[PEN-L:10456] Re: competition vs monopoly
I agree with everything Paul said below.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that it is probably safe to say that we all agree that the
neoclassical concept of competition is bankrupt in the sence of
implying any concept of maximization or dynamic of investment.
What is curious is that concept seems to have almost a mystical
power within the othordoxy despite the criticism first by
Schumpeter and second, by John K. Galbraith. All of the
'competitive' sectors are stagnant and depressed. It is the
monopoly sectors that are dynamic and agressive.
Yes, but the idea of competition has 2 very important benefits -- one
ideological and two: mathematical simplicity. Both are very attractive.
Once you have spent maybe 10 years earning a ph.d., you don't want to
discard the "human capital" you have accumulated. So I only disagree with
the term, "curious."
In the larger context of the imbalance of economic power, I have
argued that the monopoly/oligopoly power of the grain trade and the
transportation system has served to transfer surplus from the
primary purchaser to commercial/financial capital ("Staples,
Surplus, and Exchange: The Commercial-Industrial Question in the
National Policy Period" in *Explorations in Canadian Economic
History: Essays in Honour of Irene Spry*, ed by Duncan Cameron,
1985. [I should note that Irene Spry, one of the greatest political
economists and socialist of Canada, died within the last year.
Al Krebs's Ag Biz Tiller, which I sometimes forward to the list is excellent
in this regard. His last issue goes into great detail on the recent grain
company mergers' effect on this transfer.
I have argued that intellectual property rights has been a major
factor in the (mal)distribution of income -- I think reflecting the
thought of Michael -- on a spatial basis. (See my "Inellectural
Property Rights and Regional Disparity" in Intellectual Property
Rights, ed. by KRC Nairn and Ashov Kumar, New Delhi, 1994.)
Yes, yes, yes.
In short, I would argue that there are no proftits in the economy
except those by monopoly which have one of four sources:
a: a natural monopoly on source (e.g. oil)
b: a legal monopoly on product/technology (i.e. copywrite/patent)
c. a trade secret monopoly on process and/or product
charactaristics (coke)
d. capital entry barriers (automobiles)
Absolutely correct again, Paul. Business agrees. The kiss of death for a
company is to have its product labeled a "commodity," as was the case for
memory chips for example.
But this suggests the question, what should the socialist policy
be? If competition is a dead end, what should we be advocating?
Exactly, what we should be discussing Galbraith, like Schumpeter, tends
to favor large corporations. Others call for more competition to bring the
corps. down to size. I tried to address these questions in my new book,
Natural Instability. Here is a brief section:
As a general rule, we might follow Keynes in recognizing that a degree of
rigidity is probably helpful in preventing large shocks from destabilizing
the
economy. For example, I already mentioned that the attempt to hold wages
steady in the United States during the early years of the Great Depression
helped to maintain a degree of stability in the early months after the stock
market crash.
Other forms of rigidity help to steady the economy. For example, as Keynes
observed, since monopolistic firms face less uncertainty than a competitive
firm, industrial concentration will tend to stabilize investment (Keynes
1936,
p. 163). John Kenneth Galbraith made this same point even more forcefully:
"Price stability also serves the purposes of industrial planning. Prices
being
fixed, they are predictable over a substantial period of time. And since
one
firm's prices are another's costs so costs are also predictable. Thus on
the
one hand prices facilitate control and minimize the risk of a price collapse
that could jeopardize earnings and the autonomy of the technostructure"
(Galbraith 1967, p. 194).
Schumpeter also made a similar case for restraining laissez-faire. Recall
his
earlier-cited assertion that
##restrictions ... are ... often unavoidable incidents, of a long run
process
of expansion which they protect rather than impede. There is no more of a
paradox in this than there is in saying that motorcars are traveling faster
than they otherwise would because they are provided with brakes.
[Schumpeter
1950, p. 88]
Schumpeter added:
##inasmuch as we may assume that the refusal to lower prices strengthens
the
position of the industries which adopt that policy either by increasing
their
revenue or simply by avoiding chaos in their markets -- that is to say, so
far
as this policy is something more than a mistake on their part -- it may make
fortresses out of what otherwise might be centers of devastation.
