Re: divisions was Re: crisis of leadership ?
To play the issue and not the man, I would say that Sabri Oncu is incorrect in seeing the divisions he gave in April in this reference http://www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/AllianceIssues/ALL35MLCP%28TURKEY%29GA2000.HTM as mostly psychological/personal stuff, although the ones involved would argue otherwise. It must be extremely difficult for radicals or revolutionaries in Turkey to know how to struggle, what the main target should be and with whom to unite. Especially when there will have been agents provocateurs and other dirty tricks. But these are real dilemmas of great magnitude in the real world. There are bound to be contradictions: the question is how to avoid the contradictions being antagonistic. The conclusion of the article seems to me to be the central point on which the authors are wrong. Yet it is put in a sober and psychologically stable way: The experience of the MLKP has confirmed the fact that, there can be no common and middle ground between those, who are for Marxism-Leninism and those who are for opportunism and revisionism and between those who are for bourgeois democracy and those who are for the dictatorship of the proletariat and Soviet power. Any attempt to hold or bring these two antagonistic parties together, will not only be futile, but will also lead to reactionary results ideologically and politically. IMO the struggle against opportunism and revisionism needs to accept that these are abstract concepts that have to be handled in a complex concrete context in which any one individual, psychologically balanced or not, could make opportunist errors to the left or right. To the extent that the struggle to apply marxist ideas in a concrete situation is helped by a struggle against opportunism and revisionism, IMO that struggle is best firmly located in the context of practice and building up a wider unity with a large measure of latitude for trial and error on everyone's part. Other members of this list are likely to disagree for reasons that have a long history in marxism. The issues are big. The psychological stuff should focus on whether the contradictions have been handled inappropriately antagonistically and in an inflammatory manner. Inappropriate, that is, for the arena concerned. But the contradictions certainly exist. They are a reflection of the contradictions in the external world. Chris At 28/04/02 17:14 -0700, you wrote: Chris writes: I suspect it is the reason why the Trotskyist political groups to the left of the French socialist party cannot unite in a single party: they won't accept each other's leadership. I don't know about France but this used to be/is the case in Turkey, as I mentioned a few times. Take a look at this to see how bad the situation can get: http://www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/AllianceIssues/ALL35MLCP%28T URKEY%29GA2000.HTM Actually, it was/is much worse than what you will see in the above. These divisions are not ideological, they are mostly psychological/personal stuff, although the ones involved would argue otherwise. Best, Sabri
Johannesburg
US accused of sinking deal on development Hopes fade for successor to Rio meeting in South Africa John Vidal Monday June 10, 2002 The Guardian Urgent attempts are to be made by the UN to try to resuscitate the world's largest ever meeting on poverty and the environment, following the collapse of preparatory talks in Bali at the weekend. There are less than ten weeks to go until the start of the Johannesburg World Summit on sustainable development, which is expected to attract more than 100 world leaders and 60,000 delegates. But the chances of agreement between rich and poor countries before the start of the meeting is unlikely, and governments are expected to be embarrassed by their perceived failure to address the most pressing poverty and environmental issues. Yesterday, the blame for the collapse of the talks was put on rich countries, led by the US, who refused to compromise in several key areas including trade and finance. The US came with more than 200 delegates and tried to water down or rewrite agreements already made and to avoid all binding commitments, said Oxfam International. The grouping of poor countries was hopelessly fragmented. Friends of the Earth International accused the US of hijacking the meeting, with the help of Australia, Japan and Canada, and trying to force through a free-trade agenda and doing all it could to prevent commitments. Other groups, including Greenpeace, issued a joint statement calling the meeting a disaster for the poor and the environment. The August meeting in Johannesburg, a follow-up to the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, is intended to set a development path for the world over the next decade. No new international treaties are expected to be signed, but it is considered vital to help reduce poverty, which in some parts of the world is on the increase. Kofi Annan, the secretary general of the UN, has argued that the summit should address basic areas such as water, housing and energy. At present, 800 million people do not get enough to eat, 1.1 billion lack access to safe water, 2.4 billion have no basic sanitation, and a similar number have no electricity. The US, by far the world's largest aid giver, continued its post-September 11 agenda in Bali by insisting that aid from rich countries should be conditional on good governance. Rich countries also refused to make any binding commitments for transnational companies to become more socially responsible, or to reform the world's trading system. But the UN and developed countries refused to accept that the Bali talks had failed. The environment secretary, Margaret Beckett, said: There are many who will think that we could have done better, and that is a view that I completely share. The differences are real - but there is a tremendous will to close the gap. We are building a global partnership to manage the forces of globalisation so that its benefits are available to all. I am confident that what we have achieved takes us down the road to a successful summit in Johannesburg. However, many observers now believe the best result possible from Johannesburg would be a new focus on Africa and a series of government initiatives, backed by industry, to introduce new technologies like solar power and computers to poor countries.
