[PEN-L:8778] Parenti to speak in Vancouver
GLOBALIZATION VERSUS DEMOCRACY [WHO WINS, WHO LOSES] Michael Parenti speaks out, in a special Vancouver appearance 7:30 pm, Tuesday March 4th, 1997 Christ Church Cathedral NE Corner, Georgia Burrard, Vancouver $5.00 admission or by donation at door (no one will be turned away for lack of funds) A fine speaker and a prodigious writer, Professor Parenti's numerous books include: The AntiCommunist Impulse (Random House), Trends and Tragedies of American Foreign Policy (Little Brown), Power and the Powerless, Democracy for the Few, 'Inventing Imperialism, Revolution, and the Arms Race', The Sword and the Dollar, 'Imperialism, Revolution, and the Arms Race', Land of Idols: Political Mythology in America, Against Empire and Dirty Truths. His articles have appeared in the New York Times, Harvard International Review, Los Angeles Times, The Nation, Z Magazine, Political Affairs, Nature, and The Humanist. Visit www.vida.com/parenti for videos, tapes more info. WHAT KIND of CANADA (and World) DO YOU want to live in? Co-sponsed by: The Council The Committee of of Canadians Progressive Electors 987-8296 874-1089 Endorsed by Centre for Labour Studies, SFU
[PEN-L:8777] Nike in San Francisco
/* Written 6:55 PM Feb 24, 1997 by [EMAIL PROTECTED] in gn:reg.indonesia From: John MacDougall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: IN: AP - Nike Machine Runs into Protest Well-oiled Nike machine runs into SF protest machine By RICHARD COLE, Associated Press Writer Feb 20 SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- The multi-billion dollar Nike empire and its muscular sports machine rolled into town Thursday to launch a new store, but instead ran into the city's protest movement and eked out a public relations draw. Demonstrators carrying giant mock Indonesian shadow puppets gathered outside the new Nike Town super store's media opening to accuse the footwear company of exploiting workers in Asia. Walter Johnson, head of the San Francisco Labor Council, said he would call on the AFL-CIO to launch a national boycott of Nike products until 25-cent-an-hour wages were raised and conditions improved. Caught in the crossfire was San Francisco 49ers record-smashing receiver Jerry Rice, who for 12 years has had a contract to promote Nike. Rice was visibly upset by questions about Nike's factories, saying he had heard of the controversy only when he arrived at the Union Square store Thursday. He finally stalked away from reporters. ``I think it's unfair you guys throwing this in my face,'' Rice told reporters. ``I understand it's a situation that has to be dealt with, but it's also something you have to think about. You can't just respond right off the bat.'' San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown displayed his political cross-training by sidestepping the controversy after oohing and aahing at the slick, expensive -- $79 for a U.S. soccer team shirt -- three-story retail store. Brown said he welcomed the jobs Nike was bringing to the city. ``I'd love to have the same thing happen to people all over the world, but my first responsibility is obviously to San Francisco,'' the mayor said. Nike spokesman Jim Small defended his company's record, saying Nike pays at least the minimum wage in all its factories, and an average of 50 percent more. Nike, he noted, is a member of a committee of apparel makers that will make recommendations to President Clinton next month on how to protect overseas employees of U.S. firms. ``Nike will not tolerate the abuse of workers in our facilities,'' he said. ``We care about them.'' But union organizers and advocates for Nike workers told a different story outside the Union Square building. Katie Quan, Northwest regional manager of the garment workers union, said Nike's contractors in Indonesia have consistently fought against efforts to organize their factories. ``The labor leaders there have been fired and imprisoned,'' Quan said. Medea Benjamin of Global Exchange organized the protest and contrasted conditions she saw in visits to Indonesia with the plush Union Square environs of Nike Town, which opens Saturday. Phil Knight, chairman and chief executive officer of Portland, Ore.-based Nike, she noted, is one of the world's richest men. ``Nike sweatshop workers in Indonesia make $2.20 a day -- well below the liveable wage, yet Nike continues to pour money into bloated megastores, into its CEO's $5.2 billion hoard, and on multi-million dollar promotional contracts with rich sports stars,'' Benjamin said.
