initiate collection procedures." The U.S. DOI Minerals Management Service (MMS) -- "We have evidence that the major California oil producers may have undervalued California oil production by keeping posted prices low and thus underpaying the royalties based on them. . . The various available court documents, out-of-court settlements, discussions with attorneys, and the work of consultants lead us to conclude that we should pursue potential Federal royalty underpayments." These oil companies have already settled for over $350 million with the State of California for royalties owed to the State for the same reasons money is owed to the Federal Treasury. However, all the evidence used by the State to retrieve this money
[PEN-L:4902] Quality of jobs and the deficit
'The Financial Post April 29, 1995 Focus on quality of jobs, not just the quantity WE HAVE CREATED A GREAT NUMBER OF JOBS IN THE LAST 20 YEARS, BUT WE HAVE ALSO BUILT UP THE HIGHEST PER CAPITA NET DEBT -- By John Meyer Jobs, jobs, jobs. Lots of them. That is what Canada has been creating over the past 20 years and at a faster rate than any other industrialized nation. Every successive government has trumpeted our job creation achievements over the past two decades. With that kind of record, the economy should be in great shape and the budget should be nicely "on side." Of course, one look outside the gross job statistics confirms that things aren't quite adding up that way. Slowly, the trumpeting about jobs has given way to alarm-bell ringing as another issue looms inexorably above the horizon. The deficit. That is now the main pre-occupation of government. But how was it possible to create jobs at the fastest rate in all industrialdom for a generation and build the highest per capita net debt at the same time? A debt so massive and a deficit so lopsided even modest reduction targets have drawn the doomsday commitment of "come hell or high water" through the pursed lips of Canada's finance minister. What kind of jobs have we been creating anyway? A job is a job isn't it? From the way we have directed the economy, that has clearly been the assumption. But from the way the economy has been running, maybe not. Maybe the quality of jobs has something to do with the reason job growth has not eliminated the growth of debt and in fact, has gone hand in hand with it. If job quality is related to the deficit, one doesn't have to look hard to see where a good deal of our current fiscal problems are coming from. The wage categories experiencing the greatest employment growth in this country over the past decade have been at the bottom of the wage scale. A good deal of the net job creation in Canada since 1981 has been in the wage categories which (assuming both income earners are in these categories) would place a family of four below the poverty line. Some wage categories pay their way tax-wise and some do not. We have been creating jobs on a mass level in the categories which are a net drain on the treasury. If this trend continues, it will make a balanced budget impossible. A few relevant statistics: From 1981 to 1990 the sub-$8/hr. (using 1981 constant dollars) accounted for 78% of Canada's job growth. All other job category shares declined except for $16/hr.-$23/hr. which went up .04%. The less-than-$8/hr. category draws more than 10% of its income from unemployment insurance, while the $20/hr. category draws only 1%. Eight-dollar-an-hour workers are more than three times more likely than the $20/hr. worker to draw UI and they remain out of work longer. There are a host of other social costs that kick in for unemployed and the low-income workers but UI is used in this comparison as a basic barometer. This comparison shows the relative instability of $8/hr. employment, not the willingness of people at that wage level to work. The percentage of the labor force earning less than $20,000 per year in 1981 was 46.8%. In 1990 it was 51%. If trends hold, the figure will be 65% in 2011. The only person who could balance a budget in the face of those numbers could also walk on water. Net income tax revenue (income tax less direct payments to individuals) in 1990 was 16% lower than it would have been had the 1981 wage structure not changed. In 1996, the revenue will be 25% lower. How bad will it get? Projecting to 2011 we see net income tax revenue per worker (in 1990 dollars) falling by 60% to $1,308 from the 1981 level of $3258. Projecting way out, by 2026, net income tax revenue actually goes negative, but we all know substantial changes will occur well before then. Aging has been fearfully described as a trend that will lead to massive deficits. In fact, it will be more a shift of spending than an unstoppable hemorrhage. The cheap labor trend, by comparison, has a net impact many times the magnitude of that of aging and it is all negative. Unless this trend is halted and reversed, deficits will continue to exist and even grow despite draconian cost-cutting measures. The simple fact is, if this labor force shift continues, a large percentage of the "untouchable" social programs we now have in place will cease to exist in any form. The current debate over how to "cut," "reduce" or "manage" the deficit has started to gel into the camps of the "surgeons" versus the "therapists." "Short-term pain for long-term gain" enthusiasts versus "the costs of unemployment are higher than you think" ameliorators. Neither position effectively deals with the fundamental structural decline of the labor force/social safety net dictated by our past and current cheap labor policies. If our goal is to provide a comprehensive range of social services and balance the budget
[PEN-L:4903] May Day
Hi, pen-lers. I'm back after a hiatus. NPR had a report on May Day this morning in which it was said, correctly, taht it was originally an American holiday coming out of the struggle for the 40 hour work week. The report then went on to say that May Day has been lately celebrated mostly in Communist countries, and that the Chinese government just instituted a law mandating a no-more-than 40 hour workweek as response to absurd hours developing the new private sector. the genneral tenor was, benighted Reds, how sad for them. They did not address the facts revealed by Juliet Schor about how the US workweek is well above 40 hours, although these were the subject of a lively discussion in the business press when they came out. I'm writing a paper on Marx on commodity fetishism. Bibliographical cites that pen-l-ers have found helpful are requested. Thanks in advance. --Justin Schwartz