[Schumpeter
1950, p. 95]
We should also take note that this same sort of inertia that Keynes,
Galbraith,
[PEN-L:10455] FW:
James Craven Clark College, 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. Vancouver, WA. 98663 (360) 992-2283; Fax: (360) 992-2863 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.home.earthlink.net/~blkfoot5 *My Employer Has No Association With My Private/Protected Opinion* I want to warn you that the poem at the end of Arthur's post is racist, hate-filled and inflammatory. Makah Days starts today and KBOO is going over to broadcast parts of it (so if you're in listening range, tune in). At the very end I will add e-mail addresses again in case you feel moved to respond to this continued racist attack against First Nations. Beth, ISCO -- Forwarded message -- Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 08:20:46 -0700 From: arthur [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: The Continuing Saga Of The Eco-Racists From AREAN; [EMAIL PROTECTED] THE CONTINUING SAGA OF THE ECO-RACISTS When I first confronted Sea Shepherd and its supporting organizations, over the issue of how they were handling their confrontation with the Makahs, I thought I was just dealing with people who were just opportunists who were using a tactic to win their issue. It seemed that they felt that they already had the support of most environmentalists and animal rights people and that none of these people would ever dare question anything they did. So they set out to increase their support base by joining with those who would be against anything that any Native people did. This was not the first time I had seen such people use what ever they felt they could use, including racism, to win their "issue". For that is an old "American" tradition. Winning a "issue" is more important than how you win. But the more I found out about these people, the more I find myself realizing there is much more to all this than I ever realized. Sea Shepherd and its supporting organizations represent a growing rightwing turn in parts of the environmental movement. It was in 1997 that Sea Shepherd recruited the extremist rightwing anti-tribal activist Jack Metcalf in the campaign against the Makah people. Metcalf had a long history of not only being anti-tribal, but also a racist organizer for the "Wise Use" movement who was out to work in the interests of the corporations and white property owners. His goal was to open up public and tribal land to the interests he represented. Thus, he saw working with Sea Shepherd against the Makah people as a good opportunity to expand his campaign against the treaties between the First Nations and the U.S. Government. Sea Shepherd gave him what he wanted by also threatening those treaties. Then Sea Shepherd, and its supporting organizations, set out to arouse a racist backlash, not only against the Makahs, but also against Native people in general. The reason they went after Native people in general was that they hoped to force other Native people to side against the Makahs by making them suffer for the actions of the Makahs. Paul Watson made this very clear when he stated that "if the Makahs take a whale then all Indian people would suffer." Watson even went so far as to use Americian "patriotism" to advance his campaign in the same way it is used to arouse the Americian people against so-called foreign enemies. The idea was to create the image of the American people vs the enemy being the Makahs and Native people in general. The result in all this was a racist backlash that was carried on in the newspapers, radio and tv. Later it included many death threats, a bomb threat to a Native school, the harassment of Makah children, the harassment of Native people throughout the state of Washington and so on. Now I read in Sea Shepherd's web site that Sea Shepherd, Sea Defense Alliance and other such organizations have been showing up at recent campaign rallies of Sen. Slade Gorton and at one in Friday Harbor presented him with awards. Sen. Slade Gorton is another long time anti-tribal activist who many environmentalists know for his work in the interests of the timber and mining companies. In a letter posted by Sea Shepherd from Sen. Gorton he says; "I am more convinced today than ever before that we must bring common sense back to the relationship between this country, our laws and Native American tribes. All Americans should be subject to the same laws." If you do not understand what he is really saying let me explain it. He is using terms that have been used by not only by anti-tribal people but also by people against such things as civil rights which says that anything society does to correct any of the wrongs done to any group of people is some how taking rights away from white Americans. In this case it means eliminating the treaties between the First Nations and the U.S. Government. Sen. Gorton is a supporter of the Bush presidential campaign. And I find it rather interesting that Bush's father, the warmongering former president and former head of the CIA, on
[PEN-L:10454] competition vs monopoly
I think that it is probably safe to say that we all agree that the
neoclassical concept of competition is bankrupt in the sence of
implying any concept of maximization or dynamic of investment.
