Signs in China and Taiwan of Making Money, Not War
New York Times May 15, 2001 Signs in China and Taiwan of Making Money, Not War By CRAIG S. SMITH KUNSHAN, China, May 11 - Despite the visions of war conjured by President Bush's suggestion that the United States could help defend Taiwan from a Chinese invasion, the social and economic integration between the mainland and the island is stronger than ever, and growing. Tension across the 100-mile strait separating the two sides of a decades-old civil war has recently ebbed considerably. Some experts say that if the trend continues, Taiwan's government will soon be unable to afford antagonizing China, and that the cost to China of attacking Taiwan may become prohibitive. Nowhere is that on starker display than in Kunshan, a town that Taiwan built. About 10 percent of Taiwan's $50 billion investment in the mainland has landed here, just off the 60-mile highway from Shanghai to Suzhou. And almost all of the town's tax revenue comes from 900 Taiwan companies that have transformed the once ramshackle farming community into one of China's brightest new cities. During the spring and autumn wedding seasons, a few women a month here marry men from Taiwan. The women wear dresses from brightly-lit bridal shops with names like Ruby, Venus and Taiwan Flavor. They move into one of the town's upscale Taiwanese compounds, like Beautiful Crystal Plaza or Treasure Island Garden, a reference to Taiwan. And they bear children who are half of the mainland and half of Taiwan. What we may be seeing in cross-strait relations is a kind of Hong Kong-ization of Taiwan-mainland relations, said Orville Schell, a longtime China watcher now at the University of California at Berkeley. He noted that the economic promise of friendly ties with Beijing had earlier eroded the anti-Communism of Hong Kong's business elite and smoothed the territory's 1997 return to mainland rule. Simply put, the tension of politics may be cut by the imperatives of business and trade, Mr. Schell said. Kunshan's silver 20-story city hall rises across from a massive science and culture exhibition center, still under a wrap of sheeted scaffolding. Near the center of town, freshly painted pastel apartment blocks line streets so clean and orderly that they look more like Tokyo than China, where urban centers are more often a mess. Businessmen from Taiwan patronize restaurants like Taipei Small Town or Champs Élysée, which serves whipped iced tea - a fad imported from Taipei - and Taiwanese marinated pork with rice, served in a Japanese-style lacquered box as it is in Taiwan, which was a Japanese colony from 1895 until the end of World War II. Even in 1995, the streets were run down, said Lu Caiping, a middle-aged woman standing amid clouds of tulle and organza in a wedding shop along Advance Street. Now the sidewalks are paved with granite. Taiwan's economic presence on the mainland has risen steadily for the last decade, even though the island and China have never formally ended the civil war that left the Communist Party in control of the mainland after 1949 and Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist forces in control of Taiwan. Chiang and his archfoe Mao Zedong both died in the 1970's, and Taiwan, under pressure from business people eager to take part in China's economic opening to the world, began allowing indirect travel, trade and investment in the mainland in 1987. Taiwan has since become one of China's top investors. Investment accelerated markedly after a devastating earthquake on Taiwan in 1999. The quake temporarily shut down much of the computer-related industry on the island, which is prone to quakes, prompting many technology companies to shift production to China. Taiwan investors are also drawn to the vast mainland market. Half of Taiwan's high-tech products are now made on the mainland. Belligerency and political mistrust may still, of course, vanquish economic imperatives. China's weapons purchases and recent sharp increase in military spending are directed almost exclusively at Taiwan. China has not slowed the frequency of its military exercises or new missile deployments facing the island, which in turn has not slowed its own program to acquire weapons. The same economic growth that is drawing Taiwan to the mainland is financing Beijing's military expansion, aimed at giving China a coercive edge over Taiwan. Talks between the two governments show no sign of resuming after breaking down two years ago. China's leaders, trapped by their Marxist-Leninist past, have yet to define a more democratic future in which Taiwan might want to take part. Growing economic ties to Taiwan's business community could even work against political reforms as that community becomes increasingly reliant on a stable government in China to protect its investments and interests, Mr. Schell said. But there have been no military tensions in the strait since President Chen Shui-bian of Taiwan was
IMF and pen-l malaise
Brad DeLong writes: The availability of IMF loans gives countries facing financial crises a *few* more options: Harry Dexter White and John Maynard Keynes created it for a reason, after all. They were not dumb. If you want to know how the international financial system would function in its absence, I have always thought that 1931 et sequelae in Austria gives you a good idea of what would be likely to happen... = This assumes that the IMF has remained unchanged since its inception. This might be true of its economic models (Jacques Polak's work of 1957), but, as has been very clearly documented by writers such as Mark Harmon (The British Labour Government and the 1976 IMF Crisis, Macmillan, 1994) and Leo Panitch (The New Imperial State, New Left Review 2,2) and Chalmers Johnson (Blowback, Metropolitan Books, 2000) the goals of the IMF have altered somewhat. The caring US Treasury has, beginning with that UK intervention 25 years ago, employed the IMF as an instrument of imperialism, remaking and remodelling its victims' economic policies and policymaking apparatus to suit the purposes of the likes of Larry Summers. Perhaps you'll have read that bastion of sedition, the Financial Times, whose interview with Horst Kohler last week detailed, among other things, how his efforts at reining in mission creep (i.e., conditionality) are proving difficult owing to the efforts of his US Treasury paymasters. Kohler does note, however, that things are better since IMF staffers no longer have to endure daily diatribes from Summers. It's going to get even better now that Stanley Fischer is disappearing. As for pen-l malaise, smart-ass interventions by brilliant economists might be more tolerable if they were better recognised as such, and if those courageous souls who moan in private to Michael Perelman attempted to inject some of their own wisdom (and decorum) into the proceedings rather than complain offlist. Harrrumph. Michael K.
Re: Re: pen-l malaise
On Monday, May 14, 2001 at 19:40:00 (-0700) Brad DeLong writes: I don't think that we need to bicker about the IMF. It is a tool of the oppressors and does terrible harm. Now, now. If there were no IMF--if there were no one willing and able to loan Argentina $40 billion to try to get it through its current episode of capital flight and foreign investor panic--how, exactly, would the people of Argentina be better off? Every serious attempt to answer this question I've heard involves somehow automagically reconstituting the functions of the IMF--a kinder, gentler IMF--with no plausible story of how the institution to carry out these functions is to be created. Why not do it internally? Why do the people of Argentina need external entities to lend them $40 billion? The availability of IMF loans gives countries facing financial crises a *few* more options: Harry Dexter White and John Maynard Keynes created it for a reason, after all. They were not dumb. No, they were not dumb, but they were tools of the oppressors, you know. Bill
Re: Re: pen-l malaise
The larger point is that vigorous discussions that include debating strongly held views is not incompatible with a pen-l that is mostly free of personalized attacks. We're in this together, after all. Andrew Hagen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unions and the Repugs. energy strategy
[driving a wedge between blue-green alliances?] http://www.latimes.com Tuesday, May 15, 2001 | Labor Courted on Bush Reform Plan Politics: The meeting with union leaders prefaces today's counterproposal by Democrats. By RICHARD SIMON, EDWIN CHEN, Times Staff Writers WASHINGTON--The Bush administration aimed its energy policy campaign at an unusual constituency Monday, telling union leaders that building more power plants and increasing oil and gas drilling will mean more jobs for their members. Vice President Dick Cheney and Labor Secretary Elaine Chao courted leaders of about a dozen unions during a private White House session that appeared designed to drive a wedge into the labor-environmental coalition that has blocked previous pro-business initiatives. I don't think we're being used, Teamsters President James P. Hoffa told reporters after the meeting. Don't forget. American workers will be solving this problem. They will be building the resources to refine and generate new energy. It was the latest round in an escalating public relations battle over the comprehensive national energy policy drafted by a task force headed by Cheney. The plan will be unveiled Thursday by President Bush. Today, House Democrats plan to gather at a Washington gas station to announce their own formula for reducing the nation's energy problems. It will call for immediate steps to address high energy prices and supply shortages, such as asking federal regulators to investigate allegations of price gouging. A group of 67 Democratic lawmakers sent Bush a letter Monday urging him to pressure the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to increase world crude oil production. Notwithstanding our confidence in your Cabinet's extensive knowledge of and experience with the petroleum industry, we remain concerned that your administration has done little at this late date to address the coming crisis in gasoline prices, the letter says. Cheney reiterated his belief that there are no short-term fixes for the combination of factors contributing to higher gasoline prices nationwide and continuing shortages of electricity in California. The vice president criticized Gov. Gray Davis for suggesting that the administration's opposition to electricity price controls is tied to its political support from Texas-based energy producers who are profiting off California's troubles. In the Associated Press interview, Cheney characterized appeals for price controls and a federal investigation of gasoline prices as exactly the kind of misguided--I'm trying to think how to state this gracefully--politically motivated policies we've had in the past. Cheney said Bush might back a reduction of the 18.4-cent-per-gallon federal gasoline tax, AP reported. Opponents say such a move could threaten highway projects funded by the tax. The administration's comprehensive energy plan is expected to call for opening more federal land to oil and gas exploration, promoting increased use of nuclear power and streamlining the approval process for power plants, gas pipelines and oil refineries. In addition, the plan is expected to propose a massive upgrade of the nation's electricity transmission system, including granting federal authorities eminent domain authority to acquire private property for power transmission lines. Environmentalists and their Democratic allies contend the plan leans too far toward the supply side. But the administration has said it will include proposals to promote conservation, energy efficiency and use of renewable energy sources. White House officials disputed the notion that the meeting with union leaders was designed to divide the labor-environmental coalition. Cheney was scheduled to meet today with advocates of renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power. Hoffa said his group was not provided with enough details of the administration's energy plan to offer an immediate endorsement. Mike Mathis, government affairs director of the Teamsters, said, We're going to be supportive of a program that creates jobs.
BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2001: RELEASED TODAY: Labor productivity rose in 1999 in more than two-thirds of 119 U.S. manufacturing industries, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports. Slightly more than half of the industries registering productivity growth also posted declines in unit labor costs. In 1999, the most recent year for which underlying data are available for manufacturing industries, labor productivity -- defined as output per hour -- increased in 70 percent of the manufacturing industries. Output rose in 61 percent of the industries, while hours rose in 33 percent of the industries. Industrial production fell for a seventh consecutive month in April, declining 0.3 percent to an index level of 144.9 percent, the Federal Reserve reports. The sharpest decline occurred in the production of business equipment, which plunged 1.1 percent in April after rising 0.5 percent in March. Among all durable goods, production fell 0.6 percent in April, which production of nondurable goods was unchanged for the month. Although the decline in industrial production had been expected by analysts, many were surprised by the Fed's sharp downward revision of its March data, which brought industrial production down from a gain of 0.4 percent to a loss of 0.1 percent (Daily Labor Report, page D-4). Industrial production fell in April for a seventh consecutive month, the longest string of declines since 1982 (Bloomberg News, The New York Times, page C4). The manufacturing slump continues as output at factories, utilities, and mines fell in April for the seventh straight month, and capacity use dropped to its lowest level since 1991 (The Wall Street Journal, page A12). Business inventories shrank 0.3 percent in March, following a revised 0.4 percent decline in February -- the first back-to-back inventory declines since 1992, according to the Department of Commerce (USA Today, page 1B). The Wage Trend Indicator declined for a second consecutive quarter to suggest that private industry wage increases will moderate to below the 4 percent average by the end of the year, according to the latest WTI report released by the Bureau of National Affairs. The WTI's preliminary reading for the second quarter is 100.59 -- down from the first quarter level of 100.71 and the fourth quarter reading of 100.85 (second quarter 1976=100). The latest WTI suggests that by the end of this year, wage gains could dip below the recent 4 percent average, says economist Joel Popkin (Daily Labor Report, page D-1). In an effort to cut corporate costs without cutting jobs, some employers are insisting that their employees take time off, often without pay. Employers hope that the forced vacation will reduce expenses while retaining valuable workers who will be needed when the economy eventually rebounds. Companies are scouring their books looking to cut costs, says the chief executive officer of Chicago-based outplacement firm Challenger, Gray Christmas, Inc. Beyond traditional methods, such as restricting business travel, he said, the practice of requiring employees to take leave is really growing. Forced time off is most common in the high-tech sector, a recognition by those firms that they are in a boom/bust business, says the outplacement spokesman. Employers recognize they're going to need people, and they're trying to stave off layoffs (Daily Labor Report, page C-1). Under the Bush budget, next year's federal employment is projected to grow about 0.3 percent from this year's estimated 1.8 million workers, as measured in full-time equivalent work, says The Wall Street Journal's Work Weak feature (page A1). About 10 years ago, the federal government employed 2.2 million workers. Meanwhile, the General Accounting Office, studying the vast majority of executive branch employees, estimates that 15 percent of 1998's work force will retire by 2006, a higher rate than previous years. The Office of Personnel Management says the government is strengthening recruiting. Work days missed due to nonwork repetitive-strain injuries climbed to 162 per 10,000 days in claims submitted to insurer MetLife, Inc.'s disability business last year, from 79 per 10,000 in 1995 (The Wall Street Journal in it's Work Week feature, page A1). DUE OUT TOMORROW: Consumer Price Index, April 2001; Real Earnings, April 2001. application/ms-tnef
RE: Camejo still bullish
Mr. Proyect posted: --- [This is from a letter from stockbroker Peter Camejo to his customers, which can be read in its entirety at www.camejogroup.com. While Camejo apparently sold Progressive Assets Management, a so-called social investment company with branches in over 6 cities, to investors some time ago, he continues doing business from an office north of San Francisco. [Before restyling himself as a social investment broker, Camejo was an ex-Trotskyist leader trying to launch a non-sectarian left formation in the USA. Many of my ideas on the problem of democratic centralism were lifted from him. While I was working with him on this project in the early 1980s, I discovered that he was becoming more interested in the stock market than socialism. Until the mid-1990s, Camejo tried to maintain an appearance of using profits from his business ventures to further the radical movement. No such pretensions exist any longer, at least based on a cursory examination of his website. [As far as the letter is concerned, it expresses a peculiar kind of bullishness influenced by his Marxist past. It smacks of Ernest Mandel's long wave notions, in my opinion although he has enough good sense not to scare his customers away with references to the deceased Belgian Trotskyist leader, who remained a maverick to his dying days. Camejo's bullish economic views were presented in a more elaborated form in a 1999 issue of Against the Current as part of a series of responses to Robert Brenner's article predicting a global financial meltdown, a shorter version of something that had already appeared in the New Left Review. My own take on Camejo's bullish Marxism stands up pretty well, in light of the NASDAQ nosedive. It can be read at: www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/June99/peter_camejos_long_wave_l.htm ] Mr. Proyect, I have a semi-serious question for you. Do you put your money where your mouth is? Assuming you have some money to invest, do you (would you) avoid SP 500 funds, and instead invest in funds that short the market, or gold, or other bearish funds? Where are the investment funds that are based on an application of a Marxist economic analysis? Any funds that invest primarily in Cuba? Thanks, David Shemano
Re: RE: Camejo still bullish
Mr. Proyect, I have a semi-serious question for you. Do you put your money where your mouth is? Assuming you have some money to invest, do you (would you) avoid SP 500 funds, and instead invest in funds that short the market, or gold, or other bearish funds? Where are the investment funds that are based on an application of a Marxist economic analysis? Any funds that invest primarily in Cuba? Thanks, David Shemano I am 56 years old and expect to retire in 6 years. Therefore all my retirement funds are in CD's. As far as investing on the basis of a Marxist economic analysis, this might prove interesting: The annual rent for Modena Villas was £65 almost twice that of Grafton Terrace. Quite how Marx expected to pay for all luxury is a mystery: as so often, however, his Micawberish faith was vindicated. On 9 May 1864 Wilhelm 'Lupus' Wolff died of meningitis, bequeathing 'all my books furniture and effects debts and moneys owning to me and all the residue of my person estate and also all real and leasehold estates of which I may seized possessed or entitled or of which I may have power dispose by this my Will unto and to the use of the said K Marx'. Wolff was one of the few old campaigners from the 1840s who never wavered in his allegiance to Marx and Engels. He worked with them in Brussels on the Communist Correspondence Committee, in Paris at the 1848 revolution and in Cologne when Marx was editing the Neue Rheinishe Zeitung. From 1853 he lived quietly in Manchester, earning his living as a language teacher and relying largely on Engels to keep him up to date with political news. 'I don't believe anyone in Manchester can have been universally beloved as our poor little friend,' Karl wrote to Jenny after delivering the funeral oration, during which he broke down several times. As executors of the will, Marx and Engels were amazed to discover that modest old Lupus had accumulated a small fortune through hard work and thrift. Even after deducting funeral expenses, estate duty, a £100 bequest for Engels and another £100 for Wolff's doctor Louis Borchardt - much to Marx's annoyance, since he held this 'bombastic bungler' responsible for the death - there was a residue of £820 for the main legatee. This was far more than Marx had ever earned from his writing, and explains why the first volume of Capital (published three years later) carries a dedication to 'my unforgettable friend Wilhelm Wolff, intrepid, faithful, noble protagonist of the proletariat', rather than the more obvious and worthy candidate, Friedrich Engels. The Marxes wasted no time in spending their windfall. Jenny had the new house furnished and redecorated, explaining that 'I thought it better to put the money to this use rather than to fritter it away piecemeal on trifles'. Pets were bought for the children (three dogs, two cats, two birds) and named after Karl's favourite tipples, including Whisky and Toddy In July he took the family on vacation to Ramsgate for three weeks, though the eruption of a malignant carbuncle just above the penis rather spoiled the fun, leaving him confined to bed at their guest-house in a misanthropic sulk. 'Your philistine on the spree lords it here as do, to an even greater extent, his better half and his female offspring,' he noted, gazing enviously through his window at the beach. 'It is almost sad to see venerable Oceanus, that age-old Titan, having to suffer these pygmies to disport themselves on his phiz, and serve them for entertainment.' The boils had replaced the bailiffs as his main source of irritation. Mostly, however, he dispatched them with the same careless contempt. That autumn he held a grand ball at Modena Villas for Jennychen and Laura, who had spent many years declining invitations to parties for fear that they would be unable to reciprocate. Fifty of their young friends were entertained until four in the morning, and so much food was left over little Tussy was allowed to have an impromptu tea-party for local children the following day. Writing to Lion Philips in the summer of 1864, Marx revealed an even more remarkable detail of his prosperous new way of life: I have, which will surprise you not a little, been speculating partly in American funds, but more especially in English stocks, which are springing up like mushrooms this year (in furtherance of every imaginable and unimaginable joint stock enterprise) are forced up to a quite unreasonable level and then, for most part, collapse. In this way, I have made over £400 now that the complexity of the political situation affords greater scope, I shall begin all over again. It's a type of operation that makes small demands on one's time, and it's worth while running some risk in order to relieve the enemy of his money. Since there is no hard evidence of these transactions, some scholars have assumed that Marx simply invented the story to impress his businesslike uncle. But it may be true. He certainly kept a close eye on share
Re: Re: Approval and Condemnation: Must they bebased on Morality?
For some reason, human beings, needing God, This is simply not true, either as a general statement or as an empirical summary of human experience. Most humans (including most of those who claim, if asked, to believe in god) get along very well without any god. are born into a world in which God is materially absent. Therefore, they must find or create God (or the gods, or Nature, or reality -- Nietzche's God-in-the-grammar). _You_ seem to need some sort of god. Most humans don't in fact. God is no more absent than are three-headed field mice, one-ton blue frogs with three eyes, etc. You seem to argue that we need some metaphysical absolute in order to ground our approval and disaproval of this or that. But none exists, so we'd better learn how to get along without one. People seem (no surprise) to be talking past each other. The point that since no God exists, we'd better learn how to get along without one is a good one. But so is the point that human societies seem to be very good at constructing and then believing in Gods... Ahura Mazda
Re: IMF
Brad DeLong writes: The availability of IMF loans gives countries facing financial crises a *few* more options: Harry Dexter White and John Maynard Keynes created it for a reason, after all. They were not dumb. If you want to know how the international financial system would function in its absence, I have always thought that 1931 et sequelae in Austria gives you a good idea of what would be likely to happen... = This assumes that the IMF has remained unchanged since its inception. This might be true of its economic models (Jacques Polak's work of 1957), but, as has been very clearly documented by writers such as Mark Harmon (The British Labour Government and the 1976 IMF Crisis, Macmillan, 1994) and Leo Panitch (The New Imperial State, New Left Review 2,2) and Chalmers Johnson (Blowback, Metropolitan Books, 2000) the goals of the IMF have altered somewhat. The caring US Treasury has, beginning with that UK intervention 25 years ago, employed the IMF as an instrument of imperialism... Britain's march to socialism halted in 1976 by IMF! *Snort*. Look: I think that IMF mission creep--the idea that they know that Anglo-American models of financial organization are superior to Germano-Japanese models, say--is a serious danger. I think that the IMF charged Mexico too high an interest rate and loaned it money for too short a time period in the 1990s. I think that the IMF blew it when it demanded the closing of some (but not all) of Indonesia's insolvent banks. I think the IMF routinely blows it when it demands that countries receiving aid take rapid steps to produce immediate budget surpluses--but that is because the IMF is underfunded, and wants a borrowing government to show a budget surplus so that it can be confident it will be paid back in time for it to have resources to deal with the next crisis. But all these valid criticisms miss the big point: the IMF shows up at the party with lots of money (and conditions) when a financial crisis hits. That's a very valuable function--indeed, Jim Callaghan thought it was a very nice thing to have back in 1976... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: reigniting the inequality debate
On Fri, 11 May 2001, Brad DeLong wrote: The answer to what is happening to world income distribution turns out to depend heavily on whether countries are weighted by population, and whether income in different countries is measured in PPP terms or by using actual exchange rates. Why would one ever want *not* to count people rather than countries? Why would one ever want to *not* use PPP? FWIW, later on in the article, Robert Wade addresses this question, saying: Yeah. But I didn't like any of his answers... In response to Wade's first point, if we are looking at countries as laboratories for different policies the overall summary statistic of cross-country variance is uninteresting--you want to make credible estimates of the benefits and costs of different policy strategies, not statements about cross-country inequality. Wade's second point is totally incoherent: flaws in PPP measures do not justify using exchange rate-based measures that are even more flawed. Wade's third point--that incomes based on actual exchange rates may be a better measure than PPP of relative national power and national modernity--just seems weird to me. Back when Japan and Germany had undervalued real exchange rates and were export machines as a result, were they weak in some sense? PPP-based measures have always seemed to me to give much better measures of national power and national modernity than exchange rate based measures... Brad DeLong
The number one rogue state
The Nation May 28, 2001 Editorial Rogue Nation News that the United States has been voted off the UN Human Rights Commission and the UN international drug monitoring board has elicited vows of revenge from conservatives in Congress. They threaten to withhold payment on the long-unpaid dues owed the UN. They blame our adversaries--China, Cuba, Sudan and others-- for the insult. But the secret votes enabled allies as well as adversaries to vent their mounting exasperation with US policies. At the last session of the commission, the United States stood virtually alone as it opposed resolutions supporting lower-cost access to HIV/AIDS drugs, acknowledging a human right to adequate food and calling for a moratorium on the death penalty, while it continued to resist efforts to ban landmines. The global outrage is by no means limited to US policies on the Human Rights Commission. In barely 100 days in office, the Bush Administration has declared the Kyoto accords on global warming dead, spurning eight years of work by 186 countries. It banned US support for any global organization that provides family planning or abortion services, even as an AIDS pandemic makes this a matter of life and death. It bade farewell to the antiballistic missile treaty, while slashing spending on nuclear safety aid for Russia. It casually bombed Iraq, helped shoot down a missionary's plane over Peru and enforced an illegal and irrational boycott of Cuba. It sabotaged promising talks between North and South Korea, publicly humiliating South Korea's Nobel prizewinning president, Kim Dae Jung. The nomination as UN ambassador of John Negroponte, former proconsul in Honduras during the illegal contra wars, is an insult. There is a perception, said one diplomat in carefully parsed words, that the US wants to go it alone. Our lawless exceptionalism is a deeply rooted, bipartisan policy that didn't begin with the Bush Administration. Under previous Presidents, Democratic and Republican, Washington denounced state-sponsored terrorism while reserving the right to bomb a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan or unleash a contra army on Nicaragua. It condemned Iraq for invading Kuwait while reserving the right to invade Panama or bomb Serbia on its own writ. The United States advocated war crimes tribunals against foreign miscreants abroad while opposing an international criminal court that might hold our own officials accountable. Our leaders proclaim the value of law and democracy as they spurn the UN Security Council and ignore the World Court when their rulings don't suit them. The Senate refuses to ratify basic human rights treaties. The US international business community even opposes efforts to eliminate child labor. And of course, there are those UN dues, which make us the world's largest deadbeat. Worse is yet to come. US policy is a direct reflection of its militarization and the belief that we police the world, we make the rules. The Bush Administration plans a major increase in military spending to finance new weapons to expand the US ability to project force around the globe--stealth bombers, drones, long- range missiles and worse. The tightly strung Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sounds increasingly like an out-of-date Dr. Strangelove as he pushes to open a new military front in space, shattering hopes of keeping the heavens a zone of peace. As the hyperpower, with interests around the world, America has the largest stake in law and legitimacy. But the ingrained assumption that we are legislator, judge, jury and executioner mocks any notion of global order. From the laws of war to the laws of trade, it is increasingly clear that Washington believes international law applies only to the weak. The weak do what they must; the United States does what it will. After the cold war, we labeled our potential adversaries rogue nations--violent, lawless, willing to trample the weak and ignore international law and morality to enforce their will. Now, in the vote at the UN, in the headlines of papers across Europe, in the planning of countries large and small, there is a growing consensus that the world's most destructive rogue nation is the most powerful country of them all. This is not a role most Americans support. Public interest groups and concerned individuals will vigorously remind Congress of the widespread popular backing in this country for paying our UN dues, for global AIDS funding and other forms of international involvement. Unilateralism must be opposed in all its guises, from national missile defense to undermining efforts to curb global warming. The United States was founded on a decent respect for the opinions of mankind. Let's keep it that way.