Food Summit
Time to come clean on the dirty secret of starvation This week's World Food Summit will once again avoid the real issues John Vidal Monday June 10, 2002 The Guardian If you want to see a hideous sight in the next few days, head for Rome where the second World Food Summit will be taking place. Held over from last year following September 11, it will feature 60 heads of state and thousands of bureaucrats and politicians. Even as they pledge yet again to feed the 800 million people who go hungry every year, they will be tucking into the world's finest produce. Parma hams, wild salmon and canapes are a world away from the roots and berries that S, a Malawian woman I met last month, will be eating this week. She, like tens of thousands of people in southern Africa, has completely run out of food through no fault of her own; her life, from now until next April at the earliest, depends on northern governments and charities sending their surplus food across the world. The UN believes that 11 million people now face severe malnutrition if not starvation in the region. They say four million tonnes of grain will be needed but so far governments have pledged less than 100,000 tonnes. Thousands have already died, tens of thousands more inevitably will. The global food situation has barely improved since 1996 when the first food summit was held and politicians hollowly pledged to halve the proportion of hungry people by 2015. If present trends continue, 122 million people will have died of hunger-related diseases by then, and the UN admits it will take 60 years to reach even that modest target. Governments, in short, have utterly failed to address one of the world's greatest scandals. The first paradox is that the world has never grown so much food; there is no overall scarcity and food has seldom been so cheap. The simple equation in the politics of food today is that hunger equals poverty. What we see now is the relatively new phenomenon of increasing hunger amid ever-greater plenty. Just because a country produces more food does not mean it has no malnourished people. The US grows 40% more food than it needs, yet 26 million Americans need handouts. India's grain silos have been bursting for the past five years and a record surplus of 59 million tonnes has been built up, yet almost half of all Indian children are undernourished, tens of millions of people go hungry and many hundreds of poor farmers have committed suicide. The second paradox is that farmers in poor countries are, in this time of global plenty, abandoning agriculture because they just cannot compete with the heavily subsidised foods which are flooding into their countries on the back of world trade rules and IMF conditions that force them to open up their markets. Farmers in Indonesia have been queuing to sell their rice even as the government imports it from Vietnam. In Pakistan, many farmers have reportedly burnt their harvests in desperation because the prices they can command are too low. The local rice market in Ghana has collapsed under US and Thai imports. From Haiti to Mexico and Mozambique to Tanzania, small farmers are selling up, unable to compete with the barons of world agriculture and unable to take advantage of the increasingly global trade in food. The US has recently introduced a farm bill which will increase subsidies to the largest agri-businesses by $18bn a year for 10 years. The effect this will have on third world farmers in incalculable. It is easy to foresee the slanging match which will take place in Rome. Much of the talk will be how to feed the world and increase food production; the spectre of more than two billion more people to feed within 30 years will be raised and out will come all the arguments for miracle GM technologies and the further intensification of farming. Rich countries will be admonished for not having increased international or domestic resources for agriculture in the past five years and for having presided over a steep decline in official aid for farming in poor countries. Some of the most food- insecure countries will in turn be accused of governing badly and doing little to help their people while at the same time increasing their military expenditures. But all this will be peripheral to the main agenda which is being pushed massively in all global talks these days, and which led directly to last week's collapse in Bali of the final meeting before the Johannesburg summit on sustainable development. The US, EU and other OECD countries will ruthlessly use Rome to push the case for further and faster economic liberalisation of markets. When it comes to food, this means countries are being forced to surrender their food security, to sell off their emergency stocks and to dismantle the state marketing boards which traditionally control prices in times of need. What will not be up for discussion in Rome, at least in the main meeting, will be the alternative to the present system which has led
IISD analysis of Bali meeting
Dear 2002SUMMIT-L Readers; The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) has published a 15,000-word summary and analysis of the tenth session of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) acting as the Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), which took place from 27 May to 7 June 2002 in Bali, Indonesia. The Web version of this Earth Negotiations Bulletin report is available at http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/vol22/enb2241e.html and in printable PDF format at http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/download/pdf/enb2241e.pdf We have attached a portion of this report, A Brief Analysis of PrepCom IV. Kimo A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF PREPCOM IV (© IISD) DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ARE RAISING THE STAKES, A SECOND TIME AROUND PrepCom IV's failure to complete its work on the Draft Plan of Implementation for the WSSD was not unexpected. Indeed, early in the second week, the NGO community began to urge negotiators to bring their brackets to Johannesburg rather than settle for a bad deal; delegations obliged, but not only for this