What is curious is that concept seems to have almost a mystical
power within the othordoxy despite the criticism first by
Schumpeter and second, by John K. Galbraith. All of the
'competitive' sectors are stagnant and depressed. It is the
monopoly sectors that are dynamic and agressive.
I spent ten or so years as a member of, or chairman of, the milk
control board of Manitoba. We were to control the price of the raw
milk coming from the farmers and the final price to the consumers.
The rationale was that the processor/retail price was controlled by
monopoly/oligopoly elements, while the farm gate price was
controlled by the 'market' (which gave the oligopoly processors a
market advantage.) We priced milk at the farm gate at the
'competitive' level -- i.e. cost of production pricing using engineering
concepts of adequate facilities, opportunity cost of farm labour,
managerial labour, feed, etc. etc. but we did not have any concept
of 'normal profits.' Normal profits, in our model, included the
average rate of return to capital ( the interest rate) on farm
investment.
Interestingly enough, the return to dairy farmers was higher than
than due to other farmers, which indicates that farmers as a group
recieve less than adequate returns (i.e. they exploit themselves or
their families.) [Just as an aside, our system of dairy pricing is
part of our supply control system that the US has denounced and
is in the process of destroying throungh the WTO, one of the most
evil institutions of the post-war period.}
Lest anyone think that we were protecting farmers against having
to respond to changing technology and increase their productivity,
we raised the productivity every year according to industry trends
before we figured out costs.
The depressing thing is that the farmers, embued with
neoclassical market nonsense, objected to our price controls.
Each thought that they, individually, could beat the market average,
or could undercut their neighbour and corner the market. Not all
the farmers -- those with a collective or socialist consciousness
were strong supporters of our board.
In the larger context of the imbalance of economic power, I have
argued that the monopoly/oligopoly power of the grain trade and the
transportation system has served to transfer surplus from the
primary purchaser to commercial/financial capital ("Staples,
Surplus, and Exchange: The Commercial-Industrial Question in the
National Policy Period" in *Explorations in Canadian Economic
History: Essays in Honour of Irene Spry*, ed by Duncan Cameron,
1985. [I should note that Irene Spry, one of the greatest political
economists and socialist of Canada, died within the last year. She
was one of the original drafters of the Regina Manifesto, the
intellectural foundation of the CCF and the whole social democratic
movement in Canada, and an enthusiastic socialist academic and
researcher to the end. Interesteringly, we had been working on an
article on economic power and economic rent over the last couple
of years but had never got around to actually writing it.]
I have argued that intellectual property rights has been a major
factor in the (mal)distribution of income -- I think reflecting the
thought of Michael -- on a spatial basis. (See my "Inellectural
Property Rights and Regional Disparity" in Intellectual Property
Rights, ed. by KRC Nairn and Ashov Kumar, New Delhi, 1994.)
In short, I would argue that there are no proftits in the economy
except those by monopoly which have one of four sources:
a: a natural monopoly on source (e.g. oil)
b: a legal monopoly on product/technology (i.e. copywrite/patent)
c. a trade secret monopoly on process and/or product
charactaristics (coke)
d. capital entry barriers (automobiles)
But this suggests the question, what should the socialist policy
be? If competition is a dead end, what should we be advocating?