Desalination in Southern California
An interesting discussion of the economics behind desalination plants in Southern California follows. Remember that water sells for $75/ acre-foot in northern california, but that residential uses in So. Cal. pay about $520/ acre-foot. WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT Metropolitan board to look at desalination North County Times - 5/13/01 By Gig Conaughton, staff writer Southern California's major water wholesaler is considering offering incentives to others to turn sea water into drinking water. Members of the Metropolitan Water District's board of directors on Tuesday will consider a plan that would set up a system of incentives, such as cash-backing, to private companies or other water agencies that develop desalination plans. Adan Ortega, Metropolitan's executive assistant to the general manager, said last week that he expects a majority of the plans would not deal with desalting ocean water itself, but rather groundwater supplies that have been contaminated by sea water which often occurs in coastal regions. In fact, Metropolitan is currently negotiating with the city of Oceanside to help expand Oceanside's 7-year-old groundwater desalination plant. Extracting salt from ocean water is still too expensive, Ortega said. Desalination is a scientifically simple process. It can be done in two ways. Salt water can be boiled and the salt-free steam collected and distilled back into water. Or salt can be extracted from water by forcing it through a membrane, thin enough to allow the water molecules through, but dense enough to keep out the salt molecules. The latter is the method most often used. However, it requires large amounts of power. Because brackish ground water is less salty than ocean water itself, water agencies have created successful desalination projects. The whole issue driving desalination is the cost of power, Ortega said. But groundwater desalination will be an important part of ensuring that rain-starved Southern California continues to have the water it needs, Ortega said, along with building more reservoirs and aqueducts to store surplus water for years when water supplies are short. Ortega said climate changes in the future could drive up the water level of the ocean along California's coast. That would mean further sea-water contamination of groundwater supplies and make desalination even more important. Southern California has already committed itself to using less of its traditional water source the Colorado River by 2015. In January, California representatives promised to reduce the amount of water it annually takes from the Colorado River by about 270 billion gallons about 16 percent of what California now takes by 2015. Metropolitan was created in 1928 by the state Legislature to build and run the Colorado River Aqueduct. Today, it buys Colorado River water and water from the State Water Project in Northern California and then sells it to 26 cities and water agencies throughout Southern California. That list includes the San Diego County Water Authority, which imports between 90 percent and 95 percent of all the water used in San Diego County, dispersing it through its 23 member agencies. Francesca Krauel, a Metropolitan board representative from the San Diego County Water Authority, agreed with Ortega's opinion that groundwater desalination projects will probably make up the bulk of projects initially brought to Metropolitan. However, Krauel said she also believes that because Southern California's water supply will become increasingly scarce as its population continues to grow, and it decreases the amount it draws from the Colorado River, that water agencies will have to turn to the ocean to slake residents' thirst, water their lawns, and fuel the regions' businesses. That, Krauel said, will eventually mean desalting the ocean. The county Water Authority itself, in the Urban Water Management Plan it passed in October, set the goal of turning at least 8.1 billion gallons of sea water a year into drinking water by 2020. I think the question is, 'Is the time now?' Krauel said. If it isn't now, it's very close. Recent advances in membrane technology have greatly reduced the cost of desalting. Water officials across the country have been watching a desalting project in Tampa Bay, Fla., being built by Poseidon, a Connecticut company. In 1991, Southern California Edison shut down an experimental desalination plant it built on Catalina Island. The desalted water produced by that plant cost roughly $3,000 per acre-foot. One acre-foot is 325,900 gallons, roughly the amount it would take to sustain the household needs of eight people for one year. Poseidon reported at the beginning of 2001 it had reduced the cost of desalination in Tampa to $560 per acre-foot, a little over 7 percent more than the $521 per acre-foot county Water Authority members now pay for treated water. However, Ortega said that ocean water from the Atlantic Ocean is
Re: Desalination in Southern California
What is done with all the salt?. I assume it is a mixture of salts. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Tim Bousquet [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PEN-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 3:05 PM Subject: [PEN-L:11549] Desalination in Southern California An interesting discussion of the economics behind desalination plants in Southern California follows. Remember that water sells for $75/ acre-foot in northern california, but that residential uses in So. Cal. pay about $520/ acre-foot. WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT Metropolitan board to look at desalination North County Times - 5/13/01 By Gig Conaughton, staff writer Southern California's major water wholesaler is considering offering incentives to others to turn sea water into drinking water. Members of the Metropolitan Water District's board of directors on Tuesday will consider a plan that would set up a system of incentives, such as cash-backing, to private companies or other water agencies that develop desalination plans. Adan Ortega, Metropolitan's executive assistant to the general manager, said last week that he expects a majority of the plans would not deal with desalting ocean water itself, but rather groundwater supplies that have been contaminated by sea water which often occurs in coastal regions. In fact, Metropolitan is currently negotiating with the city of Oceanside to help expand Oceanside's 7-year-old groundwater desalination plant. Extracting salt from ocean water is still too expensive, Ortega said. Desalination is a scientifically simple process. It can be done in two ways. Salt water can be boiled and the salt-free steam collected and distilled back into water. Or salt can be extracted from water by forcing it through a membrane, thin enough to allow the water molecules through, but dense enough to keep out the salt molecules. The latter is the method most often used. However, it requires large amounts of power. Because brackish ground water is less salty than ocean water itself, water agencies have created successful desalination projects. The whole issue driving desalination is the cost of power, Ortega said. But groundwater desalination will be an important part of ensuring that rain-starved Southern California continues to have the water it needs, Ortega said, along with building more reservoirs and aqueducts to store surplus water for years when water supplies are short. Ortega said climate changes in the future could drive up the water level of the ocean along California's coast. That would mean further sea-water contamination of groundwater supplies and make desalination even more important. Southern California has already committed itself to using less of its traditional water source the Colorado River by 2015. In January, California representatives promised to reduce the amount of water it annually takes from the Colorado River by about 270 billion gallons about 16 percent of what California now takes by 2015. Metropolitan was created in 1928 by the state Legislature to build and run the Colorado River Aqueduct. Today, it buys Colorado River water and water from the State Water Project in Northern California and then sells it to 26 cities and water agencies throughout Southern California. That list includes the San Diego County Water Authority, which imports between 90 percent and 95 percent of all the water used in San Diego County, dispersing it through its 23 member agencies. Francesca Krauel, a Metropolitan board representative from the San Diego County Water Authority, agreed with Ortega's opinion that groundwater desalination projects will probably make up the bulk of projects initially brought to Metropolitan. However, Krauel said she also believes that because Southern California's water supply will become increasingly scarce as its population continues to grow, and it decreases the amount it draws from the Colorado River, that water agencies will have to turn to the ocean to slake residents' thirst, water their lawns, and fuel the regions' businesses. That, Krauel said, will eventually mean desalting the ocean. The county Water Authority itself, in the Urban Water Management Plan it passed in October, set the goal of turning at least 8.1 billion gallons of sea water a year into drinking water by 2020. I think the question is, 'Is the time now?' Krauel said. If it isn't now, it's very close. Recent advances in membrane technology have greatly reduced the cost of desalting. Water officials across the country have been watching a desalting project in Tampa Bay, Fla., being built by Poseidon, a Connecticut company. In 1991, Southern California Edison shut down an experimental desalination plant it built on Catalina Island. The desalted water produced by that plant cost roughly $3,000 per acre-foot. One acre-foot is 325,900 gallons, roughly the
Re: Re: Desalination in Southern California
There used to be a lot of literature about using nukes for desalization. Maybe would could make an artificial salt bed to store the wastes. On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:38:16PM -0500, Ken Hanly wrote: What is done with all the salt?. I assume it is a mixture of salts. Cheers, Ken Hanly -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pinkerton II
HighGrader Magazine March/April 2001 Balaclavas and Jackboots Private security armies on the picket lines by Brit Griffin The days of the Pinkertons may be back. At the turn of the last century, the Pinkerton detective agency was a strike-breaking army for hire. Companies regularly turned to companies like the Pinkertons for muscle in dealing with labour unrest. But that was the bad old days of labour relations, right? Wrong. What is becoming increasingly common in Canada, and has been a 'standard' company response in the US for almost two decades, is a militant response to union activity. The modern version of muscle for hire are the private security forces being brought in to protect company interests during strikes. They offer services ranging from recruiting replacement workers to high tech surveillance of strikers and their families. The standard MO is a military-style encampment with balaclavas, jackboots and bullet proof vests. As one labour observer puts it the fashion is definitely black. The companies say the security forces are needed to maintain picket line peace. Labour advocates accuse them of bringing unnecessary muscle and intimidation. This muscle has been used against striking mill workers, nurses and even day care workers. Jerome Stricklen was one of 1200 workers on strike at Falconbridge's nickel operations in Sudbury. He was driving home in his van with his two young children, when as Stricklen recalls, Suddenly, my little girl yelled out watch out'. Right in front of him, coming from the opposite direction, was a vehicle belonging to Accu-fax, the private security firm hired by Falconbridge. The vehicle cut him off, causing him to slam on his breaks. Another Accu-fax vehicle pulled up alongside him. It was a good thing I wasn't going too fast, or I would have hit him, says Stricklen. Within seconds a police cruiser pulled up. Out came the guns and I was pulled out of my van. They slapped on the hand-cuffs. I didn't know what was going on. The police took Stricklen to their cruiser while Accu-fax blocked off the road. The children were left in the van. Stricklen says he could hear them yelling for him. Stricklen says he was held for a number of hours while the children were left crying in the van. Sergeant Wayne Foster with the Greater Sudbury Police services, says the police were trying to locate Stricklen's wife during that time. According to Foster, Accu-fax had phoned the police saying they believed that Stricklen had a weapon in his van. No weapon was found. Foster suggests that it was an honest mistake as an object was found in the vehicle did resemble a weapon. Stricklen says the object was his kid's bicycle horn. The police later apologized but Stricklen's not impressed. Even months after he still gets distressed discussing the event. Stricklen says Accu-fax was following workers all the time, and that he couldn't pull up to a traffic light without them trying to video-tape him. Other striking workers say their cell phone calls were monitored. Some claim their residences and families were video taped. They say there was intimidation off company property. HighGrader phoned Accu-fax to hear their side of these allegations. After numerous phone attempts, we managed to reach Darrell Parsons, founder of Accu-fax. Mr. Parsons has told other media in the past that he does not see their role as 'strike-breaking' but rather as protecting the rights of companies to continue operations during a strike and use replacement workers. Mr. Parsons, however, was not so forthcoming with us. Mr. Parsons he said he could not speak to us. When pressed, saying that he spoke to other media, he said They are not like your magazine. When Sudbury journalist Mick Lowe (see The Falcon Strikes - HighGrader Jan/Feb. 2001) and videographer Stuart Cryer tried to get the lowdown on Accu-fax, it landed them in jail. The two journalists had headed up to the picket lines early one morning in the hopes of filming the Accu-fax crews in operation. Down at the bottom was the picket line, then further up, maybe 100 yards, were the security guys. It was really like two battle-lines, explained Lowe, with a no man's land in between. The no-man's land was clearly a no-go zone for anyone but replacement workers or Accu-fax security. Lowe and Cryer decided to step out and make their way up to Accu-fax lines. Some of them were wearing black balaclavas, with bullet-proofs vests, jackboots, the whole thing. And we started walking towards them, video-taping them as we went, and they were busy video-taping us. We got right up to them, to their vehicles, and they asked us to get off Falconbridge property. Lowe says he keep talking while Cryer kept filming. I was saying they didn't look like they were having much fun, that they should loosen up. At one point, Cryer reached up to flip up the baseball cap of one of the security guys in order to see his face. Right then, the gig was up. The journalists were grabbed and the
Re: Re: Re: Desalination in Southern California
At 01:48 PM 5/15/01 -0700, you wrote: There used to be a lot of literature about using nukes for desalization. Maybe would could make an artificial salt bed to store the wastes. why not in Texas, near Bush's alternative White House (in Crawford?) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
A Broadband Mandate?- Telecom Legislation Battle on Capitol Hill