reason. The outstanding issues fall into two categories. The first and perhaps fundamental set of issues that led to stalemate concern finance, terms of trade and globalization, and the Rio Principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. These issues are best described as the confidence-building architecture that underpins the 1992 UNCED outcomes. These are the elements required to muster the trust, participation and cooperation of developing countries before the WSSD. A second set of issues concerns the development of the Programme of Work spawned by Agenda 21, including a series of time-bound targets. Progress on these and other issues will only be unlocked when confidence is regained in the process. This brief analysis will examine the background to the deadlock at the PrepCom IV negotiations of the means of implementation section of the Draft Plan of Implementation, review other programmatic issues, and comment on procedural questions and future prospects for the Summit. WAS THE DECK ALREADY STACKED? A major focus at Bali was the gap in implementation of Agenda 21. The most important fault line in the discourse on sustainable development since 1992 has been the failure to address the key confidence-building challenges of equity and fairness. While national trends in economic growth are mixed, there is a widening gap between the rich and poor - a trend that underlines the broken promise of Rio. This rift plays a key role in locking the sustainable development debate into a series of stand-offs between developed and developing countries over access to finance and a fair trading system. Within the confines of environment and sustainable development negotiations, the gap in implementation can be attributed to a failure of political will on the part of industrialized countries since 1992. On questions of finance for development, such as ODA levels, lack of political will amounts to a sufficient explanation. Taking a wider view, an important - if not decisive - explanatory factor, according to a number of NGOs in Bali, was the fact that Rio was trumped by Marrakesh and the formation of the WTO. Any prospect of a post-1992 policy-led global architecture capable of meeting the needs of the poorest was subverted by the ascendancy of trade liberalization and an unleashing of the disciplinary forces of corporate-led globalization. The WSSD presents an opportunity for world leaders to face up to the contradictions embedded in the architecture of global governance when it comes to trade and sustainable development. In the language of the new UNEP Global Environmental Outlook report, the choice is to pursue either a Markets First scenario or a Sustainability First scenario where global policy is no longer the servant of the trade regime. WHEN TO HOLD, WHEN TO FOLD Ultimately, after nearly two solid weeks of tedious negotiations following two previous PrepComs, and what many participants commended as excellent logistical arrangements, negotiations on the Draft Plan of Implementation broke down when the impasse on trade and finance issues could not be resolved. South Africa's Mohammad Valli Moosa, charged with breaking the stalemate, presented negotiators on Friday morning with a package put together after a number of behind-the-scenes high-level consultations. One of the key inputs to the package emerged from a meeting on Thursday between the EU and the G-77/China, and an informal non-paper tabled by the EU. The G-77/China spent three hours debating the Moosa deal, which met strong internal resistance as a weak and unacceptable compromise on finance and trade issues for developing countries. Nevertheless, the G-77/China arrived at a fragile agreement to go along with the deal, subject to its unconditional acceptance by the other negotiating partners. Although Mexico, New Zealand and Norway accepted the Moosa deal, the EU
Invitation to NAFTA for Poland (July'92) - request for help
Hallo, I would to ask someone of you for help in obtaining of closer informations about invitation for Poland to join NAFTA, made by pres. Bush(father) during his visit in Poland at 5th of July in 1992? Didn't found anything at bushlibrary. Could be possible for someone of you to get the whole text of the invitation (or of the speech, which supposingly contained it) - or of the other materials describing the accident (some press comments from that time)? pozdrawiam / regards Zbigniew Baniewski
RE: Anti-globalization babe
And I certainly looked as if I belonged there in my white, Bianca Jaggeresque trouser suit designed by the British design duo, Boudicca. Few who complimented me on my attire, of course, got the irony. Boudicca prides itself on being fashion's first anti-capitalist label. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for this one, Louis. Whoever created the Noreena Hertz character is clearly a satirist of the calibre of Mark Twain. dd ___ Email Disclaimer This communication is for the attention of the named recipient only and should not be passed on to any other person. Information relating to any company or security, is for information purposes only and should not be interpreted as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security. The information on which this communication is based has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable, but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice. All e-mail messages, and associated attachments, are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business purposes. ___
RE: RE: Anti-globalization babe
Thank you from the bottom of my heart for this one, Louis. Whoever created the Noreena Hertz character is clearly a satirist of the calibre of Mark Twain. dd She's kinda-young, kinda-wow, she's anti-globalization, she's Jewish, she goes to demo's, she writes economics tracts . . . what's not to like? Some people are never satisfied. NH Groupie
Re: RE: RE: Anti-globalization babe