[PEN-L:8776] Balanced Budget Amendment Dead for Now
Hot flash -- Sen. Torricelli of NJ announced his opposition to the generic G.O.P. Balanced Budget Amendment. If senators maintain their announced positions, the amendment cannot pass the Senate. It was in even more trouble in the House, so conditions for killing it good in this Congress look excellent. There are lots of substitute BBA amendments whose virtue is in their multiplicity. They give Members something to vote for which can't be drafted (e.g., allowing for capital budget and anti- recession exceptions) or which won't pass (Social Security exemption; knock on wood). Thanks to all who signed the petition. Now if we can just get rid of enough idiots in Congress, always a challenge, we won't have to do this again in two years. 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:8775] LBO web update
I've just added a bunch of new stuff to the LBO web site (see URL below). * A new article (http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/Jobless_future.html) - "How Jobless the Future?," a response to the thesis of a jobless future circulated by Stanley Aronowitz, among others. (Aronowitz responded angrily to this article without having read it; his letter, and LBO's response to his response, appears in the current issue, now on its way to subscribers.) Check out Norman Leavitt's very amusing diatribe on one of the Aronowitz links. * A description of my book Wall Street (http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/Book_info.html) along with some extravagant praise from others (besides Verso's own copywriters) and a delightful picture of myself (http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/DH_bio.html). * Updates to the pages on U.S. employment, unemployment, and earnings (all accessible from http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/Stats_comments.html) over the long term - including January's figures, and a new chart on the earnings page showing the gap between productivity and pay. * Most of the older articles have been spiced up with new links, some informative, some mischievous. * The links page (http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_links.html) has been roughly tripled in size. * The miracle of anti-aliasing has been sprinkled throughout. And while there, check out the recent additions, Gina Neff's article on Grameen and microcredit (http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/Micro.html) and Josh Mason's on the costs of crime (http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/Costs_of_crime.html). 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: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
Re: [PEN-L:8766] market socialism, cont.
At 12:59 PM 2/25/97 -0800, you wrote: capitalist legislation). The point that this is a psecial problems for planned socialism is that in it, the whole economy is politicized; there's no room for any nonpoliticized decisionmaking. I agree that rich coops exercising power in virtue of their wealth would be a problem in MS ["market socialism"]. I think that much of the debate about socialism (including the one on this list) phrases it as an essentially technical decision making process of the division of labour and distribution of product. The problem with that approach is that it treats socialism as something that already "exists" in some non-descript sphere of possibilities, and all we need to do is to implement it efficiently. That assumption is highly unrealistic. If the 20th century history taught us only one thing, that one thing is that the bourgeoisie is willing to go not just one, but hundreds, and if the need be, thousands of miles to preserve its class rule and finish off any attempt to undermine it. There is no cost too high, no concession too far reaching for the bourgeoisie to undercut their arch-nemesis -- socialism. Even if that means implementing (temporary) social programs, making concessions to the unions, democratisation of politics, etc. The capitalists understand it very well that no socialist economy can sustain competiton with capitalism in a long run for one very simple reason -- superior ability of the capitalist enterprise to squeeze out labour and accumulate its product. As long as the terms of the competition are defined as who can outproduce whom (cf. the "cold war") -- the capitalists are bound to win. They know that and they are ready to make short term concessions to appease their wage slaves when the socialist threat to their class rule is not over yet. Therefore, the debate about socialism should start with the following question: "how to implement socialism over capitalist opposition and sustain it until capitalism is completely defeated?" Before that question is answered, everything else is, like in my old country they used to say, "dividing the hide on a living bear." The builders of the Soviet state understood that problem well, when they were talking about the transition period to socialism. The solution they chose might have been wrong, but they were at least well aware of the basic fact of life that no oligarchy would ever give power without a fight or, as Rosa Luxemburg aptly put it, "the capitalists will not hang themselves when the profit rate starts to fall." The "New Age" Left has an apparent problem to understand that things do not get done by the sheer power of the will and imagination, without getting one's hands dirty. wojtek sokolowski institute for policy studies johns hopkins university baltimore, md 21218 [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (410) 516-4056 fax: (410) 516-8233 REDUCE MENTAL POLLUTION - LOBOTOMIZE PUNDITS! +--+ |Wenn ich Kultur hoere, entsichere ich meinen Browning.| | -Hanns Johst | | | |When I hear "family values," I reach for my revolver. | |(no apologies to Hanns Johst) | +--+