A Broadband Mandate? Communities and Workers Win a Round in Internet Legislation by Nathan Newman, special to THE PROGRESSIVE POPULIST They're fighting over telecom legislation on Capitol Hill again. Long distance companies and Internet Service Providers are fighting with local Bell companies. Words like LATA and RBOC are being thrown around. Your eyes glaze over and you just hope it doesn't hurt too much once the corporate lobbyists finish their intramural battle, even as consumers and workers seem to barely have a seat at the table. But wait a second. For once, there seems to be a progressive alternative vision for including everyone in the high speed Internet world we keep being promised. The immediate political debate is over a bill, H.R. 1542, introduced late in April by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Billy Tauzin to encourage the local phone companies to build the wiring to deliver high-speed access over customer phone lines. Only about 5 million Americans have so-called broadband access to the Internet, some through local phone companies, others through their cable television companies. So far, most of that access is available only to selected urban business districts and some suburban communities. Since the 1996 Telecommunication Act, the local Bell companies have had to give competitors access to their local phone networks, so-called interconnection rules, as a requirement for themselves entering the long distance phone market. While hardly a perfect bill, since there have been endless disputes in the courts about what price should be charged to competitors for access, the basic idea was to prevent the Bells from using their existing investments in local phone loops to leverage control of long distance. The problem is that broadband wiring does not exist in many areas yet, so the Bells have complained that the rules make any new investments unprofitable. Without changing the rules on voice service competition, the Tauzin bill would allow the local Bell companies to make those data line investments without letting competitors access those new services. Some consumer groups like Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America, repeating the mantra of competition, have condemned the Tauzin bill, but the Baby Bells do have a good case. If every time they pay to build new infrastructure, competitors can automatically lease use of them at some regulated average cost price, the result is predictable. The competitors will cherry-pick the most profitable customers with special deals and the local phone companies will get stuck with the rest. Looking at that reality, the Bells won't deploy high-speed data lines, especially in poorer or rural areas, where they need to keep the profitable customers to balance out poorer, less profitable ones. The Tauzin bill was introduced to create the economic incentives to deploy high-speed Internet access in poorer and rural areas. The hitch was that while it encouraged this, it didn't mandate that the Bells make broadband access a reality for everyone. Enter Congressman Bobby Rush of Chicago and Tom Sawyer of Ohio. Pulling together a coalition of inner-city and rural constituencies, they pushed through in committee an amendment to the bill that mandates that the Bells achieve 100 percent rollout of broadband connections, called Digital Subscriber Lines (DSL), to all of their central offices within five years. If that sounds familiar in a nostalgic way, it's what we once called a universal service rule. When this country decided to make basic phone service available in every community across this country, we didn't create a maze of regulatory rules. We just told the old Bell System to wire a phone to every home in the country. Period. The politicians made sure Ma Bell made a profit, but they also made sure that not only did every home get a phone but that the rates were affordable for rural and poor citizens. The Rush-Sawyer amendment doesn't address the cost issue, but it is a step forward from the failed policy of passing endless regulations to create fake competition that never delivers the promised goods. A decade ago we were told about an impending Information Superhighway that would be built to every home. So far, most of us still at best have only the dirt road of slow modem access. With the Rush-Sawyer universal access mandate, the Tauzin Bill is the best bet we have for delivering the benefits of the cyberage to all our citizens, not just to those who the telecom companies think will be corporate profit centers. The Tauzin bill needs to be followed by consumer rate regulation to assure reasonable prices for consumers, but for those who might complain about more government regulation, don't kid yourself. Wade through the endless regulatory and court room decisions on how to charge interconnection fees and it's obvious we are already hip-deep in regulations- just none that directly benefit consumers. Now, this
Re: Re: Re: Desalination in Southern California
http://www.tampatrib.com/MGAQH0W1WKC.html has a discussion of some of some of the environmental issues connected with the Tampa bay plant. Tim --- Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There used to be a lot of literature about using nukes for desalization. Maybe would could make an artificial salt bed to store the wastes. On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:38:16PM -0500, Ken Hanly wrote: What is done with all the salt?. I assume it is a mixture of salts. Cheers, Ken Hanly -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] = Subscribe to the Chico Examiner for only $30 annually or $20 for six months. Mail cash or check payabe to Tim Bousquet to POBox 4627, Chico CA 95927 __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/
RE: A Broadband Mandate?- Telecom Legislation Battle on Capitol Hill
This looks very good, but to be more convinced I'd like you to state the other side's progressive arguments, such as they are, at more length, along w/your refutations. max -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Nathan Newman Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 9:57 PM To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Subject: [PEN-L:11554] A Broadband Mandate?- Telecom Legislation Battle on Capitol Hill A Broadband Mandate? Communities and Workers Win a Round in Internet Legislation by Nathan Newman, special to THE PROGRESSIVE POPULIST They're fighting over telecom legislation on Capitol Hill again. Long distance companies and Internet Service Providers are fighting with local Bell companies. Words like LATA and RBOC are being thrown around. Your eyes glaze over and you just hope it doesn't hurt too much once the corporate lobbyists finish their intramural battle, even as consumers and workers seem to barely have a seat at the table. But wait a second. For once, there seems to be a progressive alternative vision for including everyone in the high speed Internet world we keep being promised. The immediate political debate is over a bill, H.R. 1542, introduced late in April by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Billy Tauzin to encourage the local phone companies to build the wiring to deliver high-speed access over customer phone lines. Only about 5 million Americans have so-called broadband access to the Internet, some through local phone companies, others through their cable television companies. So far, most of that access is available only to selected urban business districts and some suburban communities. Since the 1996 Telecommunication Act, the local Bell companies have had to give competitors access to their local phone networks, so-called interconnection rules, as a requirement for themselves entering the long distance phone market. While hardly a perfect bill, since there have been endless disputes in the courts about what price should be charged to competitors for access, the basic idea was to prevent the Bells from using their existing investments in local phone loops to leverage control of long distance. The problem is that broadband wiring does not exist in many areas yet, so the Bells have complained that the rules make any new investments unprofitable. Without changing the rules on voice service competition, the Tauzin bill would allow the local Bell companies to make those data line investments without letting competitors access those new services. Some consumer groups like Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America, repeating the mantra of competition, have condemned the Tauzin bill, but the Baby Bells do have a good case. If every time they pay to build new infrastructure, competitors can automatically lease use of them at some regulated average cost price, the result is predictable. The competitors will cherry-pick the most profitable customers with special deals and the local phone companies will get stuck with the rest. Looking at that reality, the Bells won't deploy high-speed data lines, especially in poorer or rural areas, where they need to keep the profitable customers to balance out poorer, less profitable ones. The Tauzin bill was introduced to create the economic incentives to deploy high-speed Internet access in poorer and rural areas. The hitch was that while it encouraged this, it didn't mandate that the Bells make broadband access a reality for everyone. Enter Congressman Bobby Rush of Chicago and Tom Sawyer of Ohio. Pulling together a coalition of inner-city and rural constituencies, they pushed through in committee an amendment to the bill that mandates that the Bells achieve 100 percent rollout of broadband connections, called Digital Subscriber Lines (DSL), to all of their central offices within five years. If that sounds familiar in a nostalgic way, it's what we once called a universal service rule. When this country decided to make basic phone service available in every community across this country, we didn't create a maze of regulatory rules. We just told the old Bell System to wire a phone to every home in the country. Period. The politicians made sure Ma Bell made a profit, but they also made sure that not only did every home get a phone but that the rates were affordable for rural and poor citizens. The Rush-Sawyer amendment doesn't address the cost issue, but it is a step forward from the failed policy of passing endless regulations to create fake competition that never delivers the promised goods. A decade ago we were told about an impending Information Superhighway that would be built to every home. So far, most of us still at best have only the dirt road of slow modem access. With the Rush-Sawyer universal access mandate, the Tauzin Bill is the best bet we have for delivering the benefits of the cyberage to all our citizens, not just to those who the telecom companies think will
Re: A Broadband Mandate?- Telecom Legislation Battle on Capitol Hill
- Original Message - From: Max Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] This looks very good, but to be more convinced I'd like you to state the other side's progressive arguments, such as they are, at more length, along w/your refutations. The arguments come from very progressive consumer-style folks who are just promoting the same competition and deregulation arguments that were used to break up ATT and promote a range of other deregulatory disasters. It's the basic Naderite position that the best way to help consumers is to break up the monopolies into lots of competitors. However theoretically attractive the competition argument is in a populist mode, I just think the approach has been a rank failure in practice for decades. I happen to think progressives due better fighting to regulate the monopolies than trying to create the bizarre regulatory maze needed to create competition in inherently natural monopoly situations. Here is the basic argument from my old boss at NetAction, although she was writing about the bill without the Rush-Sawyer amendment. The basic argument that the bill reinforces Bell monopoly power is correct. The debate is whether regulating that monopoly or introducing competition is the best way to discipline them to protect consumers. I think regulating the Bells is the better way to go. But honest people differ since it's an empirical evaluation of likely political results from each strategy. Great Congressmen like John Conyers are opposing the Tauzin Bill (although maybe less hard I hope after the Rush-Sawyer amendment), so the Bells have created a lot of enemies, often for good reason. -- Nathan - NetAction Notes Published by NetAction Issue No. 69 May 2, 2001 ACTION ALERT: Bill Threatens Broadband Internet Access (Date of alert: May 2, 2001) 1) Oppose H.R. 1542 NetAction is urging Internet users to contact members of the House Commerce Committee and urge them to vote no on H.R. 1542, the Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act of 2001. This bill would eliminate a key consumer protection in telecommunications. It poses a threat to the continued deployment of affordable broadband and dial-up Internet services, both of which are crucial to bridging the digital divide. The House Energy and Commerce Committee could vote on the bill as early as next week. Call committee members TODAY to urge them to vote no on H.R. 1542. 2) Why this bill threatens broadband Internet access As we reported in Broadband Briefings No. 18, H.R. 1542 would free the four remaining Bell phone monopolies from their obligation to open their networks to competitors. Rep. Billy Tauzin of Louisiana, who co-authored H.R. 1542 with Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, has put the bill on a fast track to passage in the House. Despite its name, H.R. 1542 will not ensure Internet freedom or broadband deployment. What it will do is eliminate a key consumer protection that Congress included in the Telecommunications Act of 1996: the requirement that the Bells open their local phone markets to competition before they are allowed into the long distance markets. Although this requirement is the only incentive the Bells have to treat their customers and competitors fairly, H.R. 1542 would waive this requirement for long distance data markets. Ludicrous as it sounds, Tauzin claims that this will ensure meaningful competition. But it won't. H.R. 1542 will put the four remaining Bell monopolies in control of the nation's telecommunications and technology infrastructure, threatening the future deployment of both broadband and dial-up Internet access and of competitive telephone service. The result for consumers would be less choice, lower quality service and higher prices for everything from basic phone service to Internet access. 3) Talking points H. R. 1542 will not promote competition. The Bells sat on DSL technology for years, deploying it widely only after competition developed. H.R. 1542 does not ensure that broadband services will be available in rural communities. Despite Tauzin's rhetoric, there is nothing in the bill that would require the Bells to deploy broadband service in rural areas. In fact, the Bells have been selling off their rural assets as fast as possible in recent years. The Bells can't be trusted to offer broadband service if the current restrictions are lifted. In the 1990s the Bells promised to deploy high-speed fiber optic networks in exchange for relaxed rate-of-return regulation. But instead of delivering on those promises, they pocketed the profits. H.R. 1542 will make it more difficult to bridge the digital divide. With less competition, the cost of Internet access will increase, making the service even less affordable to low-income consumers. 5) More background H.R. 1542 was introduced on Tuesday, April 24, was the subject of a hearing on Wednesday, April 25, and was approved on Thursday, April 26, by a 19-14 vote of the Internet and Telecommunications Subcommittee of the
FSC case appeal decision expected from WTO
WTO ruling on EU-US tax break row expected Monday GENEVA, May 15 (Reuters) - A panel set up by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to resolve a multi-billion dollar row between Washington and the European Union over U.S. export tax breaks should issue its findings on May 21, diplomatic sources said on Tuesday. It is expected to come on Monday, although that is not a legal deadline and there could be some delay, one diplomatic source said. The three-man panel is expected to send to Brussels and Washington its preliminary report on the dispute over U.S. tax relief to companies with offshore branches -- so called Foreign Sales Corporations (FSCs). The WTO ruled last year that the FSC programme, which grants some $4 billion a year in tax breaks to major U.S. exporters, was an illegal subsidy. Following the interim report, the two sides will have some three weeks to comment before the dispute settlement panel makes a final ruling in the long-running spat that threatens to erupt into an all-out trade war. Brussels accuses Washington of not abiding by earlier WTO rulings that the FSC system -- which includes corporate giants such as plane-maker Boeing [BA] and Microsoft [MSFT] -- violates global trade accords. It has warned that it is ready to ask the world trade watchdog for permission to impose sanctions totalling some $4 billion a year -- by far the highest amount ever sought -- if Washington loses again but fails to abide by the ruling. However, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, on a trip to Europe, warned the EU on Monday that such a move would be like dropping a nuclear bomb on the world trading system. Zoellick, who was speaking to the European Parliament's industry committee, said that such sanctions could send the row spinning out of control. There's is no doubt that if it starts to go into affecting that much trade, it is like using a nuclear weapon on the trading system, Zoellick said. In one of his last acts before leaving office, former President Bill Clinton signed tax legislation last November which Washington said brought it into line with the WTO rules. But Brussels says the new version is no better than the old. The two sides agreed in December to WTO arbitration and the panel was initially given 90 days in which to produce a report. But before the deadline expired, the panel said that it would need more time to reach a decision.