- Original Message - From: Max Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 9:50 AM Subject: [PEN-L:26683] RE: RE: Anti-globalization babe Thank you from the bottom of my heart for this one, Louis. Whoever created the Noreena Hertz character is clearly a satirist of the calibre of Mark Twain. dd She's kinda-young, kinda-wow, she's anti-globalization, she's Jewish, she goes to demo's, she writes economics tracts . . . what's not to like? Some people are never satisfied. NH Groupie === What's even more ridiculous about it the presumption that the 20-30 something's are obliged to tell their world weary/cynical elders something they don't already know, when in fact NH, NK etc. are communicating with their peers; the ones who have to try and deal with a pathetic mess they didn't make. Ian
Re: Anti-capitalist fashion
- Original Message - From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 10:46 AM Subject: [PEN-L:26685] Anti-capitalist fashion The Independent (London), February 16, 2002, Saturday FASHION: FIGHTING TALK; ON THE EVE OF THEIR LONDON FASHION WEEK SHOW, SUSANNAH FRANKEL MEETS DESIGN DUO BOUDICCA, RESOLUTELY BATTLING AGAINST THE BIG GUNS OF FASHION. PORTRAIT BY ROBERT WYATT. FASHION PHOTOGRAPHS BY JUSTIN SMITH. STYLING BY SOPHIA NEOPHITOU by Susannah Frankel TWO'S COMPANY Zowie Broach and Brian Kirkby, otherwise known as; Boudicca, at their new design studio in less-than-salubrious Stratford in east London. [snip] Catering to a very small but discerning clientele, Boudicca stands alone as an entirely independent business that refuses to play the fashion game. [snip] Britain is very anti-fashion as a culture, says Kirkby. It's got this sneering attitude towards fashion and although, in some ways, I hate that, it does drive people not to be too fashion, if you see what I mean. I think that has a fantastic effect on people. == ...postmodernism is blank because it wants to have its commodification and eat it. That is, it knows that the cultural industry will tailor virtually any cultural goods for the sake of sales; it also wants to display its knowingness, thereby demonstrating how superior it is to the trash market. Choose one: the resulting ironic spiral either mocks the game by playing it or plays it by mocking it. [ of all people, Todd Gitlin ]
Re: Re: RE: RE: Anti-globalization babe
Ian Murray wrote: What's even more ridiculous about it the presumption that the 20-30 something's are obliged to tell their world weary/cynical elders something they don't already know, when in fact NH, NK etc. are communicating with their peers; the ones who have to try and deal with a pathetic mess they didn't make. Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 21:16:44 +0200 From: Drazen Pantic [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: nettime [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: nettime terrific post from slashdot ... In a discussion about the interview David Bowie gave to NYT, [1], Dr. Spork, posted the text with the title Only rebels left are old!, [2] : Am I the only young person who notices that the only people who express their dissent at stupid things in this world today are old? This is a terrible sign! I seriously think that historians will view this decade as the era of new conformity, sort of like the 50s without the commies. I'm serious: Take for example the only people you see speaking out in public against the idiotic War on Terror--they are old! Even academics who find it just as stupid as I do keep their mouths shut, even if they have tenure. The same goes for this Intellectual Property debate. I would be shocked if there weren't many young artists who agree with every word that Bowie says about the subject. Still, they keep a low profile and don't rock the boat, because we live in a climate where that gets you severely punished. I wasn't there, but I suspect in the 60's and 70's people faced the same dilemmas, but they said fuck it, I'll say what I think and see what happens. But then again, maybe the government and the corporations have us under a tighter clamp now than any other time in Western history since constitutions started being written. Sure, we all have a right to free speech, but the system has made it so that speaking freely is severely against our interest. This means that even though we won't go to jail, we will get fired, spied upon, harassed, and vilified as friends of terrorists. (How long will it take before somebody argues that abolishing IP laws would be caving in to terrorism? Surely they will find some stupid, tenuous connection.) Anyway, this era makes me sick. You people suck. I might as well burn my books now to save you the trouble, because when these old- school rebels die, nobody will raise their voice in protest. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/09/arts/music/09PARE.html?todaysheadlines [2] http://slashdot.org/articles/02/06/09/1354201.shtml?tid=141 # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: RE: RE: Anti-globalization babe
We're not gonna have that tired and silly debate on how the boomers hog all the cultural bandwith are we? The Queen is about to Knight Mick Jagger for fux sake. Ian - Original Message - From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 11:14 AM Subject: [PEN-L:26687] Re: Re: RE: RE: Anti-globalization babe Ian Murray wrote: What's even more ridiculous about it the presumption that the 20-30 something's are obliged to tell their world weary/cynical elders something they don't already know, when in fact NH, NK etc. are communicating with their peers; the ones who have to try and deal with a pathetic mess they didn't make. Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 21:16:44 +0200 From: Drazen Pantic [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: nettime [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: nettime terrific post from slashdot ... In a discussion about the interview David Bowie gave to NYT, [1], Dr. Spork, posted the text with the title Only rebels left are old!, [2] : Am I the only young person who notices that the only people who express their dissent at stupid things in this world today are old? This is a terrible sign! I seriously think that historians will view this decade as the era of new conformity, sort of like the 50s without the commies. I'm serious: Take for example the only people you see speaking out in public against the idiotic War on Terror--they are old! Even academics who find it just as stupid as I do keep their mouths shut, even if they have tenure. The same goes for this Intellectual Property debate. I would be shocked if there weren't many young artists who agree with every word that Bowie says about the subject. Still, they keep a low profile and don't rock the boat, because we live in a climate where that gets you severely punished. I wasn't there, but I suspect in the 60's and 70's people faced the same dilemmas, but they said fuck it, I'll say what I think and see what happens. But then again, maybe the government and the corporations have us under a tighter clamp now than any other time in Western history since constitutions started being written. Sure, we all have a right to free speech, but the system has made it so that speaking freely is severely against our interest. This means that even though we won't go to jail, we will get fired, spied upon, harassed, and vilified as friends of terrorists. (How long will it take before somebody argues that abolishing IP laws would be caving in to terrorism? Surely they will find some stupid, tenuous connection.) Anyway, this era makes me sick. You people suck. I might as well burn my books now to save you the trouble, because when these old- school rebels die, nobody will raise their voice in protest. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/09/arts/music/09PARE.html?todaysheadlines [2] http://slashdot.org/articles/02/06/09/1354201.shtml?tid=141 # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Anti-capitalist fashion
Ian Murray wrote: ...postmodernism is blank because it wants to have its commodification and eat it. That is, it knows that the cultural industry will tailor virtually any cultural goods for the sake of sales; it also wants to display its knowingness, thereby demonstrating how superior it is to the trash market. Choose one: the resulting ironic spiral either mocks the game by playing it or plays it by mocking it. [ of all people, Todd Why of all people? It's conventional and dumb, and therefore right up the Git's alley. Doug
RE: Anti-globalization babe
Max Sawicky wrote, She's kinda-young, kinda-wow, she's anti-globalization, she's Jewish, she goes to demo's, she writes economics tracts . . . what's not to like? But can she sing? Tom Walker 604 255 4812
Re: 1,000 firms run the economy
Almost all Intro texts include a section on types of business, sales, etc., they they all show that propritors are numerous, but essentially irrelevant when it comes to sales and employment. The one text that used to go beyond this basic point was Heilbroner. He noted that ownership of assets, and thus control of decision making, is more important than sales or employment. The last edition of his text indicated that 3600 firms with assets in excess of $250M (0.018% of all firms) owned 80% of all business assets in 1990. I have tried to update these numbers several times, but I haven't been able to get all the info necessary. Maybe Eric can help. It is easy to get the number of firms by type. It is easy to get firms with assets in excess of $250M. What I have not been able to nail down is total business assets in the US. I have found total Corp. assets, but I have not found proprietor and partnership assets. Any ideas Eric? Doug Orr --- Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 11:57:58 -0700 From: Eric Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:26609] 1,000 firms run the economy Well not quite... But data I just put in my spiffy text is: Number of firms with 1-99 employees in the US: 4,800,582 (or 98% of all firms with employees) Number of firms with 10,000 or more employees: 936 (or 0.002% of all firms with employees) Number of employees working in firms with 1-99 employees: 40,091,449 (or 36% of employees) Number of employees working in firms with 10,000 or more employees: 29,715,945 (or 27% of employees) That is, fewer than 1,000 firms control the labor of more than 25% of all employees in the US economy. These same firms, of course, control a large part of the surplus generated within the US economy also. A large proportion of workers, however, work for very small firms (less than 100 employees) but none of these firms is really very important (economically, politically, culturally, etc). I would never argue a political strategy of pitting small firms again the giant firms. Rather, I point out the role of these giant firms to underline that way that the decisions of a relatively small number of firms (over what to make, what sort of jobs to provide, what ad campaigns to run, etc) has a really big impact on the whole economy. Source http://www.census.gov/csd/susb/susb2.htm. US Census Bureau, Statistics of US Businesses, 1999 data Eric
Re: Re: Re: Anti-capitalist fashion
- Original Message - From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 11:54 AM Subject: [PEN-L:26689] Re: Re: Anti-capitalist fashion Ian Murray wrote: ...postmodernism is blank because it wants to have its commodification and eat it. That is, it knows that the cultural industry will tailor virtually any cultural goods for the sake of sales; it also wants to display its knowingness, thereby demonstrating how superior it is to the trash market. Choose one: the resulting ironic spiral either mocks the game by playing it or plays it by mocking it. [ of all people, Todd Why of all people? It's conventional and dumb, and therefore right up the Git's alley. Doug Because it was the only rep. sample of that species of dumbness I had ready to hand -- in the only piece of 'work' by TG that I own [Cultural Politics in America ed. by Ian Angus Sut Jhally] Ian
RE: Re: 1,000 firms run the economy
Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the U.S. Government -- FY2003, page 48, Table 3-4, National Wealth mbs Almost all Intro texts include a section on types of business, sales, etc., they they all show that propritors are numerous, but essentially irrelevant when it comes to sales and employment. The one text that used to go beyond this basic point was Heilbroner. He noted that ownership of assets, and thus control of decision making, is more important than sales or employment. The last edition of his text indicated that 3600 firms with assets in excess of $250M (0.018% of all firms) owned 80% of all business assets in 1990. I have tried to update these numbers several times, but I haven't been able to get all the info necessary. Maybe Eric can help. It is easy to get the number of firms by type. It is easy to get firms with assets in excess of $250M. What I have not been able to nail down is total business assets in the US. I have found total Corp. assets, but I have not found proprietor and partnership assets. Any ideas Eric? Doug Orr --- Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 11:57:58 -0700 From: Eric Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:26609] 1,000 firms run the economy Well not quite... But data I just put in my spiffy text is: Number of firms with 1-99 employees in the US: 4,800,582 (or 98% of all firms with employees) Number of firms with 10,000 or more employees: 936 (or 0.002% of all firms with employees) Number of employees working in firms with 1-99 employees: 40,091,449 (or 36% of employees) Number of employees working in firms with 10,000 or more employees: 29,715,945 (or 27% of employees) That is, fewer than 1,000 firms control the labor of more than 25% of all employees in the US economy. These same firms, of course, control a large part of the surplus generated within the US economy also. A large proportion of workers, however, work for very small firms (less than 100 employees) but none of these firms is really very important (economically, politically, culturally, etc). I would never argue a political strategy of pitting small firms again the giant firms. Rather, I point out the role of these giant firms to underline that way that the decisions of a relatively small number of firms (over what to make, what sort of jobs to provide, what ad campaigns to run, etc) has a really big impact on the whole economy. Source http://www.census.gov/csd/susb/susb2.htm. US Census Bureau, Statistics of US Businesses, 1999 data Eric
RE: Re: 1,000 firms run the economy
Doug Orr wrote, It is easy to get the number of firms by type. It is easy to get firms with assets in excess of $250M. What I have not been able to nail down is total business assets in the US. I have found total Corp. assets, but I have not found proprietor and partnership assets. Data from BEA asset and investment data: http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/faweb/AllFATables.asp#S2 You might want to look at table 4.1 for, I think, total assets and breakdown of assets by type of ownership. This publication has lots of data on assets, breaking them down into many different categories. Be aware, however, of the different ways they use to total up assets (current replacement costs, historical costs, etc). I would be reluctant to combine asset information from different agencies as they all might have different ways to determine the value of assets. The Census of Manufacturers must also have assets data and might break it down by form of ownership. And, for more on type of ownership and assets you might look at IRS data IRS Data book _might_ have something http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/taxstats/display/0,,i1%3D40%26genericId%3D16907,0 0.html IRS studies of various types might also have something. http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/taxstats/display/0,,i1%3D40%26genericId%3D16810,0 0.html lists statistics by topics. Topic for partnerships and corps has spreadsheets with asset information for these two forms of ownership. Somewhere here I think proprietorships are also listed or information on them is given somewhere. Sometimes not logic exists as to what the IRS chooses to study. And there data is often many years out of date. Eric
Anti-globalization babe
New York Magazine, June 10, 2002 Sexy Cause Meet the new face of the anti-globalization movement. BY MARION MANEKER When you hear the word anti-globalization, you usually think of shattered Starbucks windows and stringy-haired kids carrying on some pantomime of the sixties. But suddenly, the movement seems to have gone glam on us, with people like Nobel-laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz and billionaire currency speculator George Soros jumping on the bandwagon. And next week, the city gets its chance to meet the movement's first rock star (Bono aside): Noreena Hertz, a certified infobabe who casually inserts statistics into a conversation the way socialites drop names. full: http://www.nymag.com/page.cfm?page_id=6132 === The Observer, February 10, 2002 Trojan horse at the feast of globalisation: Noreena Hertz was dressed for her role in New York. But she had some home truths for the World Economic Forum Noreena Hertz LAST YEAR I stood with the protesters in the snow outside the World Economic Forum. Last week I stood within the hallowed ground of the Waldorf Astoria in New York. It had been a dilemma whether to accept my nomination as one of their 'Global Leaders of Tomorrow' and I had been planning to go to Porto Alegre to the alternative World Social Forum instead. But the opportunity to challenge the corporate face of globalisation from within was far too tempting. Trojan horse, rather than co-optee, was how I saw it. And an angry horse at that. Armed with my list of 'unacceptable facts': the 34,000 children under five who die each day from poverty-related causes, the fact that four-fifths of the world's wealth is in the hands of one-fifth of its population; the fact that while the UN struggles to find its Dollars 1.25 billion annual budget, Americans spend Dollars 29bn each year on confectionery products, and so on. . . Even I had to give some thought as to how to present myself in a way that would be taken seriously in this social whirl. And I certainly looked as if I belonged there in my white, Bianca Jaggeresque trouser suit designed by the British design duo, Boudicca. Few who complimented me on my attire, of course, got the irony. Boudicca prides itself on being fashion's first anti-capitalist label. === Independent on Sunday (London), May 27, 2001, Sunday HOW TO BE AN