Re: [PEN-L:8772] re: progressiveness of taxes
At 10:03 AM 2/26/97 -0800, Jim Devine wrote: I wrote:in the US, if I am not mistaken, the big increases in the progressiveness of the tax system coincide with wars. etc. I fully agree. There are only two conditions that pose a REAL threat to the oligarchy: a lots of unhappy people with guns (e.g. during the war time) and the inability of the state to use force to repress them (e.g. when that force is needed elsewhere, in the frontline). This was the story behind the Russian Revolution -- the only successful revolution against an essentially capitalist regime, for all other leftist revolutions from China to Cuba were against agrarian regimes, and as such, they partially coincided with the interests of the bourgeoisie (cf. Barrington Moore, _The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy_). Although Moore argues that the Russian Revolution grew from the feudal background of the country set on a rapid modernization course, I think that his argument misses two points: first, that the major revolutionary push came from the urban industrial centers, not form the coutry side (like in China); second, the peasant masses were alredy mobilized and armed for the war; when the command structure of the Russian Army started to crumble under the German blows, that left a lot of unhappy people with guns in Russia that could not be effectively controlled by the oligarchy. So the bottom line is the follwoing equation: many unhappy people with guns + inability of the state to control them = a successful revolution against a capitalist regime. I think capitalists all over the world took a note of it. Each time they rely on mass mobilization, they try to make the unhappy people more happy. This does not have to be during an armed conflict (when the command structures of the army work), but after one. Studies show that the level of violence usually increases after the hostilities are over -- a lot of people with guns, trained how to fight, get demobilized and they can become unhappy again if they find out that nor much changed after the war, except that the rich are even richer. So that prompts the state oligarchy to make unhappy people a bit more happy by intruducing social programs. That, I belive, is more-or-less a gist of the argument proposed by Theda Skocpol in _Protecting soldiers and mothers: the political origins of social policy in the United States_. Interestingly, the Nazis and the Italian Fascists implemented far reaching social programs when they were preparing for war. With the Left and Liberals not only vowing not to use violence themselves, but also to support the oligarchy to disarm all those who are ready to use force -- no wonder that the oligarchy feels free to dismantle whatever is left or our social safety net system. And they are laughing all the way to the bank. wojtek sokolowski institute for policy studies johns hopkins university baltimore, md 21218 [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (410) 516-4056 fax: (410) 516-8233 REDUCE MENTAL POLLUTION - LOBOTOMIZE PUNDITS! +--+ |Wenn ich Kultur hoere, entsichere ich meinen Browning.| | -Hanns Johst | | | |When I hear "family values," I reach for my revolver. | |(no apologies to Hanns Johst) | +--+
[PEN-L:8774] organic composition of capital series
I would like to get a series for the evolution of the organic composition of capital in the U.S.. Please send references to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I intend to use these series for the purpose of teaching a course on Technology and Economics. Thanks. Victor.
[PEN-L:8773] Re: progressiveness of taxes
It seems that a discussion of the relative degree of progressiveness in the tax structure cannot take place without an understanding of the way in which the government redistributes taxes. For instance, the proportion of income (earned and property) paid in taxes may increase as income increases, which would be considered progressive. However, if the redistribution is essentially returned to its source, by proportional payments to different income classes equal to each's original payments, then the tax system is not progressive. Conversely, a flat tax can become a progressive tax if the proportion of taxes distributed to different income classes rises as income falls. My question, therefore, is what relationship do taxes collected, by income class, have with tax redistribution? Jeff Fellows Adjunct Professor Lewis Clark College Portland, OR 97230 On Wed, 26 Feb 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wrote:in the US, if I am not mistaken, the big increases in the progressiveness of the tax system coincide with wars. Nathan Newman writes I don't think this is accurate. THe really progressive nature of our tax system was created during the depression. I don't have a table or graph indicating when major increases and decreases in the progressiveness of the tax system over the years, but that point sounds right to me. It also doesn't contradict the more complete sophisticated version of my hypothesis that is not captured by the snippet above: during the Depression, there was a dramatic increase in social unrest (remember the way that the army was used to disperse the veterans' bonus march, etc.) Groups such as the CPUSA actually became mass organizations, while workers were sitting down in factories in Detroit! (The list could go on.) This kind of thing, together with the demoralization of the capitalists after the 