Paul Phillips,
Economics,
University of Manitoba.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:10453] Waco
Here are a list of frequently asked questions from a Waco web page that seems pretty objective (as these things go). All of these questions are from before recent revelations about the FBI attack on the Waco compound using pyrotechnics. The URL is http://rampages.onramp.net/~djreavis/ The page-owner is Dick J. Reavis, a 1990 Nieman Fellow in Journalism. He has been a Senior Editor of Texas Monthly, a reporter for the Dallas Observer, a business correspondent for the San Antonio Light, and has written for numerous publications. He authored _The Ashes of Waco_, originally published Simon Schuster in 1995, now back in print, by Syracuse University Press. Who was responsible for the tragedy at Waco, David Koresh or the government? Both. Koresh violated the law; the ATF and FBI enforced it in a way that endangered everyone. David Koresh have illegal weapons? Yes. He admitted as much to the FBI in a phone call during the 51-day siege, and he admitted having the guns in a conversation with Dick DeGuerin, his lawyer. Did Koresh abuse children? Yes, and no. Child abuse is a name for various crimes. One of them is brutality towards children. The evidence that Koresh and his followers were guilty of that is negligible, and was exaggerated by the FBI and press. On the other hand, Koresh was guilty of statutory rape, or of having sexual relations with females who had not reached the age of consent. Why didn`t local authorities pursue statutory rape charges? Before having sexual relations with an underage female, Koresh usually obtained permission from the parents, who conceded it because they believed that it was his religious duty to father 24 children by virgin mothers. The local authorities couldn`t make a case against Koresh because they couldn`t find a complaining witness. Was the search warrant for Mt. Carmel valid? This is a matter of opinion. A federal magistrate said that the ATF's affidavit justified the warrant. I am not convinced. Two-thirds of the affidavit`s text was about child abuse and statutory rape. Neither of these are federal offenses. Did flame-throwing tanks start the fire that consumed Mt. Carmel on April 19? No. The FBI had no flame-throwing tanks at Mt. Carmel. The video footage that seems to show flame-throwing tanks was filmed at about 10 a.m., two hours before the outbreak of any fire. Is CS gas banned in warfare? CS gas was banned for use against foreign enemies by an international agreement in 1969. But governments are free to use it on their own citizens. If you don`t believe that the residents started the fire, how do you explain the tapes where voices are saying, Pour the fuel? A little over a month before the April 19 fire, FBI tank drivers tried to remove three steel drums that sat on a frame outside of Mt. Carmel`s southern wall. In the process, they tipped over those drums, which contained diesel fuel and gasoline. Koresh berated the FBI for using tanks to remove those drums. He believed that the exhaust systems on those tanks threw sparks, and when the tanks passed over the fuel that they`d split, he thought that they were likely to set themselves on fire. Those tanks aren`t fireproof, you know, he warned the federal lawmen. The pour the fuel reference--between six and seven o`clock on the morning of April 19, five to six hours before any fire--reflects back on that incident. Koresh and his cronies may have been trying to lay a trap for the tanks.The object was defensive, not suicidal. Is CS gas nonlethal, nontoxic and nonflammable? CS is a power which only becomes a gas when mixed with a liquid whose spray or vapors deliver the particles to their target. At Mt. Carmel, CS particles were delivered in a mixture with CO2, a flame retardant, and in a different mixture, with methylene chloride, a once-common ingredient in paint thinners. Methylene chloride in its liquid state is barely flammable, but its vapors can be both flammable and explosive. According to the UN`s World Health Organization, phosgene fumes are formed when methylene chloride is involved in a fire--and phosgene is a poisonous gas. In the European Community, containers of methylene chloride must carry a warning label that says, Harmful by inhalation--avoid contact with skin. On July 16, 1995 the Los Angeles Times published a definitive review by reporter Glenn Bunting on the dangers of CS and methylene chloride. Bunting`s front-page report, the most intensive piece to reach the popular press, doesn`t conclude that CS is as safe as milk. Why didn`t the residents of Mt. Carmel surrender? They believed that Mt. Carmel was like Noah`s ark, a place where the faithful were to gather to await the destruction of the world by fire. When it became apparent that the opposite scenario was unfolding, some stayed to wait on God, as one of them said with his dying gasps. Others found themselves unable to exit. What should the government have done differently? David Koresh could have been arrested in