Re: FSC case appeal decision expected from WTO
What are the odds that the WTO will actually challenge the US? On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:06:46PM -0700, Ian Murray wrote: WTO ruling on EU-US tax break row expected Monday GENEVA, May 15 (Reuters) - A panel set up by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to resolve a multi-billion dollar row between Washington and the European Union over U.S. export tax breaks should issue its findings on May 21, diplomatic sources said on Tuesday. It is expected to come on Monday, although that is not a legal deadline and there could be some delay, one diplomatic source said. The three-man panel is expected to send to Brussels and Washington its preliminary report on the dispute over U.S. tax relief to companies with offshore branches -- so called Foreign Sales Corporations (FSCs). The WTO ruled last year that the FSC programme, which grants some $4 billion a year in tax breaks to major U.S. exporters, was an illegal subsidy. Following the interim report, the two sides will have some three weeks to comment before the dispute settlement panel makes a final ruling in the long-running spat that threatens to erupt into an all-out trade war. Brussels accuses Washington of not abiding by earlier WTO rulings that the FSC system -- which includes corporate giants such as plane-maker Boeing [BA] and Microsoft [MSFT] -- violates global trade accords. It has warned that it is ready to ask the world trade watchdog for permission to impose sanctions totalling some $4 billion a year -- by far the highest amount ever sought -- if Washington loses again but fails to abide by the ruling. However, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, on a trip to Europe, warned the EU on Monday that such a move would be like dropping a nuclear bomb on the world trading system. Zoellick, who was speaking to the European Parliament's industry committee, said that such sanctions could send the row spinning out of control. There's is no doubt that if it starts to go into affecting that much trade, it is like using a nuclear weapon on the trading system, Zoellick said. In one of his last acts before leaving office, former President Bill Clinton signed tax legislation last November which Washington said brought it into line with the WTO rules. But Brussels says the new version is no better than the old. The two sides agreed in December to WTO arbitration and the panel was initially given 90 days in which to produce a report. But before the deadline expired, the panel said that it would need more time to reach a decision. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: A Broadband Mandate?- Telecom Legislation Battle on Capitol Hill
Re: the opposing argument, if it's up to the Bells where to wire, how does a regulation to allow others to use their existing wiring give them any incentive to go into areas neglected because of profit considerations? It seems like a uni-service requirement included in the legislation obliterates Net Action's argument. mbs - Original Message - From: Max Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] This looks very good, but to be more convinced I'd like you to state the other side's progressive arguments, such as they are, at more length, along w/your refutations. The arguments come from very progressive consumer-style folks who are just promoting the same competition and deregulation arguments that were used to break up ATT and promote a range of other deregulatory disasters. It's the basic Naderite position that the best way to help consumers is to break up the monopolies into lots of competitors. However theoretically attractive the competition argument is in a populist mode, I just think the approach has been a rank failure in practice for decades. I happen to think progressives due better fighting to regulate the monopolies than trying to create the bizarre regulatory maze needed to create competition in inherently natural monopoly situations. Here is the basic argument from my old boss at NetAction, although she was writing about the bill without the Rush-Sawyer amendment. The basic argument that the bill reinforces Bell monopoly power is correct. The debate is whether regulating that monopoly or introducing competition is the best way to discipline them to protect consumers. I think regulating the Bells is the better way to go. But honest people differ since it's an empirical evaluation of likely political results from each strategy. Great Congressmen like John Conyers are opposing the Tauzin Bill (although maybe less hard I hope after the Rush-Sawyer amendment), so the Bells have created a lot of enemies, often for good reason. -- Nathan - NetAction Notes Published by NetAction Issue No. 69 May 2, 2001 ACTION ALERT: Bill Threatens Broadband Internet Access (Date of alert: May 2, 2001) 1) Oppose H.R. 1542 NetAction is urging Internet users to contact members of the House Commerce Committee and urge them to vote no on H.R. 1542, the Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act of 2001. This bill would eliminate a key consumer protection in telecommunications. It poses a threat to the continued deployment of affordable broadband and dial-up Internet services, both of which are crucial to bridging the digital divide. The House Energy and Commerce Committee could vote on the bill as early as next week. Call committee members TODAY to urge them to vote no on H.R. 1542. 2) Why this bill threatens broadband Internet access As we reported in Broadband Briefings No. 18, H.R. 1542 would free the four remaining Bell phone monopolies from their obligation to open their networks to competitors. Rep. Billy Tauzin of Louisiana, who co-authored H.R. 1542 with Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, has put the bill on a fast track to passage in the House. Despite its name, H.R. 1542 will not ensure Internet freedom or broadband deployment. What it will do is eliminate a key consumer protection that Congress included in the Telecommunications Act of 1996: the requirement that the Bells open their local phone markets to competition before they are allowed into the long distance markets. Although this requirement is the only incentive the Bells have to treat their customers and competitors fairly, H.R. 1542 would waive this requirement for long distance data markets. Ludicrous as it sounds, Tauzin claims that this will ensure meaningful competition. But it won't. H.R. 1542 will put the four remaining Bell monopolies in control of the nation's telecommunications and technology infrastructure, threatening the future deployment of both broadband and dial-up Internet access and of competitive telephone service. The result for consumers would be less choice, lower quality service and higher prices for everything from basic phone service to Internet access. 3) Talking points H. R. 1542 will not promote competition. The Bells sat on DSL technology for years, deploying it widely only after competition developed. H.R. 1542 does not ensure that broadband services will be available in rural communities. Despite Tauzin's rhetoric, there is nothing in the bill that would require the Bells to deploy broadband service in rural areas. In fact, the Bells have been selling off their rural assets as fast as possible in recent years. The Bells can't be trusted to offer broadband service if the current restrictions are lifted. In the 1990s the Bells promised to deploy high-speed fiber optic networks in exchange for relaxed rate-of-return regulation. But instead of delivering on those promises, they pocketed the profits. H.R. 1542 will make it more difficult to bridge the digital divide. With less competition, the cost of
Re: RE: Re: A Broadband Mandate?- Telecom Legislation Battle on Capitol Hill
The best argument NetAction and other folks have after the Rush-Sawyer amendment is that the Bells are wily wabbits who have often managed to wiggle their way out of other regulatory mandates. Netaction has a whole white paper on How The Bells Stole America's Digital Future at http://www.netaction.org/broadband/bells/The Bells have screwed around using profits from monopoly services to fund expansion into other areas, but then this period has seen a weakening of universal mandates. The same competition model is exactly what was used by the Bells to go into other ventures. As I said, this debate is one on likely strategic outcomes, although there is also the issue that many of the consumer groups care more about keeping rates low for middle class consumers with less worry about whether everyone will have access. Hooking up rural customers through mandate will get passed onto suburban users in even a regulated monopoly situation-- it is in the interest of those upper middle class consumers to oppose universal mandates. I don't think that is what is directly motivating the progressive consumer groups but when there is a strategic divide, the material base of a movement often dictates its direction in subtle ways. One of the legacies of deregulation is that where consumers, rich and poor, once had similar interests and thus Naderite consumer groups had less cross-purposes in representing different class groups, the present reality is such that different consumers have different interests in regulation policy. -- Nathan Newman - Original Message - From: Max Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 1:19 PM Subject: [PEN-L:11560] RE: Re: A Broadband Mandate?- Telecom Legislation Battle on Capitol Hill Re: the opposing argument, if it's up to the Bells where to wire, how does a regulation to allow others to use their existing wiring give them any incentive to go into areas neglected because of profit considerations? It seems like a uni-service requirement included in the legislation obliterates Net Action's argument. mbs - Original Message - From: Max Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] This looks very good, but to be more convinced I'd like you to state the other side's progressive arguments, such as they are, at more length, along w/your refutations. The arguments come from very progressive consumer-style folks who are just promoting the same competition and deregulation arguments that were used to break up ATT and promote a range of other deregulatory disasters. It's the basic Naderite position that the best way to help consumers is to break up the monopolies into lots of competitors. However theoretically attractive the competition argument is in a populist mode, I just think the approach has been a rank failure in practice for decades. I happen to think progressives due better fighting to regulate the monopolies than trying to create the bizarre regulatory maze needed to create competition in inherently natural monopoly situations. Here is the basic argument from my old boss at NetAction, although she was writing about the bill without the Rush-Sawyer amendment. The basic argument that the bill reinforces Bell monopoly power is correct. The debate is whether regulating that monopoly or introducing competition is the best way to discipline them to protect consumers. I think regulating the Bells is the better way to go. But honest people differ since it's an empirical evaluation of likely political results from each strategy. Great Congressmen like John Conyers are opposing the Tauzin Bill (although maybe less hard I hope after the Rush-Sawyer amendment), so the Bells have created a lot of enemies, often for good reason. -- Nathan - NetAction Notes Published by NetAction Issue No. 69 May 2, 2001 ACTION ALERT: Bill Threatens Broadband Internet Access (Date of alert: May 2, 2001) 1) Oppose H.R. 1542 NetAction is urging Internet users to contact members of the House Commerce Committee and urge them to vote no on H.R. 1542, the Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act of 2001. This bill would eliminate a key consumer protection in telecommunications. It poses a threat to the continued deployment of affordable broadband and dial-up Internet services, both of which are crucial to bridging the digital divide. The House Energy and Commerce Committee could vote on the bill as early as next week. Call committee members TODAY to urge them to vote no on H.R. 1542. 2) Why this bill threatens broadband Internet access As we reported in Broadband Briefings No. 18, H.R. 1542 would free the four remaining Bell phone monopolies from their obligation to open their networks to competitors. Rep. Billy Tauzin of Louisiana, who co-authored H.R. 1542 with Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, has put the bill on a fast track to passage in the House. Despite its name, H.R. 1542 will not ensure Internet freedom or broadband deployment. What it will do is
Re: RE: Camejo still bullish
David Shemano wrote: Mr. Proyect, I have a semi-serious question for you. Do you put your money where your mouth is? Assuming you have some money to invest, do you (would you) avoid SP 500 funds, and instead invest in funds that short the market, or gold, or other bearish funds? Where are the investment funds that are based on an application of a Marxist economic analysis? Any funds that invest primarily in Cuba? in my experience, there is nothing specific in Marxian political economy that gives any special knowledge about the stock market or other financial issues. Marx's discussions of financial markets in CAPITAL, for example, are based on bourgeois economics and newspapers. It's only when he's relating these markets to the structure and functioning of capitalism as a whole that he differs from standard economics. There is one advantage, however, as indicated in practice by Doug Henwood's WALL STREET: Marxian or Marx-influenced economists are much less likely to believe the Market's own propaganda the way that true believers in capitalism do. Thus, we don't fall for fads such as rational expectations or efficient markets that sweep economics from the right. Some Marxists have gone to Wall Street (e.g., as a result of being driven out of the labor unions by McCarthyism). Some, I've heard, claimed that Marxist insights could help them succeed there. I doubt it. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: pen-l malaise