1929 crash, encouraged our rulers to make concessions such as an increase in the progressiveness of the tax system even without a war. Wars may allow some increases, but it is as likely to be general tax increases for shared sacrifice. Except for the idea of a general tax increase, that's basically what I said. We need to have some measure of the overall progressiveness of the tax system in order to see whether taxes became more progressive or not during World War II. But I try to get beyond the official rhetoric of "shared sacrifice" (or the use of such rhetoric by those outside the establishment to pressure the elite). Trying to look at things more objectively, I think it's better to see tax increases on the rich as a way of keeping the troops happy (and also the people at home who suffer from shortages, rationing, illegal-market activities, and war profiteering). Rather than employing rhetoric, it's best to look at the actual class and other struggles. Vietnam had tax increases but they wer not particularly progressive. According to Joseph Pechman's FEDERAL TAX POLICY, table A-1 (1977: 298), while the tax rate on the lowest tax bracket (below $500) fell a little from 1964 to 1965 and then stayed constant, the tax rate on the upper tax bracket (above $100,000) rose from 1965-67 to 1968 to 1969, going from 70% to 77% (before falling during the Nixon years). That is, LBJ's war-era tax surcharge hit the high brackets more than the low brackets. Of course, this story does NOT tell us anything about the over-all progressiveness of the tax system or about that of the entire package of income and spending. It's the latter package that should be central. During the Vietnam war, LBJ was afraid to cut civilian programs such as the "war on poverty" because of the increasing popular discontent with the war and the social situation (cf. the wave of "riots" in 1968) while he didn't want to cut war expenditures for obvious reasons. This pushed him to raise taxes via a tax surcharge which hit the rich most. Because he didn't want to offend them, his main constituency, he also engaged in increased deficit spending, which in this context encouraged inflation to get worse. It's true that the inflation tax hurts the poor and those on fixed incomes, but it also hits lenders, who are typically rich. So maybe those two can be seen as washing out. (The "tax" on soldiers (being drafted to risk their lives) is hard to quantify.) If this story is right, it seems that the overall package became more progressive as the individual income tax became more progressive. BTW the 1993 tax bill was a moderate but significant increase in tax equity with tax increases on the wealthy matched with tax cuts for the working poor (EITC). No war in sight. Of course, that was not the kind of spike in progressiveness (a "big increase") that I was talking about. It seems a long-overdue reaction to the radically increasing regressiveness of the tax system in the years before, which
[PEN-L:8772] re: progressiveness of taxes
I wrote:in the US, if I am not mistaken, the big increases in the progressiveness of the tax system coincide with wars. Nathan Newman writes I don't think this is accurate. THe really progressive nature of our tax system was created during the depression. I don't have a table or graph indicating when major increases and decreases in the progressiveness of the tax system over the years, but that point sounds right to me. It also doesn't contradict the more complete sophisticated version of my hypothesis that is not captured by the snippet above: during the Depression, there was a dramatic increase in social unrest (remember the way that the army was used to disperse the veterans' bonus march, etc.) Groups such as the CPUSA actually became mass organizations, while workers were sitting down in factories in Detroit! (The list could go on.) This kind of thing, together with the demoralization of the capitalists after the 1929 crash, encouraged our rulers to make concessions such as an increase in the progressiveness of the tax system even without a war. Wars may allow some increases, but it is as likely to be general tax increases for shared sacrifice. Except for the idea of a general tax increase, that's basically what I said. We need to have some measure of the overall progressiveness of the tax system in order to see whether taxes became more progressive or not during World War II. But I try to get beyond the official rhetoric of "shared sacrifice" (or the use of such rhetoric by those outside the establishment to pressure the elite). Trying to look at things more objectively, I think it's better to see tax increases on the rich as a way of keeping the troops happy (and also the people at home who suffer from shortages, rationing, illegal-market activities, and war profiteering). Rather than employing rhetoric, it's best to look at the actual class and other struggles. Vietnam had tax increases but they wer not particularly progressive. According to Joseph Pechman's FEDERAL TAX POLICY, table A-1 (1977: 298), while the tax rate on the lowest tax bracket (below $500) fell a little from 1964 to 1965 and then stayed constant, the tax rate on the upper tax bracket (above $100,000) rose from 1965-67 to 1968 to 1969, going from 70% to 77% (before falling during the Nixon years). That is, LBJ's war-era tax surcharge hit the high brackets more than the low brackets. Of course, this story does NOT tell us anything about the over-all progressiveness of the tax system or about that of the entire package of income and spending. It's the latter package that should be central. During the Vietnam war, LBJ was afraid to cut civilian programs such as the "war on poverty" because of the increasing popular discontent with the war and the social situation (cf. the wave of "riots" in 1968) while he didn't want to cut war expenditures for obvious reasons. This pushed him to raise taxes via a tax surcharge which hit the rich most. Because he didn't want to offend them, his main constituency, he also engaged in increased deficit spending, which in this context encouraged inflation to get worse. It's true that the inflation tax hurts the poor and those on fixed incomes, but it also hits lenders, who are typically rich. So maybe those two can be seen as washing out. (The "tax" on soldiers (being drafted to risk their lives) is hard to quantify.) If this story is right, it seems that the overall package became more progressive as the individual income tax became more progressive. BTW the 1993 tax bill was a moderate but significant increase in tax equity with tax increases on the wealthy matched with tax cuts for the working poor (EITC). No war in sight. Of course, that was not the kind of spike in progressiveness (a "big increase") that I was talking about. It seems a long-overdue reaction to the radically increasing regressiveness of the tax system in the years before, which had spawned major anger, though usually not expressed out of "normal" channels. It was also one of the last efforts of the Clinton administration to act like traditional Democrats before totally succumbing to sleaze. 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 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
[PEN-L:8771] Hooliganism Of U.S. Diplomacy
The new U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has been on a "round-the-world tour" designed to push U.S. interests abroad. Everywhere she goes, the hooliganism of U.S. diplomacy is clearly evident. Following talks in Seoul, the news agencies quote Albright saying that "the success of Korean peace talks depends on how badly the North Koreans are hurting." Referring to food shortages reported in the People's Democratic Republic of Korea (DPRK), Albright said that the DPRK "can't expect help until it engages in peace talks." Using the request of the DPRK for humanitarian aid to blackmail the north Koreans is typical of U.S. foreign policy. The food shortages in the DPRK are the result of severe damage caused to agriculture as a result of tremendous rains and massive flooding. Rather than sympathizing with the people of the DPRK, the U.S., which claims to be the greatest champion of human rights, sees this tragedy for the people as a boon. While in south Korea, Albright also visited U.S. troops in the Demilitarized Zone. Even though it is the U.S. army which is occupying south Korea, Albright is reported to have "cautioned North Korea that the U.S. won't be divided from its ally, South Korea, in peace negotiations or on other issues." Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8770] Seminar In Mexico On Political Parties And A New Society
A two-day seminar was held in Mexico City on February 2-3 on the important topic of Political Parties and a New Society. Organized by the Party of Labor of Mexico (PT), the Seminar was attended by the following political parties: Argentinian Movement of Everybody for the Country; Communist Party of Argentina; Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist); Communist Party of Cuba; Dominican United Left Movement; Party of the Dominican Revolutionary Forces; Party of Democratic Unity of Honduras; Workers' Party of Korea; Nicaraguan National Sandinista Front; Movement for National Liberty of Paraguay; Communist Party of Venezuela; United People's Bloc of Venezuela, Party of Labor of Mexico. The Seminar agenda dealt with the following themes: 1) The Balance Sheet of Socialism; 2) Historic Foundations; 3) Forms of Organization; 4) Forms of Struggle; and 5) Contemporary Tasks of the Socialists. The Seminar generated a lot of discussion on these issues, starting with an important intervention by a representative of the Cuban delegation who presented an overview of the different approaches being taken by various political parties which consider themselves left-wing, socialist and progressive in Latin America. This was followed by several interventions presented by Cuban professors and Mexican delegates on causes for the collapse of the "Eurosoviet model" of "real socialism," following which a vigorous exchange of opinions took place. In the evening session of the first day, the delegation of the Workers' Party of Korea made an important presentation on the experience of socialist construction in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Some of the participants approached the collapse of the Soviet bloc to a crisis in socialist theory and ideology, rather than its abandonment, to the failure of a particular model of socialism, the bureaucratization of the state, and so on. In the course of the discussion, the CPC(M-L) delegation pointed out that the notion of models of a particular economic system cannot override the fundamental fact that if something is sound in theory it will also be sound in practice. For instance, no matter what "model of capitalism" is in place, it will suffer from the objective contradictions of the capitalist economy. A system, whether political or economic, as applied to the concrete conditions of any country creates its own model. Instead of sorting out the problems which arose in the course of the construction of socialism, by the 1960s, the Soviet Union presented itself as a model of "real socialism" or "developed socialism" and demanded that this was the "model" to emulate. This confused