[PEN-L:10452] Re: Sunday 8/29/99 NY Times anti-environmentalist articles
Louis P.'s collection of articles is a useful take on the New York Times attitude toward the environment. I think that it might make a useful study to collect a large sample of pro- and anti-environmental articles and see how many times the Times took on a major corporate interest. I cannot recall any instances. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:10451] Re: Re: Waco and the Lesser of Two Evils
Rod Hay wrote: I wonder why the Waco situation is being covered as much as it is. Several years ago a similar situation with some left wing group ocurred in Philadelphia (I forget the details) without the same level of coverage in the media. Are you thinking about dropping a bomb on a whole block to get the MOVE organization? That forms part of the background for the Mumia case. Carrol
[PEN-L:10450] [Fwd: Fwd: Questions the media won't ask George W. Bush]
I stole this from the LBO site. It was too good to pass up, demonstrating, as it does the double standards applied to rich and poor, both in terms of economic justice and justice proper. Eric Beck wrote: [Compiled by a friend of a friend who works for the Citizens for Tax Justice. I can't ensure the accuracy of any of this stuff, but I don't find one remark that fudges the facts a little bit. Interesting to me b/c I didn't know a lot of these business dealings.] Subj: Questions the media won't ask George W. Bush! Do you think that you have used more or less cocaine than, say, Marion Barry or Bill Clinton? You invested $600,000 in the Texas Rangers and later sold out for $15 million. What did you do for the Rangers in between? How much of this profit reflected your ability to get the city of Arlington to condemn land for a ball park at 1/6 its true worth and then impose a 1/2 cent sales tax to subsidize your business? Is this an example of what you meant in 1993 when you said, "The best way to allocate resources in our society is through the marketplace. Not through a governing elite?" In 1984, after your firm, Arbusto Energy, had fallen on hard times, you managed to get a job as the 30-something president of Spectrum 7 Energy Corporation, the firm that purchased Arbusto. You also got 14% of the Spectrum's stock. Meanwhile, your 50 investors in Arbusto got paid off at about 20 cents on the dollar. Is this the sort of thing your new economic advisor, Lawrence Lindsey, was thinking of when he said Americans had become too greedy? Or might he have been thinking of the deal in 1986 when, after Spectrum 7 had lost $400,000 in six months, you sold it to Harken Energy, becoming a major Harken stockholder and receiving a good salary as a director and consultant? Or was it that time when you sold two-thirds of your Harken stock for a 200% profit on June 22, 1990, just 40 days before the start of the Gulf War [true that Iraq invaded Kuwait 40 days later, but the "Gulf War" was started by the US six months later-eb] and one week before the company announced a $23 million quarterly loss, setting off a 60% drop in share price over the next six months? Why were you so valuable to these companies given your less than impressive business acumen? When you and your Harken partners ran short of cash and hooked up with investment banker Jackson Stephens of Little Rock, Arkansas, he got you a $25 million stock purchase by Union Bank of Switzerland. Did you know that Sheik Abdullah Bakhsh, who joined your board as a part of the deal, was connected to BCCI? Did you know that the United Bank was connected to BCCI (including its operations in Panama), the Nugan Hand Bank (a notorious CIA-front in Australia), and Ferdinand Marcos? players in what would turn out to be the infamous First American-BCCI deal? Why do your think the government of Bahrain chose Harken to drill its offshore wells even though it had never dug overseas or in water before? Why do you think it chose Harken, with no relevant experience, over Amoco, with plenty of it? Did you ever discuss with your dad Harken-Bahrain deal? Did any sheiks or other officials ever express any concern over the failure of Harken to find any oil? Do you think they really cared? Tell us again why you waited almost a year past the legal deadline to file the necessary SEC report on your Harken stock deal. You borrowed $180,000 from Harken at a low rate. Did you ever pay it back or was it included among that $341,000 Harken listed in SEC documents as loaned to executives and later forgiven? One of your Uncle Prescott's hot deals resulted in an early but major transfer of sensitive technology to the Chinese government. Your father in 1989 lifted sanctions that blocked such ventures. Do you approve of Uncle Prescott and your father's behavior in these matters? As president would you allow such deals to continue? Do you approve of your uncle and father's role in what has become to be known as the "October Surprise?" Can you name a business deal you have been in that hasn't raised ethical questions? That