At 07:40 PM 05/14/2001 -0700, you wrote: I don't think that we need to bicker about the IMF. It is a tool of the oppressors and does terrible harm. Now, now. a classic patronizing phrase. If there were no IMF--if there were no one willing and able to loan Argentina $40 billion to try to get it through its current episode of capital flight and foreign investor panic--how, exactly, would the people of Argentina be better off? Every serious attempt to answer this question I've heard involves somehow automagically reconstituting the functions of the IMF--a kinder, gentler IMF--with no plausible story of how the institution to carry out these functions is to be created. The availability of IMF loans gives countries facing financial crises a *few* more options: Harry Dexter White and John Maynard Keynes created it for a reason, after all. They were not dumb. As others have pointed out, it's a mistake to simply look at two fellows who created the IMF as a way to understand it. (Strictly speaking, it was the US and to a lesser extent the UK that created it. No two individuals are powerful enough to pull that kind of trick.) It's been a long time since then. The world system has changed a lot, while the IMF's mission has gone far beyond managing the international financial system. (BTW, Brad, have you noticed that we don't have fixed exchange rates between the rich countries's currencies any more?) Instead, nowadays it dictates economic policy whenever it can get its hooks into a country (because the country allows itself to get into debt to the world, often with the IMF's encouragement). And it does so at the behest of the US Treasury, so the economic policy is one that fits with the dominant US ideology and the economic interests dominating the US government. If you want to know how the international financial system would function in its absence, I have always thought that 1931 et sequelae in Austria gives you a good idea of what would be likely to happen... This is the either/or fallacy. Either my way (the IMF's) or the highway (perdition). There's no alternative to dictatorship by the IMF. Stop worrying and learn to love the bomb... A long time ago, in a land far far away from Berkeley, Thomas Hobbes argued that the only alternative to anarchy (by analogy, Austria's crisis, etc.) was to have a despotic state (the IMF). But as John Locke pointed out, because the leaders of the state are mere men and subject to the same lust for power as other people, a despotic Leviathan (the IMF, Pol Pot, etc.) simply creates a new kind of war -- between itself and the people. As Locke argued, the state needs to be subordinated to the democratic will of the people. Many have agreed with him, without accepting Locke's belief in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. In order to win the consent of the people, the IMF must be run democratically rather than in the technocratic-dictatorial way it is now. Now it's unlikely that democracy will prevail on a world scale in the near future (since, heck, it doesn't even prevail in the U.S.) As a compromise, perhaps we could return the IMF to the original role that Keynes and White recommended it. Given the way in which the IMF has screwed things up, it should be abolished, with its positive functions being shifted to the Bank of International Settlements... (of course this is silly, since the powers that be want to keep the IMF in the saddle. The banks and financiers aren't going to allow the IMF to be emasculated without a fight. But it does suggest a direction.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: pen-l malaise
Now it's unlikely that democracy will prevail on a world scale in the near future (since, heck, it doesn't even prevail in the U.S.) As a compromise, perhaps we could return the IMF to the original role that Keynes and White recommended it. Given the way in which the IMF has screwed things up, it should be abolished, with its positive functions being shifted to the Bank of International Settlements... (of course this is silly, since the powers that be want to keep the IMF in the saddle. The banks and financiers aren't going to allow the IMF to be emasculated without a fight. But it does suggest a direction.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine = How do we build on JD's suggestion. Things are gearing up for another action in DC against IMF/WB this fall so having some, dare I say, cookbooks, and arguments will be of great help to activists Ian
Expropriating Democracy update
http://election.independent.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=72520 Blair risks wrath of left in public sector reforms By Andrew Grice Political Editor 16 May 2001 Tony Blair will unveil a Labour manifesto today outlining sweeping reforms of the public sector that will give private firms a greater role in the provision of state-run services. The Prime Minister will risk the wrath of Labour traditionalists by warning that trade unions representing public sector workers will not be allowed to block his plans to transform education, health, transport and other services. In his introduction to the manifesto, Mr Blair will declare: There will be no ideological bar to the nature of reform and no vested interests standing in our way. He will add: The spirit of enterprise should apply as much to public services as to business. The 44page, 28,000 word manifesto, Ambitions for Britain, will be launched by Mr Blair and his Cabinet in an attempt to underline a pledge to decentralise power from Westminster and Whitehall if Labour wins a second term. Updating Mr Blair's contract with the people in his 1997 manifesto, the new document will set out key goals to be achieved by 2010. It also outlines 25 next steps covering five areas: prosperity for all; world-class public services; a modern welfare state; strong and safe communities; and a Britain strong in the world. The emphasis on 10-year plans suggests that Mr Blair hopes to win a big enough majority to secure Labour three successive terms in office, a move that may provoke charges that he is echoing Margaret Thatcher's hopes for 10 more years in power. Mr Blair will argue that the Government has shown its commitment to the key public services by pumping in billions of pounds. The deal is there must be reform as well, he will say. Labour leaders will deny that greater private sector involvement will amount to the privatisation of public services. The manifesto will finally confirm Labour's pledge not to raise the basic or higher rate of income tax, which party leaders hope will insulate them against Tory attacks over tax. Yesterday the Tories were again on the defensive as they sought to play down hints by a Shadow Cabinet member that the party might achieve tax cuts of £20bn a year. But their efforts were undermined by a study by the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies casting doubt on the £8bn of savings outlined in the Tory manifesto. Mr Hague also faced a rebellion over Europe as five MPs from the last Parliament signed an advert in The Independent today calling for a referendum on whether Britain should remain in the European Union. A poll of polls for last night's Channel 4 News showed Labour on 48 per cent (up two on last week); the Tories on 32 per cent (down two) and the Liberal Democrats on 15 per cent (up one). An ICM poll in The Guardian today gives Labour a 15-point lead and suggests it is ahead of the Tories on tax and public spending. Promising more change, not less if he wins a second term, Mr Blair will admit today that his Government has only just begun the task of transforming Britain. Now we ask for a chance to get the job done, he will say. He will argue that economic stability has been the key achievement of his first term, and that a radical overhaul of public services would be the key aim of his second term. He will make clear that the civil service will be included in the reform plan. Mr Blair will say: The British people achieved magnificent things in the 20th century but never fully realised our potential. It is as if a glass ceiling has stopped us fulfilling our potential. In the 21st century we have the opportunity to break through that glass ceiling because our historic strengths match the demands of the world. The key to achieving this, he will say, is to ensure that power, wealth and opportunity is concentrated in the hands of the many, not the few. The Prime Minister will say the choice facing the electorate is more stark and more important than in 1997 because the Tories have shifted to the right since. He will say: My passion is to continue the modernisation of Britain in favour of hard-working families so that all our children, wherever they live, whatever their background, have an equal chance to benefit and share its wealth.
RE: RE: Re: A Broadband Mandate?- Telecom Legislation Battle on Capitol Hill
From a bankruptcy lawyer's perspective, the concept of requiring the Bells to license their lines to competitors has turned out to be pipedream. The DSL industry has imploded over the past year.Several of the companies that licensed the lines (Northpoint, Rhythms) have already filed for bankruptcy. Covad Communications is probably only months away. The level of companies below Covad/Northpoint/Rhythms are filing bankruptcies left and right, which is in turn causing the companies up the food chain to suffer. (I represent the Creditors' Committee for Zyan Communications, which had 25,000 customers at its peak). The problem is that without huge, and I mean huge, economies of scale, DSL and other services are simply not profitable. A provider needs hundreds of thousands of paying customers, if not millions, for the structure to be profitable. Based upon current trends, the Bells will be the only companies with the financial resources to offer DSL service. The competition to the Bells will have to come mainly from the cable companies, and eventually DirecTV/Echostar if and when the technology becomes feasible and cost-effective. David Shemano - Original Message - From: Max Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] This looks very good, but to be more convinced I'd like you to state the other side's progressive arguments, such as they are, at more length, along w/your refutations. The arguments come from very progressive consumer-style folks who are just promoting the same competition and deregulation arguments that were used to break up ATT and promote a range of other deregulatory disasters. It's the basic Naderite position that the best way to help consumers is to break up the monopolies into lots of competitors. However theoretically attractive the competition argument is in a populist mode, I just think the approach has been a rank failure in practice for decades. I happen to think progressives due better fighting to regulate the monopolies than trying to create the bizarre regulatory maze needed to create competition in inherently natural monopoly situations. Here is the basic argument from my old boss at NetAction, although she was writing about the bill without the Rush-Sawyer amendment. The basic argument that the bill reinforces Bell monopoly power is correct. The debate is whether regulating that monopoly or introducing competition is the best way to discipline them to protect consumers. I think regulating the Bells is the better way to go. But honest people differ since it's an empirical evaluation of likely political results from each strategy. Great Congressmen like John Conyers are opposing the Tauzin Bill (although maybe less hard I hope after the Rush-Sawyer amendment), so the Bells have created a lot of enemies, often for good reason. -- Nathan - NetAction Notes Published by NetAction Issue No. 69 May 2, 2001 ACTION ALERT: Bill Threatens Broadband Internet Access (Date of alert: May 2, 2001) 1) Oppose H.R. 1542 NetAction is urging Internet users to contact members of the House Commerce Committee and urge them to vote no on H.R. 1542, the Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act of 2001. This bill would eliminate a key consumer protection in telecommunications. It poses a threat to the continued deployment of affordable broadband and dial-up Internet services, both of which are crucial to bridging the digital divide. The House Energy and Commerce Committee could vote on the bill as early as next week. Call committee members TODAY to urge them to vote no on H.R. 1542. 2) Why this bill threatens broadband Internet access As we reported in Broadband Briefings No. 18, H.R. 1542 would free the four remaining Bell phone monopolies from their obligation to open their networks to competitors. Rep. Billy Tauzin of Louisiana, who co-authored H.R. 1542 with Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, has put the bill on a fast track to passage in the House. Despite its name, H.R. 1542 will not ensure Internet freedom or broadband deployment. What it will do is eliminate a key consumer protection that Congress included in the Telecommunications Act of 1996: the requirement that the Bells open their local phone markets to competition before they are allowed into the long distance markets. Although this requirement is the only incentive the Bells have to treat their customers and competitors fairly, H.R. 1542 would waive this requirement for long distance data markets. Ludicrous as it sounds, Tauzin claims that this will ensure meaningful competition. But it won't. H.R. 1542 will put the four remaining Bell monopolies in control of the nation's telecommunications and technology infrastructure, threatening the future deployment of both broadband and dial-up Internet access and of competitive telephone service. The result for consumers would be less choice, lower quality service and higher prices for everything from basic phone service to Internet access. 3) Talking points H. R. 1542 will
corporate media is good for you
British and Canadian broadcasting is bad for you. One of the authors has been under discussion here recently. NBER WORKING PAPER Who Owns the Media? Simeon Djankov, Caralee McLiesh, Tatiana Nenova, Andrei Shleifer NBER Working Paper No. W8288 May 2001 Abstract: We examine the patterns of media ownership in 97 countries around the world. We find that almost universally the largest media firms are owned by the government or by private families. Government ownership is more pervasive in broadcasting than in the printed media. Government ownership of the media is generally associated with less press freedom, fewer political and economic rights, and, most conspicuously, inferior social outcomes in the areas of education and health. It does not appear that adverse consequences of government ownership of the media are restricted solely to the instances of government monopoly. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: RE: Re: A Broadband Mandate?- Telecom Legislation Battle on Capitol Hill
David Shemano wrote: From a bankruptcy lawyer's perspective, the concept of requiring the Bells to license their lines to competitors has turned out to be pipedream. The DSL industry has imploded over the past year.Several of the companies that licensed the lines (Northpoint, Rhythms) have already filed for bankruptcy. Covad Communications is probably only months away. The level of companies below Covad/Northpoint/Rhythms are filing bankruptcies left and right, which is in turn causing the companies up the food chain to suffer. (I represent the Creditors' Committee for Zyan Communications, which had 25,000 customers at its peak). The problem is that without huge, and I mean huge, economies of scale, DSL and other services are simply not profitable. A provider needs hundreds of thousands of paying customers, if not millions, for the structure to be profitable. Based upon current trends, the Bells will be the only companies with the financial resources to offer DSL service. The competition to the Bells will have to come mainly from the cable companies, and eventually DirecTV/Echostar if and when the technology becomes feasible and cost-effective. I agree. And this was entirely foreseeable (it's not a million miles from the natural monopoly argument, after all). I'm left wondering ... if Greene had kept ATT as was in'82 (regulated wire monopoly across local loops and long-distance), and the government had allowed providers of other delivery technologies into phone markets, competition from cable (the potential of which was already obvious), satellite (IBM/Aetna/Hughes's SBS Ku-band satellite had already showed its technical potential, if not any profitability in the moment - precisely because they weren't allowed to compete at the level of wire backbone), and microwave (MCI was on to this precisely because they weren't allowed to compete at the level of wire backbone) could have taken care of the innovation-inducing aspect of competition, without inviting nearly so many of the costs that attend competition (eg duplication of delivery technology, consumer confusion regarding long-distance calls, market-by-market litigation against RBOC local monopolies and, er, bankruptcy proceedings). Does that sound convincing at all? Cheers, Rob.
Re: Re: RE: Camejo still bullish
I understand that David Rockefeller used to invite Stephen Hymer to discuss things because he had such good insights. Business Week always keeps some lefties on board. On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:44:37PM -0700, Jim Devine wrote: Some Marxists have gone to Wall Street (e.g., as a result of being driven out of the labor unions by McCarthyism). Some, I've heard, claimed that Marxist insights could help them succeed there. I doubt it. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A Broadband Mandate?- Telecom Legislation Battle onCapitol Hill
I thought that MCI and some of the others were cherry picking ATT before Greene's decision. Rob Schaap wrote: I'm left wondering ... if Greene had kept ATT as was in'82 (regulated wire monopoly across local loops and long-distance), and the government had allowed providers of other delivery technologies into phone markets, competition from cable (the potential of which was already obvious), satellite (IBM/Aetna/Hughes's SBS Ku-band satellite had already showed its technical potential, if not any profitability in the moment - precisely because they weren't allowed to compete at the level of wire backbone), and microwave (MCI was on to this precisely because they weren't allowed to compete at the level of wire backbone) could have taken care of the innovation-inducing aspect of competition, without inviting nearly so many of the costs that attend competition (eg duplication of delivery technology, consumer confusion regarding long-distance calls, market-by-market litigation against RBOC local monopolies and, er, bankruptcy proceedings). Does that sound convincing at all? Cheers, Rob. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad, Oil Kakistocracy
[No mention of US role in kakistocracy formations; nor the corps hiring of security firms to lay mines to secure construction zones; see second piece below article] full piece at http://www.nytimes.com May 16, 2001 Chad's Wait for Wealth From Its Oil May Be Long By NORIMITSU ONISHI with NEELA BANERJEE KOMÉ, Chad - A dozen men waited under the one giant tree that stood - luckily for them, given the brutal midday sun - just across from the front gate of Exxon Mobil's office here. They were waiting for lunch time, and one of the new Toyota Land Cruisers carrying an expatriate boss, who might, at long last, stop at the gate and offer them work. A couple of them said they had been here nearly three years. None had worked a single day so far. Yet many more job-hunters joined them after Oct. 18, the day the presidents of Chad and Cameroon came here with officials of the World Bank and a consortium of three of the world's biggest oil companies - Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Petronas of Malaysia - to begin one of the biggest projects in African history: a $3.7 billion, 665- mile pipeline to carry crude oil from landlocked Chad, through neighboring Cameroon, to the Atlantic coast. The new arrivals have swelled the population of a village of straw huts that has sprung up next to the headquarters of the project. Its hopeful denizens have named the new village Ça Attend - It's Waiting, in French. They tell us to wait - `Wait, wait, be patient' - so we are waiting, said Julien Djimasdé, 31, who has stood at the gate every day since October. Me? I have not lost hope. We are waiting and hoping that one day luck will smile on us. A generation ago, the prospect of oil in a desperately poor former French colony like Chad would have been regarded as an indisputable stroke of good luck. But intervening years have bared an enduring paradox: sudden wealth does not lift poor nations out of their poverty, but instead creates societies afflicted with a wealthy, corrupting elite, and widespread poverty that caused endless conflict. [snip] http://www.house.gov/mckinney/news/pr010416.htm Covert Action in Africa: A Smoking Gun in Washington, D.C. April 16, 2001 Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney OPENING STATEMENT I want to thank you all for coming today. I especially want to thank our esteemed speakers for traveling in some instances quite a long way, to be with us today. Our speakers are courageous individuals who have gone to many of Africa's most dangerous and desperately poor locations, not for wealth or riches, but in order to merely discover the truth. They provide us with a remarkable insight into what has gone on in Africa and what continues to go on in Africa today. Much of what you will hear today has not been widely reported in the public media. Powerful forces have fought to suppress these stories from entering the public domain. Their investigations into the activities of Western governments and Western businessmen in post-colonial Africa provide clear evidence of the West's long-standing propensity for cruelty, avarice, and treachery. The misconduct of Western nations in Africa is not due to momentary lapses, individual defects, or errors of common human frailty. Instead, they form part of long-term malignant policy designed to access and plunder Africa's wealth at the expense of its people. In short, the accounts you are about to hear provide an indictment of Western activities in Africa. That West has, for decades, plundered Africa's wealth and permitted, and even, assisted in slaughtering Africa's people. The West has been able to do this while still shrewdly cultivating the myth the that much of Africa's problems today are African madeówe have all heard the usual Western defenses that Africa's problems are the fault of corrupt African administrations, the fault of centuries-old tribal hatreds, the fault of unsophisticated peoples rapidly entering a modern high technology world. But we know that those statements are all a lie. We have always known it. The accounts we are about to hear today assist us in understanding just why Africa is in the state it is in today. You will hear that at the heart of Africa's suffering is the West's, and most notably the United States', desire to access Africa's diamonds, oil, natural gas, and other precious resources. You will hear that the West, and most notably the United States, has set in motion a policy of oppression, destabalisation and tempered, not by moral principle, but by a ruthless desire to enrich itself on Africa's fabulous wealth. While falsely pretending to be the friends and allies of many African countries, so desperate for help and assistance, many western nations, and I'm ashamed to say most notably the United States, have in reality betrayed those countries' trustóand instead, have relentlessly pursued their own selfish military and economic policies. Western countries have incited rebellion against stable African governments by encouraging and even
government media is bad for you
No. Britain and Canada are outliers in their regression. Think of Malaysia, or China, if you want a typical country in which the government has a large media share. The government media-inferior health and the government media-inferior education correlations made me think of a possible tie-in with Sen's arguments about famines, publicity, and democracy... Brad DeLong British and Canadian broadcasting is bad for you. One of the authors has been under discussion here recently. NBER WORKING PAPER Who Owns the Media? Simeon Djankov, Caralee McLiesh, Tatiana Nenova, Andrei Shleifer NBER Working Paper No. W8288 May 2001 Abstract: We examine the patterns of media ownership in 97 countries around the world. We find that almost universally the largest media firms are owned by the government or by private families. Government ownership is more pervasive in broadcasting than in the printed media. Government ownership of the media is generally associated with less press freedom, fewer political and economic rights, and, most conspicuously, inferior social outcomes in the areas of education and health. It does not appear that adverse consequences of government ownership of the media are restricted solely to the instances of government monopoly. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: corporate media is good for you
Michael Perelman quoted: NBER WORKING PAPER Who Owns the Media? Simeon Djankov, Caralee McLiesh, Tatiana Nenova, Andrei Shleifer NBER Working Paper No. W8288 May 2001 Abstract: We examine the patterns of media ownership in 97 countries around the world. We find that almost universally the largest media firms are owned by the government or by private families. Government ownership is more pervasive in broadcasting than in the printed media. Government ownership of the media is generally associated with less press freedom, fewer political and economic rights, and, most conspicuously, inferior social outcomes in the areas of education and health. It does not appear that adverse consequences of government ownership of the media are restricted solely to the instances of government monopoly. I know I'm not meant to respond to such nuttery, but ... this has GOTTA be a joke, no? To blame the Beeb, or our own ABC, for lapsing education and health is rabid, wall-biting, moon-baying, democracy-loathing madness! And to bracket (and thus hide the attributes of) the likes of Britain and Australia with the likes of Togo, Zimbabwe, Moldova, Iraq, Afghanistan and North Korea in an investigation of 'social outcomes in the areas of health and education' is, well ... there ain't a word derisive and angry enough to do the job ... And then there's the 'independent' variable thingy. Waddabout the variable of poverty, ferchrissakes! After all, the only reason people don't publish papers claiming that high GDPs in combination with public health insurance/education systems are good predictors of high education and health levels is that it's so bloody obvious! How do these pricks explain France, the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Canada?! As for education, in which country is it that millions think that (a) evolution is a conspiracy, (b) Tasmania is in Africa (c) the sun goes around the earth, (d) WW2 was between America and Russia, (e) trickle-down economics works, (f) the UN is a communist conspiracy set to invade the US with fleets of black helicopters, (g) you have media freedom only when about four really rich blokes control the lot, (h) every correlation, no matter how daft the categories you compare, constitutes a cause-effect relationship, and (i) the direction of causation is to be calculated according to the rule that if the dependent variable is bad, the independent variable is government? And then there's Cuba - where government media are (unlike in the aforementioned cases) controlled, and where life expectancy and literacy levels exceed those of the bloody US of A (if we can trust statistics as much as Doug and Brad assure us we can, anyway). Splutter fume !#*, Rob.
Re: government media is bad for you
Brad DeLong wrote: No. Britain and Canada are outliers in their regression. Think of Malaysia, or China, if you want a typical country in which the government has a large media share. The government media-inferior health and the government media-inferior education correlations made me think of a possible tie-in with Sen's arguments about famines, publicity, and democracy... What makes Britain, Canada, France, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, and Singapore 'outliers' and China and Malaysia 'inliers', ferchrissakes? And I thought Sen's point was that where there was democracy there was less chance of famines, the latter having more to do with the nature of local institutional power relations than with natural scarcity. How does a media duopoly predict famine, ferchrissakes? What am I missing? Completely bemused, Rob.
Re: A Broadband Mandate?- Telecom Legislation Battle on Capitol Hill
- Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] I thought that MCI and some of the others were cherry picking ATT before Greene's decision. Absolutely. Under the regulatory structure established by the FCC and the states, ATT had to rebate 40% of all the costs of a long distrance call to local phone networks, while MCI only had to pay the equivalent of roughly 20% of a call. That meant that MCI could cut rates by 20% compared to ATT and still make as much profit, giving it the ability to offer deep discounts to corporate customers at ATT's expense. By the time the consent decree was negotiated -- remember, the breakup was not a judicial decision but a voluntary agreeement between ATT and the feds -- ATT actually wanted the breakup to escape the regulatory box it had been put in, where it had to subsidize universal access while MCI, Sprint and other companies could cherry-pick profitable customers with discounts ATT could not match. One of the reasons I have written on this broadband access issue is that we are threatening to repeat history, again at the expense of universal access and to the advantage of corporate swine. -- Nathan Newman
Re: government media is bad for you
Is Brad blaming NPR for the kids here without health insurance? Gene Coyle Brad DeLong wrote: No. Britain and Canada are outliers in their regression. Think of Malaysia, or China, if you want a typical country in which the government has a large media share. The government media-inferior health and the government media-inferior education correlations made me think of a possible tie-in with Sen's arguments about famines, publicity, and democracy... Brad DeLong British and Canadian broadcasting is bad for you. One of the authors has been under discussion here recently. NBER WORKING PAPER Who Owns the Media? Simeon Djankov, Caralee McLiesh, Tatiana Nenova, Andrei Shleifer NBER Working Paper No. W8288 May 2001 Abstract: We examine the patterns of media ownership in 97 countries around the world. We find that almost universally the largest media firms are owned by the government or by private families. Government ownership is more pervasive in broadcasting than in the printed media. Government ownership of the media is generally associated with less press freedom, fewer political and economic rights, and, most conspicuously, inferior social outcomes in the areas of education and health. It does not appear that adverse consequences of government ownership of the media are restricted solely to the instances of government monopoly. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: government media is bad for you
Britain and Canada are outliers in their regression. Think of Malaysia, or China, if you want a typical country in which the government has a large media share. The government media-inferior health and the government media-inferior education correlations made me think of a possible tie-in with Sen's arguments about famines, publicity, and democracy... Oh, and I'm not sure a list of the worst famines of the last thirty years would include either China or Malaysia, would it? Cheers, Rob.
government-owned media is bad for you
From pp. 4-5: We then consider the consequences of state ownership of the media To this end, we run regressions of a variety of outcomes across countries on state ownership of the media, holding constant the level of development, the degree of autocracy, and overall state ownership of the economy. We find pervasive evidence of bad outcomes associated with state ownership of the media (especially the press), holding country characteristics constant. The evidence is inconsistent with the Pigouvian view of state ownership of the media. Still, since we only have a cross-section of countries, we cannot decisively interpret this evidence as causal, i.e., as showing that state ownership of the media rather than some omitted country characteristic is responsible for the bad outcomes. We note, however, that the omitted characteristic must be quite closely related to the inclination of the government to control information flows, since we are controlling for a number of dimensions of badness in the regressions... How much it is worth depends on how good a measure of autocracy their autocracy index is. If it is a lousy measure, then all their regressions show is that autocracy is bad and that adding more information about the degree of autocracy allows for the better prediction of bad outcomes. If their autocracy index is a good measure, then I think it's an interesting--but not totally unexpected--fact that an unfree press has a number of destructive consequences
The Wars in Colombia: Drugs, Guns, and Oil May 17-19, 2001
Hello Pen-l, Below are details about an upcoming UC Davis conference on the conflicts in Colombia. Seth The Wars in Colombia: Drugs, Guns, and Oil May 17-19, 2001 A conference sponsored by The Hemispheric Institute on the Americas (HIA) University of California, Davis Conference Site:University Club Conference Center Old Davis Road (south side of UC campus), Davis, CA Thursday, May 17: 6:00 pm, Welcoming Reception, 6:45 Lecture: Colombia: an Event without Witnesses, or the Impossibility of a Narration of Violence Friday, May 18, Saturday, May 19, 9:00 am -5:00 pm, Panel Presentations Themes include: Plan Colombia, Drug Wars, Andean Security, U.S. Fumigation, Biodiversity, Petroviolence, Paramilitaries, Guerrillas, Peace Efforts, Regional Repercussions Human Rights, Indigenous Rights, Civilian Displacement and Refugees Speakers:Erna von der Walde, Catherine LeGrand, Bruce Bagley, Paul de la Garza, Consuelo Ahumada, Adrian Bonilla, Suzana Sawyer, Mauricio Romero, María Eugenia Sánchez-Gómez, Javier Moncayo, Jean Jackson, Luis Murillo, Jesus Avirama, Elsa Nivia, Gabriel Nemogá, Leslie Wirpsa, Thad Dunning, Betsy Boatner, Sandra Alvarez, Hiram Ruiz Full schedule, info. on participants, and directions to U. Club at: http://trc.ucdavis.edu/hia/cc.html All Events Free and Open to the Public Co-sponsored by the UC Davis Division of Social Sciences and Division of Humanities, Arts, and Cultural Studies of the College of Letters and Science; the College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences; and the Department of Spanish and Classics _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: Re: government media is bad for you
Brad DeLong wrote: No. Britain and Canada are outliers in their regression. Think of Malaysia, or China, if you want a typical country in which the government has a large media share. The government media-inferior health and the government media-inferior education correlations made me think of a possible tie-in with Sen's arguments about famines, publicity, and democracy... What makes Britain, Canada, France, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, and Singapore 'outliers' and China and Malaysia 'inliers', ferchrissakes? That there are a lot more countries like China and Malaysia than like the OECD countries with broadcasting monopolies: the BBC gets swamped by Turkmenistan TV. But one of the most interesting things about the paper (not in the abstract) is that it is a high government ownership share of the *press*--not broadcasting--that appears to be truly poisonous... The tie-in with Sen is that I think of his democracy-famine link and this government-owned media result as both being about the beneficial effects of what Hirschman calls voice.
Re: Re: government media is bad for you
Is Brad blaming NPR for the kids here without health insurance? No. The U.S. has a very small government-owned media share. It ought to--or rather their regressions predict--that the U.S. should have better health outcomes than it does...
NMD and Asian power realignments
India is the new Pakistan America's proposed missile defence system is causing a frantic realignment of alliances in south Asia Luke Harding Wednesday May 16, 2001 The Guardian For students of south Asian politics, the diplomatic choreography of the past week has been intriguing. Over in New Delhi, the bullet-shaped US deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage, was busy convincing India of the virtues of the Bush administration's national missile defence programme (NMD). In Islamabad, meanwhile, China's prime minister, Zhu Rongji, has been expressing his country's eternal friendship with Pakistan, its nuclear neighbour. Already, it seems, the White House's contentious star wars scheme is provoking a new realignment of forces in the region. China and Pakistan are bitterly opposed to NMD. They are in one camp. In the other are the US and its new strategic ally, India. Most of the countries visited by George Bush's frantic envoys over the past few days have given the NMD a lukewarm response. India, by contrast, has enthusiastically welcomed the idea. India's prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, has publicly lauded the president's bold vision of an anti-missile defence shield capable of protecting the world from rogue nuclear states. The Indian government's stand is, of course, motivated largely by self-interest. Most observers believe that, following New Delhi's zealous endorsement of NMD, the Bush administration will lift the sanctions that were imposed on India three years ago in the wake of its nuclear tests. The sanctions are expected to be removed in the next three to six months. Mr Vajpayee, meanwhile, has invited President Bush to visit the subcontinent - an offer which has reportedly been accepted by the White House. The president's envoys, who have been busy selling NMD to Moscow, London, Istanbul, Tokyo and Seoul, have so far not bothered to visit Pakistan. According to a report in the New York Times, Mr Armitage has singled out Pakistan as one of several irresponsible rogue states from which NMD is supposed to offer protection. The others include North Korea, Libya, Iran and Iraq. Against this backdrop, then, prime minister Zhu Rongji's visit to Pakistan has a tantalising piquancy. China and Pakistan have been allies for a long time. According to US intelligence sources, China has substantially assisted Pakistan to develop its nuclear missile programme, which most defence analysts believe is now far superior to India's. Last weekend a Chinese journalist asked Pakistan's military ruler, General Pervez Musharraf, what he thought of NMD. His reply was guarded. But it was clear that he is not exactly a fan. We are against any action that reinitiates the nuclear and missile race, he declared. And so, in the face of a new and perplexing hostility from the US, China and Pakistan have pledged to deepen their friendship. As each day passes, the contours of this pragmatic anti-American alliance become more defined. Zhu Rongji, quoting an ancient Chinese proverb, put it like this: It takes high winds to know the strength of grass and it takes time to know the heart of man. The precious friendship between the two countries had withstood the test of history, he told a banquet in Lahore. All this, of course, illustrates just how far we have come from the 1970s and 1980s, when America indulged Pakistan as its favoured ally in the region. The US regarded Mrs Gandhi's India as being pro-Moscow. And it was deeply suspicious - with good reason, as it turned out - of the Soviet Union's ambitions in central Asia and Afghanistan. When the Soviets invaded Kabul, it was an earlier Republican administration that showered Pakistan with economic and military assistance. But times have changed. The mojahedin groups that enjoyed American largesse in their brave guerrilla war against Russia went on to declare jihad against the US. And the Taliban, aided by Pakistan, seized Afghanistan. The Taliban continue to harbour the US's arch-foe, Osama bin Laden. As far as the Bush administration is concerned, India is now the new Pakistan. This biblical casting off of an old friend by the Bush regime has caused great upset in Islamabad - not least because of the military's natural antipathy towards the previous White House incumbent, Bill Clinton. Last year, Clinton made a triumphant five-day pilgrim age to India - and dropped in to Islamabad for only five hours in order to give General Musharraf a ticking off for having seized power in a coup. As one very senior Pakistani general told me, every single ordinary Pakistani rejoiced when George W was elected - and this, he asked rhetorically, is how he repays us? NMD, he added, is a bad idea. It could set off a new nuclear arms race in a region not exactly noted for its restraint. Despite an impending visit by Pakistan's foreign minister Abdul Sattar to Washington next month, it could be a long time before these one-time allies rediscover their special relationship. And
Ooooops
[Is this what they mean by randomness in the EMH? :-)] Slip of finger that cost City dearly Jill Treanor, deputy city editor Wednesday May 16, 2001 The Guardian An incidence of fat finger syndrome - inadvertently pressing the wrong button on a computer keyboard - landed an American investment bank with multimillion pound losses yesterday and is expected to cost the young City trader involved his job. Lehman Brothers, a big US firm based in the Square Mile, is having to provide an urgent explanation to the stock exchange and the financial services authority, the city watchdog, who want to know the reason for a mistake that caused a 120 point fall on the FTSE 100 index on Monday afternoon, temporarily wiping almost £40bn from the value of Britain's top companies. The bank was in the process of completing a complicated share trade, which involved the simultaneous computerised sale of almost all the shares in the Top 100 index. According to City sources, the trader inadvertently entered details to sell shares in leading companies such as oil company BP and pharmaceuticals group Astra Zeneca which were 100 times bigger than he had intended. The deal amounted to £300m rather than £3m and flashed across stock market screens just as the stock market was about to close, causing a precipitous fall on the Footsie, the barometer of British corporate health. While computer keyboard errors have affected the market before, they have not had the extreme consequences of Monday when the FTSE 100 index will forever register a close some 200 points lower than had been expected. It closed at 5,690 on Monday but yesterday had recoved to 5,892 as share prices corrected themselves. Lehman Brothers was said to be nursing losses of between £5m and £10m, having been forced to buy back shares it had not intended to sell. The exact scale of the losses is difficult to quantify because they increased as the stock market rose yesterday. One City source said the error occurred when a trader had tried to input a fraction - expressed as a decimal - such as 0.5, but had input 50 instead. Lehman Brothers refused to comment but other investment banks confirmed that an error on its trading desk late on Monday had been the cause for the stock market decline. The US bank faces a hefty fine from the stock exchange if its investigation concludes that it failed to have systems in place to prevent an erroneous deal being executed. The FSA has the powers to censor individuals involved. Even if the loss was caused by a genuine mistake, City regulators want to establish why Lehman's internal computer systems did not ring alarm bells and prevent the trade taking place. One source described it as a case of fat fingers - pressing too many keys. The stock exchange said: We are talking to the member firm concerned and treating it as human error. We want to know how the error slipped through the net. The FSA said it was monitoring the situation but neither it nor the stock exchange would confirm the offending firm was Lehman Brothers.
Re: Re: Re: government media is bad for you
I'd written: What makes Britain, Canada, France, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, and Singapore 'outliers' and China and Malaysia 'inliers', ferchrissakes? And Brad replied: That there are a lot more countries like China and Malaysia than like the OECD countries with broadcasting monopolies: the BBC gets swamped by Turkmenistan TV. Exactly, Brad! Half a billion well educated and healthy people are reduced to the status of 'outliers' - by way of selecting a *single* variable, presuming it to be an *independent* variable, and then presuming it to be a *decisive* variable. So [I]t does not appear that adverse consequences of government ownership of the media are restricted solely to the instances of government monopoly, implicitly condemns broadcasting duopolies in*all* institutional and economic settings. But it gets worse ... But one of the most interesting things about the paper (not in the abstract) is that it is a high government ownership share of the *press*--not broadcasting--that appears to be truly poisonous... Well, in light of the professed fact that Government ownership is more pervasive in broadcasting than in the printed media, the abstract should be clear about this, don't you think? I mean, are they tarring government broadcasting with the same brush, or not? The abstract certainly does. Public broadcasting in rich countries is wrong because people are unhealthy and uneducated in poor countries where governments control the presses ... Here in public-broadcasting-inflicted Australia, we're still hung up on the old idea that you should be clear about what your variables are before you try to quantify the relationship between them. Hell, some even believe that it's a good idea to try to fit a little validity into your categories ... The tie-in with Sen is that I think of his democracy-famine link and this government-owned media result as both being about the beneficial effects of what Hirschman calls voice. A duopoly will get you more 'voice' than any of the alternatives, mate - and on a lot less channels, too (and that's true in theory, too - whether you subscribe to the leftie position of 'control by concentrated ownership', Chomsky's 'filters' thesis, or Steiner's more mainstream thesis of competitive programming [ie. strategic emulation] - and it's not as if the three are particularly incompatible with each other, either - I swallow 'em all, myself). Cheers, Rob.
Re: Ooooops
G'day Ian, [Is this what they mean by randomness in the EMH? :-)] Slip of finger that cost City dearly Yep, a network is as capacious, fast and reliable as its smallest, slowest and least reliable node. And that's us ... whom nature is not likely to make any bigger, faster and more reliable for a few thousand years yet. Cheers, Rob.
Re: Re: Ooooops
Greetings Economists, Rob Schaap writes, Rob, Yep, a network is as capacious, fast and reliable as its smallest, slowest and least reliable node. And that's us ... whom nature is not likely to make any bigger, faster and more reliable for a few thousand years yet. Doyle Human minds are robust compared to serial Von Neumann architectures whose software are sometimes referred to as fragile. Secondly for many types of problems neural networks are faster than sequential logical solutions. These have to do with those situations in which a rule logically expressed cannot readily be constructed for usually dynamical non-linear phenomenon. Actually within the next generation bigger faster and more reliable will happen. Just finished watching one of those cyborg things on PBS a few minutes ago. But goes with my new job in Knowledge Management. The program proposes that computers and humans will blend and points at two areas; first external wearable ubiquitous computers. See the U.S. army IT units with heads up displays that can show the platoon the same image at once and keeps the platoon constantly in touch all the time. This would fit the bill as bigger faster already. Secondly, brain size (though such increases are limited by brain energy limits, see Evolving Brains, John Allman, Scientific American Libraries, 1999, 2000, page 160, log brain weight = 0.75 log body weight - 0.94) can increase through hormone intervention in developmental stages, nano technology can implant computing molecules, input from eye and ear interfaces can redesign the function of infant neural connectivity (already typical of blind babies whose visual centers in the occipital lobe rewire to other sensory inputs). Knowledge Management has a mandate to investigate and build human networks that increase the productivity of individual human beings brain work. What are learning structures, data base access in attentional brainstorming, etc,? are the everyday discussions we do in our job? What is a staff that is never out of touch with the job mean, what is the purpose of work groups in distributed spaces? thanks, Doyle Saylor
IMF
Brad DeLong writes: Britain's march to socialism halted in 1976 by IMF! *Snort*. = A cocaine habit might explain how it is you would actually believe most of what you contribute here. In fact, as you are probably aware, there was a protracted struggle within the ruling Labour Party at that time between the Parliamentary leadership and its National Executive Committee (explaining why Blair's first actions involved emasculating the NEC). This was within a much wider context of political struggle and economic stagnation as a result of the breakdown of golden-age capitalism. Thanks to the IMF the seeds of Thatcherism and monetarism were firmly planted in the UK political economy (Callaghan to 1976 Labour conference: we cannot spend our way out of a recession). They had already been tried once before by the Heath government's Selsdon man incarnation, before Heath turned foursquare towards full-scale corporatism, preparing the groundwork for the sort of proposals featured in Labour's Programme 1973 (and subsequently watered down by Harold Wilson). In short, Britain was not marching to socialism in 1976 -- it was riven with conflict and dissension, and the decisive factor in turning events toward Thatcherism was that IMF intervention. Given the plausible alternative of a Bennite Labour government supported by a mass movement there was a clear need for elements of the UK establishment to unite with their US benefactors in order to shore up that special relationship which would otherwise dematerialise, not to mention the fundamental changes to the UK political economy that would have resulted. = Look: I think that IMF mission creep--the idea that they know that Anglo-American models of financial organization are superior to Germano-Japanese models, say--is a serious danger. I think that the IMF charged Mexico too high an interest rate and loaned it money for too short a time period in the 1990s. I think that the IMF blew it when it demanded the closing of some (but not all) of Indonesia's insolvent banks. I think the IMF routinely blows it when it demands that countries receiving aid take rapid steps to produce immediate budget surpluses... = That's a welcome clarification. = ...but that is because the IMF is underfunded, and wants a borrowing government to show a budget surplus so that it can be confident it will be paid back in time for it to have resources to deal with the next crisis. = Never mind the trained incapacity of its economists to understand the implications of what they are doing (unless in fact they do, in which case they are fundamentally criminal). = But all these valid criticisms miss the big point: the IMF shows up at the party with lots of money (and conditions) when a financial crisis hits. That's a very valuable function--indeed, Jim Callaghan thought it was a very nice thing to have back in 1976... = ...and look what happened to him. In fact, look what happens to anyone who invites the IMF to the party. Not quite what Harry Dexter White and John Maynard Keynes had in mind, I'm sure even you would agree. Michael K.