many of the parties and organizations which were not standing on their own two feet. As a result, when this "model" collapsed, a deep crisis set in amongst many. As concerns "models," the CPC(M-L) delegation pointed out, in similar fashion Canada is presented as the "model" of democracy, Rule of Law and "free and fair elections." The people of many countries, especially in Asia, Africa and Latin America where corruption and fraudulent election processes are common manifestations of bourgeois rule, are made to believe that they will acquire democratic rule if only they concentrate their attention on getting rid of what are called "aberrations" to the "model." They fail to see that all systems of representative democracy, no matter what form they take, are their own models and that corruption and fraud are inherent to the system of 19th century representative democracy which reduces the right of the people to elect and be elected and to govern to the right to vote for this or that party. Quite a few of the interventions addressed the issue of opposing dogmatism. It became apparent during the discussion that the content of opposing dogmatism is to analyze the concrete conditions of the present and mobilize the people to provide solutions to the problem of opening society's door to progress. A vigorous exchange also took place on the relation between the state and the economy and the state and the popular masses. The participants shared the common political aim of reaffirming and defending socialism as the next stage of social development and the future of humankind and working to defeat the anti-social offensive which has found ideological and political justification in the declaration of the capitalist ruling circles that "socialism is dead." They also shared a common political aim in the need to advance a pro-social agenda as the alternative to the anti-social offensive of the financial oligarchy the world over. In this regard, the participants examined various questions such as the nature of political power under capitalism, the need for a new people's power to be created in order to build a new society, and the responsibility of progressive parties to act as mobilizers of the working class and people towards this aim. The CPC(M-L) delegation presented a paper entitled "What Kind of
[PEN-L:8769] FW: BLS Daily Report
The NABE proposal to combine the statistical agencies is a good one. Unfortunately, it has been proposed by more important people in the past and gone nowhere. Dave -- BLS DAILY REPORT, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1997 RELEASED TODAY: The U.S. Import Price Index decreased 0.3 percent in January. The decline followed a slight gain of 0.1 percent in December and was attributable to a drop in nonpetroleum prices. The U.S. Export Price Index rose 0.2 percent in January after posting no change in the previous month __The Senate majority leader, Trent Lott of Mississippi, proposed a commission to find a way to fix the government's main inflation gauge today, providing possible political cover for a deal that would help balance the budget by reducing cost-of-living increases for Social Security. Lott's statement was the first specific proposal from a Republican leader to solve the problems with the CPI, which many economists believe overstates inflation and leads the Government to overcompensate benefit recipients by billions of dollars a year Lott said the panel of experts he has in mind should make a specific recommendation for a cost-of-living adjustment, and that Congress and the White House should accept it White House officials were noncommittal in their response but did not criticize Lott's idea Speaking at a conference of the National Association of Broadcasters, Lott made the proposal in response to a question from the audience (The New York Times, page A1; USA Today, page 1B). __Lott proposed that a new panel be formed to assess the accuracy of the CPI. Revising the index ... would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the budget over time. But, if the potential benefits are plain, so too are the political pitfalls Why do folks from President Clinton and the Congress's GOP leaders on down expect that a CPI change will be part of any agreement for balancing the budget by the year 2002? asks The Wall Street Journal (page A24). The reason is simple: "You can't get there without the CPI," says Rep. Charles Stenholm of Texas, a leading Democratic deficit hawk While a new Wall Street Journal survey of a broad spectrum of 320 academic economists ... turns up widespread agreement that the CPI overstates changes in the cost of living, there is disagreement over how much. Some 13 percent say the CPI is generally accurate or understates inflation, and 23 percent say it overstates changes in the cost of living between 0.1 and 0.5 percentage point. Another 35 percent puts the overstatement between 0.6 and 1.0 percentage point, and only 21 percent say the CPI is overstated by more than a full percentage point. The remaining 8 percent weren't sure Politically, the safe route is to let BLS, which compiles the inflation index, make any changes. Trouble is, those familiar with the BLS's work say that, at most, the technicians are likely to make changes that would shave only 0.4 percent off the annual changes in the CPI All sides have already factored in the BLS's announced plan to update by next February the decade-old market basket of goods and services that is the basis of the inflation index. That change will shave 0.2 percentage point off the CPI. To claim savings now, rather than await the BLS's changes, the politicians could assume some arbitrary reduction the bureau might make and build that figure into their five-year budget plan. Meanwhile, they would give the BLS added funds to initiate its changes and perhaps to create a truer cost-of-living index than the CPI, which is a broader gauge of inflation __The economy will grow at an annual rate of 2.6 percent in 1997, and inflation will advance at a well-behaved 2.9 percent, says the National Association of Business Economists. "The economic expansion seems to be in relatively good shape and will continue through 1998 at a moderate pace with moderate inflation," says the NABE president. "Growth in the current quarter -- January to March 1997 -- should be 2 percent, down sharply from the advance estimate of 4.7 percent expansion last fall," NABE forecasters predicted (Daily Labor Report, page A-4). __The economy will continue to cruise along with steady growth, low unemployment, and low inflation for at least two more years, a survey of corporate economists concludes. Indeed, three-fourths of the 228 members of NABE said in the group's quarterly survey that, while they still believe a strong job market could trigger inflation, "the level of unemployment at which inflation increases is not sharply defined" (Wall Street Journal, page A2). The National Association of Business Economists recommended to President Clinton and Congress that the government combine its three largest statistical agencies -- BLS, BEA, and the Census Bureau -- into a "high-level statistical office" similar to those in Canada and the United Kingdom
[Fwd: please post - High Cost of High Tech]
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 19:21:25 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Eisenscher [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Fwd: please post - High Cost of High Tech] To: Recipients of conference [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-to: "Conference labr.party" [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Gateway: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lines: 86 From: meisenscher [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Fwd: please post - High Cost of High Tech] Path: news.igc.apc.org!cdp!not-for-mail From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Newsgroups: labr.announcements Subject: please post - High Cost of High Tech Message-ID: 81679f3b[EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 24 Feb 1997 10:58:25 X-Gateway: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lines: 73 From: corpwatch [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: please post - High Cost of High Tech We'd appreciate your help posting this. Thank you. NEW WEB FEATURE DOCUMENTS THE HIGH COSTS OF HIGH TECH contact: Nikki Fortunato Bas tel: 415-561-6568 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: www.corpwatch.org San Francisco, February 24--Corporate Watch, the brand new website dedicated to keeping an eye on transnational corporations, released its second Feature. The "High Costs of High Tech" examines social and ecological impacts in the booming computer industry. "Very few of us who use computers realize how much waste a company like Intel produces when it builds just one silicon chip" said Corporate Watch editorial board member Nikki Fortunato Bas. To demonstrate the resource consumption involved in computer production, Corporate Watch teamed up with the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition to build a "virtual computer." A person navigating the web only has to click on a certain part of this computer and a list of the waste created in the production process appears. The Feature also spotlights some key actors in the debate on the impacts of the high tech industry. They include: *Ted Smith, Executive Director of the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, who provides an overview of the social, economic and ecological impacts of the high tech industry. *Jeanne Gauna, Director of the SouthWest Organizing Project, which has been running a campaign against the negative impacts of the Intel Corporation's chip factory in New Mexico. *A number of former GTE and Motorola employees who give their testimony on RealAudio about the hazards of working in an electronics factory. *John Barton, an Organizing Coordinator with the Service Employees International Union, which organized some of the most marginalized employees in the Silicon Valley--janitors--to successfully demand respect for their rights as workers from computer giants such as Apple. *And renowned luddite Kirkpatrick Sale, who writes about the technological revolution's impact on employment. Corporate Watch also calls for alternatives, highlighting a series of principles developed by activist groups, which demand just and sustainable development in the high tech industry. Visitors to the site are given the opportunity to email or fax Intel's Chief Operating Officer Craig Barett, and urge him to change his company's practices. "The abuses of this global industry span nearly every aspect of its operations, affecting the environment, worker health and safety, as well as the sustainability of local communities" said Nikki Fortunato Bas. "It is high time we held these companies accountable." end www.corpwatch.org wojtek sokolowski institute for policy studies johns hopkins university baltimore, md 21218 [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (410) 516-4056 fax: (410) 516-8233 REDUCE MENTAL POLLUTION - LOBOTOMIZE PUNDITS! +--+ |Wenn ich Kultur hoere, entsichere ich meinen Browning.| | -Hanns Johst | | | |When I hear "family values," I reach for my revolver. | |(no apologies to Hanns Johst) | +--+