ECONOMICS GODDESS by Will Self The world is overrun with celebrity chefs but celebrity economists are few and far between. So writer and TV presenter Noreena Hertz is a media dream: young, blonde and dedicated to the fashionable cause of anti- globalisation. It's just that Will Self feels he's heard it all before. It's an oppressive, overcast day in central London, and I wind my way down Baker Street with all the torpor of a quondam revolutionary. I am a man who, when young, believed that moral idealism, allied to rigorous reason, could transform the world. I marched with the best of them, chanting, Maggie! Maggie! Maggie! Out! Out! Out! I drank instant coffee late into the night, while discussing the finer points of dialectical materialism. I was consumed with that very bourgeois failing - bourgeois self-hatred. And never, ever did I think I would have recourse to the kind of outrageous, hypocritical cant that my elders paraded in lieu of beliefs or opinions worth respecting. It's an oppressive, overcast day in central London, and instead of heading directly for the oasis of Regent's Park - which I can see frothing before me - I amble through the defile between the Sherlock Holmes Museum and the Museum of the Television Sherlock Holmes (and I wonder, is there much competition between the two fictional products?), before heading off to the right, into the hinterland of Marylebone. It's an oppressive, overcast day in central London, and as I knock at the door of a neat, terraced house, which is answered speedily by an attractive, coltish, woman who looks young for 33, I wonder if Santayana really was right when he said that Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to fulfil it. Noreena Hertz, whose book The Silent Takeover has been ascending the bestseller lists as speedily as its author answers her front door, is allegedly our homegrown version of the Canadian journalist Naomi Klein, the author of No Logo, last year's anti-globalisation tract. Hertz/Klein, Klein/Hertz - it's like the Monkees and the Beatles, or the Spice Girls and All Saints. The two different brands of anti-globalisation are being offered up to us in an easy-to-swallow, cloned form. Both authors are earnest young women, in broad sympathy with the battlers of Seattle, if not actually out on the streets chucking rocks themselves. Both books follow the same schema, with a personal insight or an anecdote, being used to introduce the more indigestible political and economic pabulums. Arguably our Noreena is the prettier and, although her book is superficially readable (I read it with half a mind in two -and-a-half hours), it's
Anti-capitalist fashion
The Independent (London), February 16, 2002, Saturday FASHION: FIGHTING TALK; ON THE EVE OF THEIR LONDON FASHION WEEK SHOW, SUSANNAH FRANKEL MEETS DESIGN DUO BOUDICCA, RESOLUTELY BATTLING AGAINST THE BIG GUNS OF FASHION. PORTRAIT BY ROBERT WYATT. FASHION PHOTOGRAPHS BY JUSTIN SMITH. STYLING BY SOPHIA NEOPHITOU by Susannah Frankel TWO'S COMPANY Zowie Broach and Brian Kirkby, otherwise known as; Boudicca, at their new design studio in less-than-salubrious Stratford in east London. It was a very surreal set of circumstances, says Zowie Broach, one half of the London-based design team, Boudicca, of the time she encountered her other half, Brian Kirkby. We met in Rimini, this bizarre place, a seaside resort, in winter. The first night, there was this huge hurricane blowing the sand and the sea up. There was something very romantic about it except that it wasn't romantic because we didn't know each other yet. We were both just there for a week working for a big Italian company. We'd wander round this empty town, find ourselves a bar and sit there and drink beer all day. We realised there were many similarities between us and thought, perhaps naively, let's do something for ourselves. Yeah, we thought let's make life even more difficult for ourselves, adds Kirkby, dryly, before duly exploding into raucous laughter. So, says Broach, apparently oblivious to any interjection, the way only couples who spend an awful lot of time together can be, we joined forces and the journey's been a long and strange one since then. That was eight years ago and, by now inseparable in real as well as fashion life, the fruit of their endeavours, the Boudicca label, has become one of London's most respected names. Catering to a very small but discerning clientele, Boudicca stands alone as an entirely independent business that refuses to play the fashion game. In-this -season, out-the-next, six-monthly collections are simply not on the agenda. Boudicca begins with a concept, never a trend, and develops it at its own pace, paying not the blindest bit of notice to all that is going on around it. Neither is anyone ever likely to see a lucrative Boudicca capsule collection for Topshop or Debenhams. Boudicca doesn't do diffusion. Instead, an enormous amount of personal time and effort goes into every garment. The clothes are produced in limited numbers, often hand-finished, extremely complex and, above all, made with love: Cristbal Balenciaga meets Factory Records if you will. Brian Kirkby was born just outside Manchester, in Bury: small, conservative, old-age people, very depressing place. His mother was kind of a Sunday school teacher/housewife, I had a religious upbringing, his father, a mechanic. Zowie Broach says she comes from all over the place. I had 12 different junior schools when I was a kid. We travelled a lot. Her father was a teacher. We've always had this conversation about why we both ended up doing fashion, says Kirkby. I think it boils down to coming from very regional places. I think, in that instance, fashion becomes very important. It's a way for you to rebel against what's around you and that reinforces you as a person. I was very into David Bowie, adds Broach, that whole Man Who Fell to Earth look, and as a girl, walking around like that, in an old man's suit from a second-hand shop, you'd be like this freak ... Both designers trained at Middlesex University, alma mater of leading Eighties design team BodyMap, although Broach was leaving just as Kirkby arrived. He graduated