has made a profit without some form of government subsidy? Why did you have to hire private investigators to find out what dirt private investigators might be able to dig up on you? Discuss this remark by Michael King in the Texas Observer: "Although by his own admission George W. was an indifferent student, he was nevertheless the deserving-by-both beneficiary of the oldest most illegitimate, and most sacrosanct form of affirmative action. . . It's business as usual." Since you want to help "instill individual responsibility" and give people a "future of opportunity, instead of dependence on government," why did you and your neighbors at the exclusive Rainbow Club development get a tax break from your government? In what ways do such tax breaks differ from welfare benefits other than that
[PEN-L:10449] Re: Re: Waco and the Lesser of Two Evils
The Move scandal was covered in the media -- at least by Mumia Abul Jamal -- who was later framed for murder as a reward for his efforts. One difference was that the move house was bombed by local police rather than the federal government. Also, the Waco standoff was widely covered before assualt. Finally, Move people were poor Blacks. Waco resonated with the extreme right, except for those that were offended by its interracial membership. Rod Hay wrote: I wonder why the Waco situation is being covered as much as it is. Several years ago a similar situation with some left wing group ocurred in Philadelphia (I forget the details) without the same level of coverage in the media. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:10448] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: normal profits, etc.
The reason that inflation and depreciation has to do with the rate of profit is that the numerator has a capital stock associated with it. For example, if a computer is bought in one year, we cannot merely take the market price from last year as its contribution to the total capital stock. Ajit Sinha wrote: What inflation or deflation has got to do with calculating the generalized rate of profits? It is a measure for a given point in time, it has nothing to do with changes in prices. And if the calculation of the generalized rate of profits is "abstract", then what economic calculation could be characterized as "concrete"? --- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:10447] Re: Waco and the Lesser of Two Evils
I wonder why the Waco situation is being covered as much as it is. Several years ago a similar situation with some left wing group ocurred in Philadelphia (I forget the details) without the same level of coverage in the media. Original Message Follows From: Rob Schaap [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Waco thing was aired on Oz TV a few months ago (non-commercial telly here is terrific between about 11.00 and 2.00am - which suits non-sleepers like me - and our least-funded station (SBS - multilingual, soccer, world movies, more soccer, and often surprisingly radical stuff) goes in for lots of those relatively cheap US video-docos (there was a beauty on the Panama slaughter, too) that don't make the technical grade for US networks (or are just not gonna get on - as per those filters Chomsky and Herman outline in chapter one of their terrific *Manufacturing Consent*). Anyway, a wholly convincing show on yet another of those episodes that gives meaning to that 'only in America' slogan. That big-time murder went on (those twisted little charred corpses of kiddies killed by cyanide fumes shall stay with me forever) seems beyond doubt to me, but the thing we never got to hear was what *really* caused the trouble in the first place. In a landscape dotted by charismatic would-be christ-figures and armed-to-the-teeth 'citizens' militias', what was it about Koresh's mob that stood out to the authorities? I never really understood that. Cheers, Rob. Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archives http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://members.tripod.com/rodhay/batochebooks.html http://www.abebooks.com/home/BATOCHEBOOKS/ __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
[PEN-L:10446] Sunday 8/29/99 NY Times anti-environmentalist articles
The NY Times has a "green" reputation in some circles. Nothing could be further from the truth. The first two articles below, as if one was not sufficient, amount to a subtle defense of GM foods. The third makes the case for re-introducing DDT. The fourth explains that many African-American activists have seen the "wisdom" of relaxing environmental standards in their communities in order to lure corporate development. When you add to this the regular reporting of the outrageous Gina Kolata, who has made a career out of whitewashing corporate criminals, especially with respect to their role in producing carcinogens, you end up with a very "brown" newspaper of record. Gene-Altered Food Is a Trade Threat for U.S. Farmers (http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/082999sci-gm-consumers.html) Fearful Over the Future, Europe Seizes On [Genetically Modified] Food http://www.nytimes.com/library/review/082999europe-food-review.html DDT, Target of Global Ban, Has Defenders in Malaria Experts (http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/082999sci-pesticide-ddt.html) Brownfields: Rethinking the Cleanup Rules for Polluted Sites (http://www.nytimes.com/library/review/082999urban-environ-review.html) Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:10445] Re: Re: Waco and the Lesser of Two Evils
Hi Rob, The ATF concerns about illegal munitions (where I live, if two of your neighbors think you're a nutter, they can have the government seize your guns) were a federal pretext fronting for regional allegations of child abuse. Texas seems to have (not unlike some other states) interesting uses of (local) state power to protect children from their parents. Not unlike the Mormons, Koresh may have been a little too inerrent in his biblical interpretations such as the ones on polygamy (I never can find the one on heavy metal rock music). Will our various anti-government militias erect a cenotaph in Waco like the one near the Alamo where the Mexicans burned the piled-up bodies of the defenders? Or was that the reason for Oklahoma City? Ann - Original Message - From: Rob Schaap [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 29, 1999 3:36 AM Subject: [PEN-L:10443] Re: Waco and the Lesser of Two Evils The Waco thing was aired on Oz TV a few months ago (non-commercial telly here is terrific between about 11.00 and 2.00am - which suits non-sleepers like me - and our least-funded station (SBS - multilingual, soccer, world movies, more soccer, and often surprisingly radical stuff) goes in for lots of those relatively cheap US video-docos (there was a beauty on the Panama slaughter, too) that don't make the technical grade for US networks (or are just not gonna get on - as per those filters Chomsky and Herman outline in chapter one of their terrific *Manufacturing Consent*). Anyway, a wholly convincing show on yet another of those episodes that gives meaning to that 'only in America' slogan. That big-time murder went on (those twisted little charred corpses of kiddies killed by cyanide fumes shall stay with me forever) seems beyond doubt to me, but the thing we never got to hear was what *really* caused the trouble in the first place. In a landscape dotted by charismatic would-be christ-figures and armed-to-the-teeth 'citizens' militias', what was it about Koresh's mob that stood out to the authorities? I never really understood that. Cheers, Rob.
[PEN-L:10444] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: normal profits, etc.
Michael Perelman wrote: Let me mention a couple of extra complications to the idea of normal profits. If you want to have a measure of real profits, let alone normal profits, you have to have a measure of both inflation and depreciation. We don't. We have seen how difficult measuring inflation is with the nonsense coming out of the Boskin Commission. Depreciation is even more difficult to measure. Someone said that, for Marx, profits depend on the surplus. But a rate of profit requires a measure of the capital stock, which is virtually impossible to measure -- even in theory. So, even average profits remain an abstraction. _ I don't know what sense to make of this post. What inflation or deflation has got to do with calculating the generalized rate of profits? It is a measure for a given point in time, it has nothing to do with changes in prices. And if the calculation of the generalized rate of profits is "abstract", then what economic calculation could be characterized as "concrete"? By the way, that "someone" you are referring to must have a name. Guess who that could be? Cheers, ajit sinha -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:10443] Re: Waco and the Lesser of Two Evils
The Waco thing was aired on Oz TV a few months ago (non-commercial telly here is terrific between about 11.00 and 2.00am - which suits non-sleepers like me - and our least-funded station (SBS - multilingual, soccer, world movies, more soccer, and often surprisingly radical stuff) goes in for lots of those relatively cheap US video-docos (there was a beauty on the Panama slaughter, too) that don't make the technical grade for US networks (or are just not gonna get on - as per those filters Chomsky and Herman outline in chapter one of their terrific *Manufacturing Consent*). Anyway, a wholly convincing show on yet another of those episodes that gives meaning to that 'only in America' slogan. That big-time murder went on (those twisted little charred corpses of kiddies killed by cyanide fumes shall stay with me forever) seems beyond doubt to me, but the thing we never got to hear was what *really* caused the trouble in the first place. In a landscape dotted by charismatic would-be christ-figures and armed-to-the-teeth 'citizens' militias', what was it about Koresh's mob that stood out to the authorities? I never really understood that. Cheers, Rob.