with a first class honours degree and went on to complete an MA at London's Royal College of Art under the name Brian Of Britain. Boudicca, named after the ancient warrior queen, clearly retains some the flavour inherent in the moniker that preceded it. Britain is very anti-fashion as a culture, says Kirkby. It's got this sneering attitude towards fashion and although, in some ways, I hate that, it does drive people not to be too fashion, if you see what I mean. I think that has a fantastic effect on people. But is it possible to be anti-fashion and survive in the current climate - a Gucci/LVMH-dominated world where Julien Macdonald dresses The Spice Girls and wins a contract at Givenchy for his pains? Certainly, Broach and Kirkby have not made it easy for themselves, making something of a career out of biting the hand that feeds. Despite the fact that it is well known in the industry that they are as poor as church mice, can barely afford to show and struggle to produce each collection, they stick to their principles and highly individual way of working. This is perceived as both refreshingly idealistic and frustratingly naive. True to form, last summer they took part in the anti-capitalist protest during the G8 summit in Genoa which, it almost goes without saying, was hardly fashion central. Both say that the protest was one of the most powerfully moving experiences of their lives. Their current collection was at
Re: RE: RE: Anti-globalization babe
Max Sawicky wrote: Thank you from the bottom of my heart for this one, Louis. Whoever created the Noreena Hertz character is clearly a satirist of the calibre of Mark Twain. dd She's kinda-young, kinda-wow, she's anti-globalization, she's Jewish, she goes to demo's, she writes economics tracts . . . what's not to like? The book. It sucks (except for the author photo). Doug
Re: Invitation to NAFTA for Poland (July'92) - request for help
I am sorry that nobody has responded to your reqest. Probably, the reason is that we know little about Poland. Maybe you can educate us over time. Apologies. Zbigniew Baniewski wrote: Hallo, I would to ask someone of you for help in obtaining of closer informations about invitation for Poland to join NAFTA, made by pres. Bush(father) during his visit in Poland at 5th of July in 1992? Didn't found anything at bushlibrary. Could be possible for someone of you to get the whole text of the invitation (or of the speech, which supposingly contained it) - or of the other materials describing the accident (some press comments from that time)? pozdrawiam / regards Zbigniew Baniewski -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
RE: Re: RE: RE: Anti-globalization babe
I thought it was a tour de force. mbs The book. It sucks (except for the author photo). Doug
Italy tightens immigration law
The Hindu Sunday, Jun 09, 2002 Italy tightens immigration law By Batuk Gathani Brussels June 8. The 15 European Union member-States are in the process of formulating a pan-European policy on immigration amid rising concern over the influx of asylum-seekers. Last week, Italy became the latest European country to tighten its immigration laws, through a Bill passed in the Chamber of Deputies, the Lower House of Parliament. The Bill, proposed by the nationalist right-wing Northern League and the National Alliance, both partners in the Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi's coalition Government, calls for the fingerprinting of non-European Union nationals wishing to live in Italy, and ties residency permits to job contracts. Its approval by 279 votes to 203 with one abstention was hailed as a victory by the centre-right coalition, but was branded by the Opposition as proof of a new surge in racism and civil hatred. Centre-left MPs described it as an ugly law and it was also criticised by the Roman Catholic Church, the United Nations refugee agency and Amnesty International. The law requires applicants for a residency permit to possess a job contract. Permits would have a two-year term. Should an immigrant's job terminate first, he or she would have to leave the country at once. Immigrants found without papers would be deported within 60 days and, if caught a second time, imprisoned. In the last five years, nearly two million asylum seekers have found their way into E.U. countries. In Holland, the Government proposes to restrict the right of children to join asylum seekers. The Danish Parliament last week approved legislation to limit the right of refugees to marry citizens. The British and German Governments are looking at ways to curb the influx of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants. A summit of the E.U. heads of government at the end of this month in Spain is expected to see agreement on a consolidated fight against illegal immigration. In their attempts to combat illegal immigration, the E.U. Governments are seen trying to thwart the threat posed by extreme right wing groups and populist politicians with a strong xenophobic agenda. Observers say the E.U. is in a dilemma on the issue of immigration as some of the countries desperately need skilled workers from abroad. For example, Germany needs around 20,000 skilled workers in the electronics and information technology sectors. The nearly 2,000 skilled workers from India who are now in Germany are planning to leave for the U.S. on account of the xenophobic climate. There are regular incidents against Turks and other immigrants. In Belgium, a right wing local government council has suggested that Antwerp's nearly 40,000 North African Arab workers should be deported to create jobs for the unemployed native citizens. The crisis in Europe over immigration has been compounded by high unemployment among the local people. In some E .U. countries, nearly a tenth of the workforce is unemployed and living off social security payments. Hence, the European Governments are keen to adopt an action plan to improve border controls. The European Commission has proposed setting up a European border guard regiment. This could be backed by the navy to seize illegal immigration boats. Copyright © 2002, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu
