date:20021004



But even though opponents of US war in practical terms would have to 
support the efforts of France Russia and China to impede this step, the 
whole unconscious contradictory process is part of an inevitable leap 
forward in defining the parameters of world government - the degree of 
licence given to bodies of armed men capable of imposing their will on 
others, the degree to which they have to try to appeal to some 
*apparently* impartial justice, and the increasing limitations on state 
sovereignty. The French proposal is *also* inherently imperialist but in 
this context it would contribute to the process of formation of world 
government by weakening the authority of the overwhelming hegemon to 
impose its will at whim.

Chris Burford

For more information on World Government, go to: 
http://www.greaterthings.com/WorldGov/


Louis Proyect
www.marxmail.org

Re: new top cop in L.A.

2002-10-04 Thread W.R. Needham

Title: Re: new top cop in L.A.


The Globe and Mail says this morning.

N.Y. ex-commissioner named to head L.A. police.

Los Angeles. Former New York police commissioner William
Bratton, who was formally named yesterday as Mayor Jim Hahn's choice
for Los Angeles police chief, pledged to return a demoralized LAPD to
its shining glory, which has been badly tarnished by more
than a decade of scandal. Mr Bratton, 54, defended his reputation in
New York of zero tolerance of minor street crimes. Reuters.



Devine, James wrote:
 Today, the Los Angeles Times reports that L.A.'s mayor picked a
new
 police chief: William Bratton, former top cop at the NYPD.

 Does anyone in NYC or elsewhere know anything about his
fellow?


isn't he the gent who thought up the broken window theory
(sweat the
small stuff and the big stuff will disappear. white collar crime
not
included).

 --ravi


-- 

Dr. W.R. Needham
Associate Chair, Undergraduate Affairs
Department of Economics
200 University Avenue West,
University of Waterloo, N2L 3G1
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Tel: 519-888-4567 ext: 3949
Fax: 519-725-0530
web: http://economics.uwaterloo.ca/fac-needham.html


[We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us
with our
fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our
actions run
as causes, and they come back to us as effects. - Herman
Melville]

[Fascism should be more properly called corporatism, since it is
the
merger of state and corporate power. Benito Mussolini]

Re: RE: Re: Holy Roman Empire 2002

2002-10-04 Thread Carl Remick

From: Mark Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:30886] RE: Re: Holy Roman Empire 2002
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 08:59:10 +0100

I can't remember who it was who said of the Holy Roman Empire that it was
neither holy, Roman, nor an empire. Macaulay?

Mark

Voltaire.

Carl

_
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Re: RE: Re: Holy Roman Empire 2002

2002-10-04 Thread Carrol Cox




Mark Jones wrote:
 
 I can't remember who it was who said of the Holy Roman Empire that it was
 neither holy, Roman, nor an empire. Macaulay?
 
Napoleon. (I think)

Carrol

PK's the man with the plan

2002-10-04 Thread Devine, James

Title: PK's the man with the plan

New York TIMES/October 4, 2002
My Economic Plan
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Although other news has been drowned out by the barking of the dogs of war, something ominous is happening on the economic front. It's not dramatic, but month by month the numbers keep coming in worse than expected. Let's put politics completely aside for once, and review where we are and what should be done.

The key point is that this isn't your father's recession -- it's your grandfather's recession. That is, it isn't your standard postwar recession, engineered by the Federal Reserve to fight inflation, and easily reversed when the Fed loosens the reins. It's a classic overinvestment slump, of a kind that was normal before World War II. And such slumps have always been hard to fight simply by cutting interest rates.

[Pen-l alumnus Brad deLong used to deny the possibility of over-investment, even though it's the subject of my Ph.D. dissertation! (UC-Berkeley Econ., 1981.) does he still do so?]

Now there's no question that the Fed's rapid rate reductions last year helped avert a much bigger slump. But a hard look at monetary policy suggests that the Fed hasn't done enough -- and possibly can't do enough. Although the Fed funds rate, the usual measure of monetary policy, is at its lowest level in generations, the real Fed funds rate -- the interest rate minus the inflation rate, which is what matters for investment decisions -- is actually about the same as it was at the bottom of the last recession, in the early 1990's, because inflation is considerably lower.

And the drop in the Fed funds rate engineered by Alan Greenspan Company, though faster than that in the last recession, has so far been considerably smaller; last time it fell by 6.75 points, this time it fell by only 4.75. Even if the Fed funds rate falls all the way to zero, that will be a smaller interest rate reduction than the last time around. If you think the excesses of the 1990's were larger than those of the 1980's, that the economy needs more stimulus to pull itself out, then it seems likely that the Fed hasn't done enough, and quite possible that even going all the way to zero still won't be enough.

And this situation may last for a while. The overhang of excess capacity, especially in telecommunications, will be worked off only slowly. It's all too possible that we may be looking at a sluggish economy into 2004, maybe beyond. The Fed should cut rates further -- it may not be enough, but it will help. What else should we do?

[the overhang isn't just excess capacity. It's also corporate individual debt, along with depressed profit rates and profit-rate expectations. Will it soon include excess housing combined with excessive personal mortgage debt compared to a depressed price of housing?]

The answer is that we should have a sensible plan for fiscal stimulus -- one that encourages spending now, to bridge the gap until business investment revives. Some of the elements of such a plan are obvious, and were described by Jeff Madrick in yesterday's Times. First, extend unemployment benefits, which are considerably less generous now than in the last recession; this will do double duty, helping some of the neediest while putting money into the hands of people who are likely to spend it. Second, provide aid to the states, which are in increasingly desperate fiscal straits. This will also do double duty, preventing harsh cuts in public services, with medical care for the poor the most likely target, at the same time that it boosts demand.

If these elements don't add up to a large enough sum -- I agree with Mr. Madrick that $100 billion over the next year is a good target -- why not have another rebate, this time going to everyone who pays payroll taxes?

And how will we pay for all of this? You know the answer to that: Cancel tax cuts scheduled for the future. The economy needs stimulus now; it doesn't need tax cuts for the very affluent five years from now.

This isn't rocket science. It's straightforward textbook economics, applied to our actual situation. It's also, I'm well aware, politically out of the question. But I think we're entitled to ask why.

[question: what effect will this plan have on the value of the dollar? if the dollar falls steeply, as seems likely given the large U.S. external debt, what will the Fed do? will it hike interest rates, aborting the very fragile recovery?]

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Re: PK's the man with the plan


PK's the man with the plan
- Original Message -
From: Devine, James
[Pen-l alumnus Brad deLong used to deny the possibility of over-investment,
even though it's the subject of my Ph.D. dissertation! (UC-Berkeley Econ.,
1981.) does he still do so?]



I don't think so; he made some comments regarding the issue on his blog a
week or two ago..

Ian

RE: PK's the man with the plan

2002-10-04 Thread Brown, Martin - ARP (NIH/NCI)

Title: PK's the man with the plan



Did 
Al Gore put forward any of these concrete steps in his economics talk the other 
day or did he just whine and moan about the evil Repubs?

  -Original Message-From: Devine, James 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 11:26 
  AMTo: Pen-l (E-mail)Subject: [PEN-L:30891] PK's the man 
  with the plan
  New York TIMES/October 4, 2002 My 
  Economic Plan By PAUL KRUGMAN 
  Although other news has been drowned out by the barking of the 
  dogs of war, something ominous is happening on the economic front. It's not 
  dramatic, but month by month the numbers keep coming in worse than expected. 
  Let's put politics completely aside for once, and review where we are and what 
  should be done.
  The key point is that this isn't your father's recession -- 
  it's your grandfather's recession. That is, it isn't your standard postwar 
  recession, engineered by the Federal Reserve to fight inflation, and easily 
  reversed when the Fed loosens the reins. It's a classic overinvestment slump, 
  of a kind that was normal before World War II. And such slumps have always 
  been hard to fight simply by cutting interest rates. 
  [Pen-l alumnus Brad deLong used to deny the possibility of 
  over-investment, even though it's the subject of my Ph.D. dissertation! 
  (UC-Berkeley Econ., 1981.) does he still do so?]
  Now there's no question that the Fed's rapid rate reductions 
  last year helped avert a much bigger slump. But a hard look at monetary policy 
  suggests that the Fed hasn't done enough -- and possibly can't do enough. 
  Although the Fed funds rate, the usual measure of monetary policy, is at its 
  lowest level in generations, the real Fed funds rate -- the interest rate 
  minus the inflation rate, which is what matters for investment decisions -- is 
  actually about the same as it was at the bottom of the last recession, in the 
  early 1990's, because inflation is considerably lower. 
  And the drop in the Fed funds rate engineered by Alan 
  Greenspan  Company, though faster than that in the last recession, has so 
  far been considerably smaller; last time it fell by 6.75 points, this time it 
  fell by only 4.75. Even if the Fed funds rate falls all the way to zero, that 
  will be a smaller interest rate reduction than the last time around. If you 
  think the excesses of the 1990's were larger than those of the 1980's, that 
  the economy needs more stimulus to pull itself out, then it seems likely that 
  the Fed hasn't done enough, and quite possible that even going all the way to 
  zero still won't be enough. 
  And this situation may last for a while. The overhang of 
  excess capacity, especially in telecommunications, will be worked off only 
  slowly. It's all too possible that we may be looking at a sluggish economy 
  into 2004, maybe beyond. The Fed should cut rates further -- it may not be 
  enough, but it will help. What else should we do?
  [the overhang isn't just excess capacity. It's also corporate 
   individual debt, along with depressed profit rates and profit-rate 
  expectations. Will it soon include excess housing combined with excessive 
  personal mortgage debt compared to a depressed price of housing?]
  The answer is that we should have a sensible plan for fiscal 
  stimulus -- one that encourages spending now, to bridge the gap until business 
  investment revives. Some of the elements of such a plan are obvious, and were 
  described by Jeff Madrick in yesterday's Times. First, extend unemployment 
  benefits, which are considerably less generous now than in the last recession; 
  this will do double duty, helping some of the neediest while putting money 
  into the hands of people who are likely to spend it. Second, provide aid to 
  the states, which are in increasingly desperate fiscal straits. This will also 
  do double duty, preventing harsh cuts in public services, with medical care 
  for the poor the most likely target, at the same time that it boosts 
  demand.
  If these elements don't add up to a large enough sum -- I 
  agree with Mr. Madrick that $100 billion over the next year is a good target 
  -- why not have another rebate, this time going to everyone who pays payroll 
  taxes?
  And how will we pay for all of this? You know the answer to 
  that: Cancel tax cuts scheduled for the future. The economy needs stimulus 
  now; it doesn't need tax cuts for the very affluent five years from 
  now.
  This isn't rocket science. It's straightforward textbook 
  economics, applied to our actual situation. It's also, I'm well aware, 
  politically out of the question. But I think we're entitled to ask 
  why.
  [question: what effect will this plan have on the value of the 
  dollar? if the dollar falls steeply, as seems likely given the large U.S. 
  external debt, what will the Fed do? will it hike interest rates, aborting the 
  very fragile recovery?] 
   Jim

RE: Re: PK's the man with the plan

2002-10-04 Thread Davies, Daniel


PK's the man with the plan
- Original Message -
From: Devine, James
[Pen-l alumnus Brad deLong used to deny the possibility of over-investment,
even though it's the subject of my Ph.D. dissertation! (UC-Berkeley Econ.,
1981.) does he still do so?]



I don't think so; he made some comments regarding the issue on his blog a
week or two ago..

Ian

I believe that the politically correct point of view on this topic among the
relevant crowd is that the economy as a whole cannot have over-investment,
but that individual industries can.  Quite how this squares with an
aggregative view of capital I cannot say, but then I am not a theologian ...

dd


___
Email Disclaimer

This communication may contain confidential or privileged information and 
is for the attention of the named recipient only. 
It 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. (c) 2002 Cazenove Service Company or affiliates. 


Cazenove  Co. Ltd and Cazenove Fund Management Limited provide independent 
advice and are regulated by the Financial Services Authority and members of the 
London Stock Exchange.

Cazenove Fund Management Jersey is a branch of Cazenove Fund Management Limited 
and is regulated by the Jersey Financial Services Commission. 

Cazenove Investment Fund Management Limited, regulated by the Financial Services 
Authority and a member of IMA, promotes only its own products and services. 


___

over-investment

2002-10-04 Thread Devine, James

Title: over-investment

[was: RE: [PEN-L:30892] Re: PK's the man with the plan]

- Original Message -
From: Devine, James
[Pen-l alumnus Brad deLong used to deny the possibility of
over-investment,
even though it's the subject of my Ph.D. dissertation!
(UC-Berkeley Econ.,
1981.) does he still do so?]

Ian:
I don't think so; he made some comments regarding the issue
on his blog a
week or two ago..

Can you find them?

Brad's original argument, if I remember it correctly, against the Austrian and Schumpeterian versions of over-investment theory and in favor of a version of Keynesianism. The Austrian theory has usually been interpreted as saying that the policy response to a recession like those of 2001 or 1929-33 in the U.S. should be let nature take its course: eventually, the recession will purge the economy of the imbalances accumulated during the boom phase of the cycle, allowing recovery. In this view, active fiscal and/or monetary policy simply encourages the imbalances to persist or get worse.

I haven't read all of what Brad says about this, but my (admittedly superficial) impression is that he doesn't analyze the Austrian or Schumpeterian perspectives in depth. Instead, he assumes that the current economics-profession orthodoxy is correct, which implies that over-investment theory is wrong.

More importantly, he seems to generalize from a critique of the Austrian and Schumpeterian over-investment/recessionary purgation theories to reject _all_ theories that have this emphasis, including the Marxian and Keynes-Marxian ones. Of course, I may be missing one of his articles on this subject, so I may be misrepresenting his views.

Daniel Davies writes:
I believe that the politically correct point of view on this topic among the
relevant crowd is that the economy as a whole cannot have over-investment,
but that individual industries can. Quite how this squares with an
aggregative view of capital I cannot say, but then I am not a theologian ...

this seems to be a dynamic version of Say's Law: if there's over-investment in one sector, there must be under-investment in another. This is as valid as Say's Law was (or even less so).

BTW, the standard textbook flexible accelerator model allows for over-investment. It says that net investment reflects the difference between the desired (aggregate) stock of capital goods and the actually-existing stock. If the desired stock is actually less than the actually-existing stock, then all of the standard stories of monetary policy or corporate take breaks stimulating investment fly out the window. Despite low interest rates, why invest if companies already have more than enough fixed capital? We have to wait for depreciation and the like to get the actually-existing stock back below the desired stock in order to get back to more normal investment behavior.

My own view of the business cycle is a combination of over-investment theory and Keynes. In some eras, capitalism over-shoots relative to supply constraints (as in the late 1960s) so that there are cost constraints on the profit rate. In other eras, such as our current one, capitalism over-shoots relative to what's justified by consumer demand -- or consumers have to get into excessive debt to allow investment to continue. Either way, imbalances are created that keep the economy from snapping back and from responding quickly to monetary policy. Monetary policy may simply encourage unwise debt accumulation or continuation of an over-investment process or short-circuiting of the purgation process.

The Keynesian component arises because over-investment can cross an invisible line that's not known until the owl of Minerva has flown the coop (i.e. until after the fact). The economy can spin into an underconsumption trap and/or Fisherian debt-deflation. In this situation, only fiscal policy can work.

Re: PK's the man with the plan



New York TIMES/October 4, 2002
My Economic Plan
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Although other news has been drowned out by the barking of the dogs of 
war, something ominous is happening on the economic front. It's not 
dramatic, but month by month the numbers keep coming in worse than 
expected. Let's put politics completely aside for once, and review where 
we are and what should be done.

The key point is that this isn't your father's recession -- it's your 
grandfather's recession. That is, it isn't your standard postwar 
recession, engineered by the Federal Reserve to fight inflation, and 
easily reversed when the Fed loosens the reins. It's a classic 
overinvestment slump, of a kind that was normal before World War II. And 
such slumps have always been hard to fight simply by cutting interest rates.

Right. Such slumps can only be overcome through wars of the type that 
redivide the world's resources and markets. Not surprisingly, more and more 
articles are appearing in the bourgeois press that acknowledge the benefits 
of a victory over Iraq, which would probably the opening salvo in a 
prolonged war against resource-rich 3rd world countries. Who is next? 
Venezuela? Iran?

Now there's no question that the Fed's rapid rate reductions last year 
helped avert a much bigger slump. But a hard look at monetary policy 
suggests that the Fed hasn't done enough -- and possibly can't do enough. 
Although the Fed funds rate, the usual measure of monetary policy, is at 
its lowest level in generations, the real Fed funds rate -- the interest 
rate minus the inflation rate, which is what matters for investment 
decisions -- is actually about the same as it was at the bottom of the 
last recession, in the early 1990's, because inflation is considerably lower.

Sounds like Japan.

The answer is that we should have a sensible plan for fiscal stimulus -- 
one that encourages spending now, to bridge the gap until business 
investment revives. Some of the elements of such a plan are obvious, and 
were described by Jeff Madrick in yesterday's Times. First, extend 
unemployment benefits, which are considerably less generous now than in 
the last recession; this will do double duty, helping some of the neediest 
while putting money into the hands of people who are likely to spend it. 
Second, provide aid to the states, which are in increasingly desperate 
fiscal straits. This will also do double duty, preventing harsh cuts in 
public services, with medical care for the poor the most likely target, at 
the same time that it boosts demand.

Keynsianism is not a likely option given the morass of the trade union and 
radical movements. That being said, what makes anybody think it will work 
now? It surely did not work in the 1930s.



Louis Proyect
www.marxmail.org

Re: over-investment

2002-10-04 Thread Michael Perelman


Brad's critique of liquidationism -- The Austrian-Schumpeterian view of
overinvestment -- is quite nice, but it does not preclude the possibility
of overinvestment.  If his view is what Jim says, that overinvestment
can occur in individual industries but not in economy as a whole, then his
theory would amount to a repetition of what David Ricardo said a few years
ago.

 -- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: PK's the man with the plan

2002-10-04 Thread Tom Walker


One Krugman ready or not?

Gosh, I seem to recall someone by the name of Paul Krugman, I believe it
was, mocking William Greider a few years ago for his naive fallacy of
composition belief in the possibilty of overproduction. Now I realize that
investment and production are not synonyms, but it seems to me that the
arguments against the _possibility_ of overproduction would pertain equally
to the possibility of overinvestment. Or, to put it a different way:
Productivity growth in one sector can very easily reduce employment in that
sector. But to suppose that productivity growth reduces employment in the
economy as a whole is a very different matter.

http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/hotdog.html

Paul Krugman wrote,

The key point is that this isn't your father's recession -- it's your
grandfather's recession. That is, it isn't your standard postwar recession,
engineered by the Federal Reserve to fight inflation, and easily reversed
when the Fed loosens the reins. It's a classic overinvestment slump, of a
kind that was normal before World War II. And such slumps have always been
hard to fight simply by cutting interest rates.

Contrasts with:

Here again, however, there is a deeper answer. It is possible for economies
to suffer from an overall inadequacy of demand--recessions do happen.
However, such slumps are essentially monetary--they come about because
people try in the aggregate to hold more cash than there actually is in
circulation. (That insight is the essence of Keynesian economics.) And they
can usually be cured by issuing more money--full stop, end of story. An
overall excess of production capacity (compared to what?) has nothing at all
to do with it.


Tom Walker
604 255 4812

RE: RE: PK's the man with the plan

2002-10-04 Thread Max B. Sawicky


http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/comm/events/20021002.pdf

see for yourself.

max



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Brown, Martin - ARP
(NIH/NCI)
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 11:49 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: [PEN-L:30893] RE: PK's the man with the plan


Did Al Gore put forward any of these concrete steps in his economics talk
the other day or did he just whine and moan about the evil Repubs?
-Original Message-
From: Devine, James [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 11:26 AM
To: Pen-l (E-mail)
Subject: [PEN-L:30891] PK's the man with the plan


New York TIMES/October 4, 2002
My Economic Plan
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Although other news has been drowned out by the barking of the dogs of war,
something ominous is happening on the economic front. It's not dramatic, but
month by month the numbers keep coming in worse than expected. Let's put
politics completely aside for once, and review where we are and what should
be done.
The key point is that this isn't your father's recession -- it's your
grandfather's recession. That is, it isn't your standard postwar recession,
engineered by the Federal Reserve to fight inflation, and easily reversed
when the Fed loosens the reins. It's a classic overinvestment slump, of a
kind that was normal before World War II. And such slumps have always been
hard to fight simply by cutting interest rates.
[Pen-l alumnus Brad deLong used to deny the possibility of over-investment,
even though it's the subject of my Ph.D. dissertation! (UC-Berkeley Econ.,
1981.) does he still do so?]
Now there's no question that the Fed's rapid rate reductions last year
helped avert a much bigger slump. But a hard look at monetary policy
suggests that the Fed hasn't done enough -- and possibly can't do enough.
Although the Fed funds rate, the usual measure of monetary policy, is at its
lowest level in generations, the real Fed funds rate -- the interest rate
minus the inflation rate, which is what matters for investment decisions --
is actually about the same as it was at the bottom of the last recession, in
the early 1990's, because inflation is considerably lower.
And the drop in the Fed funds rate engineered by Alan Greenspan  Company,
though faster than that in the last recession, has so far been considerably
smaller; last time it fell by 6.75 points, this time it fell by only 4.75.
Even if the Fed funds rate falls all the way to zero, that will be a smaller
interest rate reduction than the last time around. If you think the excesses
of the 1990's were larger than those of the 1980's, that the economy needs
more stimulus to pull itself out, then it seems likely that the Fed hasn't
done enough, and quite possible that even going all the way to zero still
won't be enough.
And this situation may last for a while. The overhang of excess capacity,
especially in telecommunications, will be worked off only slowly. It's all
too possible that we may be looking at a sluggish economy into 2004, maybe
beyond. The Fed should cut rates further -- it may not be enough, but it
will help. What else should we do?
[the overhang isn't just excess capacity. It's also corporate  individual
debt, along with depressed profit rates and profit-rate expectations. Will
it soon include excess housing combined with excessive personal mortgage
debt compared to a depressed price of housing?]
The answer is that we should have a sensible plan for fiscal stimulus -- one
that encourages spending now, to bridge the gap until business investment
revives. Some of the elements of such a plan are obvious, and were described
by Jeff Madrick in yesterday's Times. First, extend unemployment benefits,
which are considerably less generous now than in the last recession; this
will do double duty, helping some of the neediest while putting money into
the hands of people who are likely to spend it. Second, provide aid to the
states, which are in increasingly desperate fiscal straits. This will also
do double duty, preventing harsh cuts in public services, with medical care
for the poor the most likely target, at the same time that it boosts demand.
If these elements don't add up to a large enough sum -- I agree with Mr.
Madrick that $100 billion over the next year is a good target -- why not
have another rebate, this time going to everyone who pays payroll taxes?
And how will we pay for all of this? You know the answer to that: Cancel tax
cuts scheduled for the future. The economy needs stimulus now; it doesn't
need tax cuts for the very affluent five years from now.
This isn't rocket science. It's straightforward textbook economics, applied
to our actual situation. It's also, I'm well aware, politically out of the
question. But I think we're entitled to ask why.
[question: what effect will this plan have on the value of the dollar? if
the dollar falls steeply, as seems likely given the large U.S. external
debt, what will the Fed do? will it hike

Re: Re: PK's the man with the plan

yin or yang..yin or yang..meanwhile billions suffer...

- Original Message -
From: Tom Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 9:59 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:30899] Re: PK's the man with the plan

 One Krugman ready or not?

 Gosh, I seem to recall someone by the name of Paul Krugman, I believe it
 was, mocking William Greider a few years ago for his naive fallacy of
 composition belief in the possibilty of overproduction. Now I realize
that
 investment and production are not synonyms, but it seems to me that the
 arguments against the _possibility_ of overproduction would pertain
equally
 to the possibility of overinvestment. Or, to put it a different way:
 Productivity growth in one sector can very easily reduce employment in
that
 sector. But to suppose that productivity growth reduces employment in the
 economy as a whole is a very different matter.

 http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/hotdog.html

 Paul Krugman wrote,

 The key point is that this isn't your father's recession -- it's your
 grandfather's recession. That is, it isn't your standard postwar
recession,
 engineered by the Federal Reserve to fight inflation, and easily reversed
 when the Fed loosens the reins. It's a classic overinvestment slump, of a
 kind that was normal before World War II. And such slumps have always been
 hard to fight simply by cutting interest rates.

 Contrasts with:

 Here again, however, there is a deeper answer. It is possible for
economies
 to suffer from an overall inadequacy of demand--recessions do happen.
 However, such slumps are essentially monetary--they come about because
 people try in the aggregate to hold more cash than there actually is in
 circulation. (That insight is the essence of Keynesian economics.) And
they
 can usually be cured by issuing more money--full stop, end of story. An
 overall excess of production capacity (compared to what?) has nothing at
all
 to do with it.

 Tom Walker
 604 255 4812

Re: Re: PK's the man with the plan

He's the man
with the plan
has a counterfeit dollar in his hand.

He's mister know it all.

Must be see
There's no doubt,
He the coolest one with the biggest mouth.
He's Mister know it all.

When you say that he living wrong
He will say that he's living right
and you would be a better man . . . .

If you took Mister know it all advice . . .oh . . .,oh

UHignghuminng.

Take my word 
please beware 
of the man who just doesn't
give a care.

He's Mister know it all. 

Must be seen
there's no doubt
he's the coolest one with the biggest mouth.

He's Mister know it all. 

He's the man
with the plan
has a counterfeit dollar in his hand.

He's mister know it all.

Stevie Wonder - Innervision


about 1973.

Re: PK's the man with the plan

In a message dated 10/4/02 8:28:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


New York TIMES/October 4, 2002 
My Economic Plan 
By PAUL KRUGMAN 

Although other news has been drowned out by the barking of the dogs of war, something ominous is happening on the economic front. It's not dramatic, but month by month the numbers keep coming in worse than expected. Let's put politics completely aside for once, and review where we are and what should be done.

The key point is that this isn't your father's recession -- it's your grandfather's recession. That is, it isn't your standard postwar recession, engineered by the Federal Reserve to fight inflation, and easily reversed when the Fed loosens the reins. It's a classic overinvestment slump, of a kind that was normal before World War II. And such slumps have always been hard to fight simply by cutting interest rates. 



What we are experiencing is something different in modern world history. I knew my grandfather and this is not what he faced. Let's see what doesn't happen. 

Melvin P.

RE: RE: RE: PK's the man with the plan

2002-10-04 Thread Brown, Martin - ARP (NIH/NCI)


I read it fast, but didn't see a single concrete proposal about federally
directed fiscal, monetary, labor or industrial policy (except some
pie-in-the-sky rhetoric about the new economy!).  Did I miss something?  One
thing you have to say about the Republicans, when they are out of office
they formulate and forcefully advocate for shadow policies.

-Original Message-
From: Max B. Sawicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 12:59 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:30898] RE: RE: PK's the man with the plan


http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/comm/events/20021002.pdf

see for yourself.

max



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Brown, Martin - ARP
(NIH/NCI)
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 11:49 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: [PEN-L:30893] RE: PK's the man with the plan


Did Al Gore put forward any of these concrete steps in his economics talk
the other day or did he just whine and moan about the evil Repubs?
-Original Message-
From: Devine, James [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 11:26 AM
To: Pen-l (E-mail)
Subject: [PEN-L:30891] PK's the man with the plan


New York TIMES/October 4, 2002
My Economic Plan
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Although other news has been drowned out by the barking of the dogs of war,
something ominous is happening on the economic front. It's not dramatic, but
month by month the numbers keep coming in worse than expected. Let's put
politics completely aside for once, and review where we are and what should
be done.
The key point is that this isn't your father's recession -- it's your
grandfather's recession. That is, it isn't your standard postwar recession,
engineered by the Federal Reserve to fight inflation, and easily reversed
when the Fed loosens the reins. It's a classic overinvestment slump, of a
kind that was normal before World War II. And such slumps have always been
hard to fight simply by cutting interest rates.
[Pen-l alumnus Brad deLong used to deny the possibility of over-investment,
even though it's the subject of my Ph.D. dissertation! (UC-Berkeley Econ.,
1981.) does he still do so?]
Now there's no question that the Fed's rapid rate reductions last year
helped avert a much bigger slump. But a hard look at monetary policy
suggests that the Fed hasn't done enough -- and possibly can't do enough.
Although the Fed funds rate, the usual measure of monetary policy, is at its
lowest level in generations, the real Fed funds rate -- the interest rate
minus the inflation rate, which is what matters for investment decisions --
is actually about the same as it was at the bottom of the last recession, in
the early 1990's, because inflation is considerably lower.
And the drop in the Fed funds rate engineered by Alan Greenspan  Company,
though faster than that in the last recession, has so far been considerably
smaller; last time it fell by 6.75 points, this time it fell by only 4.75.
Even if the Fed funds rate falls all the way to zero, that will be a smaller
interest rate reduction than the last time around. If you think the excesses
of the 1990's were larger than those of the 1980's, that the economy needs
more stimulus to pull itself out, then it seems likely that the Fed hasn't
done enough, and quite possible that even going all the way to zero still
won't be enough.
And this situation may last for a while. The overhang of excess capacity,
especially in telecommunications, will be worked off only slowly. It's all
too possible that we may be looking at a sluggish economy into 2004, maybe
beyond. The Fed should cut rates further -- it may not be enough, but it
will help. What else should we do?
[the overhang isn't just excess capacity. It's also corporate  individual
debt, along with depressed profit rates and profit-rate expectations. Will
it soon include excess housing combined with excessive personal mortgage
debt compared to a depressed price of housing?]
The answer is that we should have a sensible plan for fiscal stimulus -- one
that encourages spending now, to bridge the gap until business investment
revives. Some of the elements of such a plan are obvious, and were described
by Jeff Madrick in yesterday's Times. First, extend unemployment benefits,
which are considerably less generous now than in the last recession; this
will do double duty, helping some of the neediest while putting money into
the hands of people who are likely to spend it. Second, provide aid to the
states, which are in increasingly desperate fiscal straits. This will also
do double duty, preventing harsh cuts in public services, with medical care
for the poor the most likely target, at the same time that it boosts demand.
If these elements don't add up to a large enough sum -- I agree with Mr.
Madrick that $100 billion over the next year is a good target -- why not
have another rebate, this time going to everyone who pays payroll taxes?
And how will we pay for all of this? You know the

Re: over-investment

In a message dated 10/4/02 9:15:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


My own view of the business "cycle" is a combination of over-investment theory and Keynes. In some eras, capitalism over-shoots relative to supply constraints (as in the late 1960s) so that there are cost constraints on the profit rate. In other eras, such as our current one, capitalism over-shoots relative to what's justified by consumer demand -- or consumers have to get into excessive debt to allow investment to continue. Either way, imbalances are created that keep the economy from "snapping back" and from responding quickly to monetary policy. Monetary policy may simply encourage unwise debt accumulation or continuation of an over-investment process or short-circuiting of the purgation process. 



The commodity form is under attack. This is not a classical "general crisis of capital" but something different, contingent of a phase of history in transition to a new mode of production. There is no cure on the basis of monetary policy. 


Melvin P.

Re: over-investment


over-investment
- Original Message -
From: Devine, James

Can you find them?

==

Give me a few and I'll fish 'em out.


The Keynesian component arises because over-investment can cross an
invisible line that's not known until the owl of Minerva has flown the coop
(i.e. until after the fact). The economy can spin into an underconsumption
trap and/or Fisherian debt-deflation. In this situation, only fiscal policy
can work.
JD

===

Well it's that time of year to be watching the earmarking process in
Congress again..Bush has already gotten his military fiscalism package
but I doubt that's going to be sufficient.


washingtonpost.com
Investors See Green in Government IT Sector
Government Contractors Take Advantage of Tech Bust To Actively Court Wall
Street

By Cynthia L. Webb
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Friday, October 4, 2002; 12:00 AM


Dendy Young, chairman and chief executive of GTSI Corp., used to have a
tough time getting the investment community to notice his company.

A year ago it was frankly difficult to get in and see people, said Young,
whose Chantilly-based company resells computer software and hardware to
local, state and federal government agencies. I would try and take trips to
New York and I would get one or two appointments set up and it would be
difficult to get others.

But as the broader technology sector continues to flail, GTSI Corp. [GTSI]
and other firms in the government contracting space are winning newfound
respect from investors seeking out companies with real customers and cash
flow.

Nowadays if I go to New York, I'm making five six calls a day, Young said.

Market analysts are taking note of the expected flood of information
technology spending by the federal government. According to FSI, an IT
market research firm in McLean, roughly $52.5 billion of President Bush's
proposed fiscal year 2003 budget is slated for IT-related systems and
services. That is an increase from $44.9 billion pegged in the budget
submitted for fiscal year 2002.

Higher government spending on technology was prompted in part by the Sept.
11 terrorist attacks. A good deal of that money is expected to be spent on
cybersecurity efforts and high-tech weapons and the systems that make them
work. Moreover, the government's war on terrorism is requiring bureaucrats
to link diverse computer systems -- from the CIA and Defense Department to
the Customs Service and newly formed Transportation Security
Administration -- to better share information and mine data.

Investment experts know the government will turn to private firms to carry
out many of these tasks. And with so much work potentially available to the
sector, the stock performances and bottom lines of defense and IT services
firms servicing the government have shown promise.

Case in point: Two years ago, GTSI's shares were trading in the $3 range. A
year ago, the stock was trading at below $6.50 and it has climbed to the $8
to $9 range recently. GTSI logged nearly $784 million in revenue last
year -- almost a 16 percent hike from 2000. The company has been profitable
year-over-year since 1998, and it has seen its employee roster grow from 574
workers in 2000 to 671 today.

The government sector was not a golden child to Wall Street for a number of
years, said Marylourdes Petty, who heads GTSI's investor relations. Founded
in 1983, GTSI went public in 1991, but its name is just now getting more
traction.

[S]uddenly we are the golden children, Petty said.

It doesn't hurt, however, that GTSI has ramped up its investor and public
relations efforts. Three years ago, the company didn't even have an investor
relation's department. The company started making a concerted effort to woo
big investors about two years ago, Young said. His schedule is now filled
with meetings to pitch investment clubs, the National Stockbroker's
Association and analysts.

Even larger players in government contracting circles have put a premium on
courting Wall Street. American Management Systems Inc. [AMSY] of Fairfax,
for example, has increased its focus on investor relations as part of the
information technology consulting company's recent management changes, said
spokeswoman Anne Burt.

Outreach is more active in both directions between the investment community
and contractors, said Doug Coffey, vice president of communications of
Arlington-based United Defense [UDI], a producer of combat equipment and
precision munitions. We are certainly answering more of their questions and
there are more calls coming in, Coffey said.

IPOs Evidence of Sector's Strength

Since last December, five Washington-area IT services companies have gone
public, according to New York-based IPO.com. United Defense went public in
December 2001, the only IPO in the industry last year, followed quickly this
year by Anteon International Corp. [ANT], SRA International Inc. [SRX],
Veridian Corp. [VNX] and ManTech International Corp. [MANT] Outside the
region,

Re: Re: over-investment



- Original Message - 
From: Ian Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 12:19 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:30906] Re: over-investment


 over-investment
 - Original Message -
 From: Devine, James
 
 Can you find them?
 
 ==
 
 Give me a few and I'll fish 'em out.
 
 


http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/archives/000802.html

Re: Jim Crow Fascism (was Re: bullying)

2002-10-04 Thread Lisa Stolarski

Title: Re: [PEN-L:30870] Jim Crow Fascism (was Re: bullying)

Hi Tom,

I just want to repeat something I said earlier. Maybe you missed it, it is easy to do that on this prolific list. Fascism is a concept as well as a word with historical-polical meaning. You can take the overall intent and structure of fascism and abstract it from its historical context to come up with a concept of fascism which can then be used to describe other historical phenomena with the same overall structure and intent. This is done all of the time both in ordinary and theoretical discourse. I don't understand what the problem is unless someone simply is afraid that the word is too controversial. In that case we are arguing about the connotation rather than the applicability of the descriptor. There are a few ways to go with that. You can either change your word, as in communist who might call herself a socialist to distance herself from association with the CP and the USSR, or you can use the word so as to take it back, as the anarchists have begun to do with the term libertarian which has traditionally been a word used by anarchists until the right wing libertarians lifted in for their own purposes in the US. I have already argued against the first course of measure and for the second. We might want to qualify this unique-to-our-historical-moment brand of fascism with another descriptor, but we should recognize the difference between fascism the concept and fascism the historical phenomenon so that we don't keep calling a concept anachronistic, which it really can't be. That would be like saying every contemporary expose on virtue ethics is anachronistic since Aristotle wrote about virtue ethics 2500 years ago. Virtue ethics has an overall structure which can have many variants, not just the one Aristotle constructed. And though virtue ethics is an old concept popularized by Aristotle, it is not anachronistic to expound today upon the overall structure of the concept.

I have not read the numerous comments in this thread so I apologize if I have duplicated someone else's point. I am reading them backwards to the last time I posted. The email is so busy I drown in it sometimes.

Sorry to split hairs, Tom, but it is important for us to be able to agree upon the language we will use to discuss this very heavy shxt. As far as qualifying the term for our historical moment, I don't think Jim Crow Fascism has staying power. How about Corporate Totalitarianism, or Corporate Fascism?

Lisa S.

P.S. Courtesy of the American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition:

fascism (noun) 1. Often Fascism. a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. b. A political philosophy or movement based on advocating such a system of government. 2. Oppressive dictatorial control.

fascist (noun) 1. Often Fascist. An advocate or adherent of fascism. 2. A reactionary or dictatorial person. [my italics].

fascist (adj) 1. Often Fascist. Of, advocating or practicing fascism. 2. Fascist. Of or relating to the regime of the Fascisti.

Fascisti (noun, plural) 1. The members of an Italian political organization that controlled Italy under the fascist dictatorship of Benito Mussolini from 1922 to 1943.

...

totalitarian (adj) Of, relating to, being or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed: A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul.

totalitarian (noun) A practitioner or supporter of such a government.

on 10/03/2002 2:06 PM, Tom Walker at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I welcome Melvin P.'s corrective to my own forgetting, which is itself
systematic. Indeed, the overthrow of bourgeois democracy in the United
States has always been founded on a *southern strategy* of anti-democratic
terror that predates European fascism. To call it fascism is anachronistic,
but to not call it fascism leaves it without a name.

Jim Crow perhaps carries too much of a connotation of mere discrimination
and too much of illusion of containment -- as if it is something whose
political consequences were confined to the south and whose historical
dynamic has somehow been attenuated by civil rights legislation and Brown v.
the Board of Education.

Maybe if we call it Jim Crow Fascism, we can open up a space to recall that
this is not some exotic import or faded relic. In my post, I talked about
the anti-labor policies of the National Association of Manufacturers. It's
important to add that the southern strategy was from the outset a key
element of the N.A.M. campaigns. This is very clear in the rationale and
symbolism put

Goldman Sachs


[what did Corzine know and when did he know it?]

'Flipping' Goldman fingered
Congressional report offers damaging summary of bank's dotcom boom years

David Teather in New York
Friday October 4, 2002
The Guardian

Goldman Sachs was yesterday dragged into the scandals that have shaken Wall
Street when a congressional panel detailed a litany of alleged abuses
designed to enrich the bank and its clients.

The allegations were made in a report from the House financial services
committee, which provided a damaging indictment of Wall Street practices in
the 1990s boom.

Goldman was accused of allocating shares in sought-after stock market
flotations to executives of 21 companies as an inducement for investment
banking business. The shares were distributed to, among others, former Enron
chief executive Kenneth Lay, disgraced Tyco chiefs Dennis Kozlowski and Mark
Swartz, and John Legere of Global Crossing.

Other Goldman clients to have received shares in oversubscribed IPOs
included the last remaining dotcom favourite, Meg Whitman, chief executive
of online auctioneer EBay, Jerry Yang, the co-founder of Yahoo! and William
Clay Ford, of Ford Motor Company. Ms Whitman is a Goldman director and EBay
has paid the firm $8m in investment banking fees since 1996.

But the report also highlights broader abuses during the internet-driven
frenzy of the last decade. They included the use of research to hype
companies that were investment banking clients, the possibly illegal
underpricing of IPO shares to enable quick profits, and potentially improper
due diligence in bringing companies to market.

Two thirds of the 22 firms brought to market by Goldman examined by the
committee have since lost at least 96% of their value, and several have
filed for bankruptcy protection. The committee noted that Goldman dropped
analyst coverage of 17 but did not, in a single case, issue a sell
recommendation. Our goals are to correct abuses in the markets and to make
the system fair for the average investor, said the committee's chairman,
Michael Oxley.

People are willing to take a risk with their money, but they're not willing
to gamble when the system seems rigged against them. There is no equity in
the equities market.

The report also noted alleged abuses at Salomon Smith Barney and Credit
Suisse First Boston, which have both been under the spotlight of markets
regulator the SEC and New York State's attorney-general, Eliot Spitzer.

There is a growing sense among Wall Street critics that the investment banks
which made it rich in the 1990s not only profited from the boom but were the
driving force behind its creation - and the damaging slough that has
accompanied its bust.

The SEC yesterday reached agreement with Mr Spitzer, the New York stock
exchange and others, to coordinate efforts on their investigations. In the
next few weeks they will develop a template that can be used to work out
settlements for the inquiries still under way.

Many sold the shares within days for a huge profit - so-called flipping.
Eight of the firms Goldman underwrote gained at least 173% on the first day
of trading. Tyco has given Goldman $57m in banking fees since 1996, Global
Crossing has paid $45m and Enron $19m.

A spokesman for Goldman said the report was an egregious distortion of the
facts. Recipients of the IPO shares were clients of the bank's private
wealth management business who had placed orders for shares. Any suggestion
that we were involved in improper practices is simply untrue.

Re: Goldman Sachs

2002-10-04 Thread Michael Perelman


Maybe Torrecelli will have to replace Corzine?
-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re: Goldman Sachs


maybe we can get Max to move back to NJ to be a write-in candidate



- Original Message - 
From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 4:52 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:30911] Re: Goldman Sachs


 Maybe Torrecelli will have to replace Corzine?
 -- 
 Michael Perelman
 Economics Department
 California State University
 Chico, CA 95929
 
 Tel. 530-898-5321
 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re: Goldman Sachs

2002-10-04 Thread Michael Perelman


sorry, I was thinking of replacing him in the Senate rather than at GS.

On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 04:52:10PM -0700, Michael Perelman wrote:
 Maybe Torrecelli will have to replace Corzine?
 -- 
 Michael Perelman
 Economics Department
 California State University
 Chico, CA 95929
 
 Tel. 530-898-5321
 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

An excerpt from Michael Yates's new book


If it is not appropriate to lay out a blueprint for a new society, we 
can at least do two things. First, we can delineate some important 
principles which should guide us in our struggle for an alternative to 
capitalism. And second, we can address some important questions that are 
bound to arise as we move forward.

Various authors have put forward principles which, in the words of Leo 
Panitch and Sam Gindin, will provide a motivating vision. As we 
struggle, we should push our movements toward an embrace of equality, 
democracy, the reintegration of work, and ecological balance.

It should be clear from this book that most of the world's people will 
have little or no chance to develop their full human capacities as long 
as there exists such significant wealth and income inequalities. A 
market system simply reinforces the inequalities that already exist, and 
the neoliberalism of the past thirty years has made inequality much 
worse. Therefore, if we want to build a society in which people are free 
and able to develop their capacities, we must unashamedly and 
forthrightly insist on equality. There is no convincing reason why each 
of us should not receive an aliquot part of the world's resources. Of 
course, there may be reasons why a particular person might deserve a bit 
more at a particular point in time (a sick person requires more health 
care than a healthy one), but in general, equality should be our goal.

Once we make equality a primary goal, many things become clear. First, 
there can be no justification for all of the many kinds of not directly 
economic inequality that exist. Equality means that women must be the 
equals of men, ethnic and racial minorities the equals of majorities, 
gays the equals of straights, and so forth. We do not mean that a new 
society cannot tolerate differences; indeed, differences ought to be 
celebrated. But inequality is not the same as difference; the former is 
pernicious, the latter is not.

Second, equality implies that many people in the rich countries will no 
longer be able to pursue unbridled consumption. Individual consumption 
in the rich countries and among the elites in the poor countries will 
have to be reduced. Neoclassical economists like Brad DeLong of the 
University of California at Berkeley have suggested that the world is 
already slouching toward utopia. He argues that nearly a billion 
people in the world are approaching the standard of living of the U.S. 
middle class, and by implication, slowly but surely, over the fabled 
long run, the rest of the world will get to this standard of living as 
well. Such a view is untenable. It misses three key points. First, the 
well-being of a minority of persons (even a billion people is well under 
20 percent of the world's population. What about the rest? It is simply 
not believable, given the human misery we have documented in this book, 
that DeLong's utopian views will be confirmed.) is fundamentally 
dependent on the lack of well-being of everyone else. That is, I enjoy a 
decent standard of living because at the base of the world's economies 
are large layers of terribly poor and exploited workers. This is simply 
the way capitalism works. Second, the world could not stand the resource 
and environmental strain of a U.S. middle class lifestyle. For example, 
there are way too many cars in the rich countries. Can we imagine what 
the environmental cost would be if every Chinese and Indian household 
had as many cars as households comparable to the DeLong's have now? 
Third, DeLong suggests that it is technological change which accounts 
for the rise of a large worldwide middle class. However, there is little 
direct correlation between the advance of technology and living 
standards. What is necessary for people's living standards to improve is 
that they organize collectively to appropriate part of the growing 
surplus technological change makes possible to themselves. Surely the 
plight of working people around the world today, who often labor in 
relatively high-tech workplaces but remain destitute, puts the lie to 
DeLong's arguments.

A third consequence of the demand for equality is that a lot of 
consumption will have to be satisfied collectively. Transportation, 
child care, housing, and much more will have to be collectively 
provided, so that can have equal amounts of it or whatever special 
amounts they need in excess of the average. An egalitarian world will 
not be able to tolerate a proliferation of so many privately-owned goods 
and services.

The third point implies that we will not be able to rely on markets and 
competitive behavior if we want to create a just and equitable society. 
Markets and acquisitive behavior simply recreate what we already have. 
And when they are applied to what is a relatively egalitarian society, 
as is the case today in China, what we see is the return of capitalism 
and its attendant inequality and unfairness.

Iran attacks US

2002-10-04 Thread Devine, James

Title: Iran attacks US 






http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2=/020927/7/2bxul.html


By Ted Rall
The Case for Regime Change


NEW YORK--Making the case for United Nations ( news - web sites)
intervention against the United States, Iranian President Mohammad
Khatami ( news - web sites) told the organization yesterday
that military action will be unavoidable unless the U.S. agrees to
destroy its weapons of mass destruction.


In a much-anticipated speech to a special session of the U.N. General
Assembly held in Brussels, Khatami launched a blistering attack
against American leader George W. Bush, accusing him of defying U.N.
resolutions and using his country's wealth to line the pockets of
wealthy cronies at a time when the people of his country make do without


such basic social programs as national health insurance.


Nearly two years ago, the civilized world watched as this evil and
corrupt dictator subverted the world's oldest representative democracy
in an 
illegal coup d'état, said Khatami. Since then the Bush regime has 
continued America's systematic repression of ethnic and religious
minorities 
and threatened international peace and security throughout the world. 
Thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been
subjected 
to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment. Basic civil rights have been
violated. 
This rogue state has flouted the international community on legal,
economic 
and environmental issues. It has even ignored the Geneva Conventions on
the 
treatment of prisoners of war by denying that its illegal invasion of 
Afghanistan ( news - web sites)--which has had a destabilizing influence


throughout Central Asia--was a war at all.


Khatami said the U.S. possesses the world's largest arsenal of nuclear 
weapons, weapons that, when first developed, were used immediately to
kill 
half a million innocent civilians just months after acquiring them. No 
nation that has committed nuclear genocide can be entrusted with weapons
of 
mass destruction.


Bush has invaded Afghanistan and is now threatening Iraq. We cannot
stand by and do nothing while danger gathers. We can't allow this
tyrant to strike first. We have an obligation to act pre-emptively to
protect the world from this evildoer, Khatami said.


As delegates punctuated his words with bursts of applause, Khatami
noted that U.S. intelligence agencies had helped establish
and fund the world's most virulent terrorist organizations, including
Al Qaeda, and the Taliban regime that harbored them. The U.S. created
the Islamist extremists who attacked its people on September 11,2001,
he 
stated, and Bush's illegitimate junta cynically exploited those attacks
to 
repress political dissidents, make sweetheart deals with 
politically-connected corporations and revive 19th century-style
colonial 
imperialism.


Khatami asked the U.N. to set a deadline for Bush to step down in favor
of 
president-in-exile Al Gore ( news - web sites), the legitimate winner of
the 
2000 election, the results of which were subverted through widespread
voting 
irregularities and intimidation. We favor not regime change, but rather


restoration and liberation, he said. In addition, Khatami said, the
U.S. 
must dismantle its weapons of mass destruction, guarantee basic human
rights 
to all citizens and agree to abide by international law or face the 
consequences.


Most observers agree that those consequences would likely include a
prolonged bombing campaign targeting major U.S. cities and military
installations, followed by a ground invasion led by European
forces.Civilian casualties would likely be substantial, said a
French military analyst. But the American people must be liberated
from tyranny.


Khatami's charges, which were detailed in a dossier prepared by French 
President Jacques Chirac, were dismissed by a epresentative of the
American 
strongman as lies, half-truths and misguided beliefs, motivated by the 
desire to control a country with oil,natural gas and other natural 
resources. National Security Minister Condoleezza Rice ( news - web
sites) 
denied that the U.S. maintains weapons of mass destruction and invited
U.N. 
inspectors to visit Washington to see for themselves that our weapons
are 
designed only to keep the peace, subject of course to full respect for 
American sovereignty.


The U.N. is expected to reject any conditions for or restrictions on
arms inspections.


Experts believe that the liberation of the United States will require a 
large ground force of European and other international troops, followed
by a 
massive rebuilding program costing billions of euros. Even before Bush,
the 
American political system was a shambles, said Prof. Salvatore Deluna
of 
the University of Madrid. Their single-party plutocracy will have to be


reshaped into true parliamentary-style democracy. Moreover, the economy
will 
have to be retooled from its current military dictatorship model--in
which a 
third of the federal budget goes to

Turkey


[tragically, the Bush-Blair megalomaniacal simplex has neglected to  state
why they want to move beyond protecting and empowering the Kurds in Iraq
while materializing-financing their oppression in southeast
Turkey.]



The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com

EU reported to hold up on Turkey
Thomas Fuller International Herald Tribune
Saturday, October 5, 2002

Commission cites problems with membership application

PARIS Turkey's campaign for membership in the European Union was dealt a
blow Friday after news reports quoted an unidentified EU source as saying
that Brussels was not willing to set a starting date for negotiations with
the Turkish government.

The European Commission, which is charged with charting the progress of
prospective EU members, has recommended that the European Union respect its
current timetable of admitting 10 new members in 2004, including the divided
island of Cyprus, according to news agency reports quoting an unidentified
EU source.

The commission is also calling for a tentative date of 2007 for the
membership Romania and Bulgaria, according to the reports.

But negotiations with Turkey, which the European Union accepted as a
candidate for membership in 1999, will be effectively kept on ice.

A spokesman for the European Commission, Jean-Christophe Filori, declined to
confirm the reports, saying only that there were still problems with
Turkey's membership application.

A Turkish official visiting Brussels brushed off the reports, saying the
issue required a political decision that would eventually be made by EU
heads of state and of government.

The commission's reported recommendations, scheduled to be made public in a
report Wednesday, are awkwardly timed for the Turkish government - national
elections are scheduled for Nov. 3 - and come at a time when the United
States is counting on Ankara's assistance in a possible military campaign in
Iraq.

It's awful timing and possibly means that a new government won't be very
stable in Turkey after the elections, said Heather Grabbe, a specialist on
EU enlargement at the Center for European Reform in London.

The fundamental problem for the Turks now is that they are getting no
strong political message from the EU about support for their application or
any indication of political willingness to make the relationship closer,
Grabbe said. All they are getting is a cold shoulder.

The reported decision to admit Cyprus without preconditions is a further
blow for Turkey, which has threatened to annex the Turkish northern part of
the island if Cyprus joins the bloc before a political settlement is reached
on the island.

The EU is under pressure from Greece to admit Cyprus with the other nine
candidates in 2004 or face a veto from Athens over the entire enlargement
process.

The nine other countries scheduled to join in 2004 are the Czech Republic,
Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia.

News of the commission's recommendations came as Mesut Yilmaz, Turkey's
deputy prime minister, visited Brussels to press Turkey's case.

Yilmaz said he wanted to explain geostrategic, political and economic
reasons why we think Turkey must be given a talks date and not excluded from
the expansion process.

He said he did not expect the European Commission to offer a date for the
start of negotiations but said that ultimately that was the job of the
European Union's 15 member countries.

It's up to the heads of state and of government to give a date, he said.
Turkey has embarked on an ambitious program to meet the European Union's
preconditions for membership, including more rights for its Kurdish minority
and the abolition of the death penalty.

The Turkish Parliament voted last week to lift the death penalty in
peacetime and a Turkish court subsequently commuted a death sentence imposed
on the Kurdish guerrilla leader Abdullah Ocalan to life in prison.

The Parliament is soon scheduled to tackle bills favoring an increase of
freedom of expression and association.

The issue of Turkey's membership has long been controversial inside the
European Union. Despite Ankara's status as a candidate, several prominent
politicians in Europe have rejected the idea of Turkish membership.

wto


Run-Up to Sydney WTO Meet Sparks Internet Clash
Fri Oct 4, 4:48 AM ET
By Michael Christie

SYDNEY (Reuters) - Battle lines between police and protesters are already
being drawn ahead of a world trade meeting in Sydney in November, after
state officials applied for anti-WTO Web Sites to be banned for allegedly
promoting violence.

New South Wales police commissioner Michael Costa asked federal authorities
to take the message boards offline because they carried suggestions for
activists to bring baseball bats and marbles to protests during the November
14-15 mini-summit.

These people have gone too far, Costa said in a statement.

They are telling protesters to arm themselves with baseball bats, sling
shots, firecrackers, gas masks and marbles. They intend to harm police and
police horses and put community safety at risk, he said.

Costa's submission, which is being investigated by the Australian
Broadcasting Authority, has generated a heated online debate about
censorship of the Internet in Australia.

Freedom of speech campaigners said Friday the law that covers Internet
content, which is aimed mainly at enforcing pornography statutes and comes
under broadcast rules, mirroring the classification system used for films,
is too broad.

The law allows for bans on information that promotes, instructs or incites
in matters of crime or violence.

Just how (they) interpret it is extremely difficult to know because
instructing crime could mean an article for locksmiths on how to mend
locks, Irene Graham, executive director of Internet pressure group
Electronic Frontiers Australia, told Reuters.

Sharon Trotter, manager of the content assessment section of the Australian
Broadcasting Authority, insisted in an interview with Reuters Friday that
the threshold is quite high.

The film classification board is expected to come back with its views on the
message boards' content in about two weeks.

Costa's office said the sites included IndyMedia Melbourne, a vibrant
community information and message board service favored by activists and
hosted outside Australia -- leaving any ban potentially ineffective.

WTO SHOPPING LIST

In the run-up to the World Trade Organization ( news - web sites) meeting in
Sydney, which comes a year after member states launched a new round of trade
talks in Doha, Qatar, a number of activist sites have received postings such
as a WTO Shopping List.

The list displays links to sites on how to make smoke bombs and flares, or
body armor, and Web Sites selling gas masks.

It also suggests good places to buy marbles to throw under police horses'
hoofs, laser pointers and funny string, and has links to downloadable
files on weaponry and tactics appropriate to civil disturbances, and on how
to counter police infiltration.

IndyMedia said the bulk of its content on the WTO, all posted by the public,
was detailed critique and did not call for aggression against police.

It said violence at WTO meetings was always a product of out-of-control
police, an allegation made by protesters when clashes broke out at a World
Economic Forum ( news - web sites) meeting in Melbourne in 2000, in which 12
people were arrested.

November's WTO meeting in Sydney, Australia's largest city, is expected to
bring together 25 countries, including the United States and the European
Union ( news - web sites).

Anti-WTO activists vigorously oppose the free trade agenda promoted by rich
countries because they do not believe it protects poor nations from
exploitation by multinational firms.

you knew this was coming.....


[NYTimes]
October 5, 2002
Russia Recasts Bog in Caucasus as War on Terror
By STEVEN LEE MYERS


GROZNY, Russia, Oct. 2 - Three years after Russian forces poured into
Chechnya for the second time, the war grinds on, but Russia's
characterization of the fight without end has changed. No longer are 85,000
Russian troops and police officers simply engaged in crushing a battle for
independence; instead, Chechnya has become Russia's war on terror.

Using the rationale and sometimes the rhetoric of the Bush administration's
antiterrorism campaign, commanders here said this week that the Chechen war
is financed, armed and increasingly fought by Islamic militants from abroad.
The shift explains Russia's roiling tensions with Georgia, the former Soviet
republic bordering Chechnya that President Vladimir V. Putin has accused of
sheltering what he calls Chechen and international terrorists.

In an interview, the commander of Russian forces in Chechnya, Col. Gen.
Vladimir I. Moltenskoi, ratcheted those tensions higher this week by
accusing Georgia - an overwhelmingly Orthodox Christian republic - of
supplying the rebels with a stockpile of Soviet-made surface-to-air missiles
that they have used to devastating effect, shooting down three aircraft in
the past six weeks.

For the Russians, the recent events are are a haunting echo of the Soviet
Union's war in Afghanistan, when American-supplied Stinger missiles helped
Afghan rebels turn the tide in their struggle against Soviet occupation.

On Aug. 19, at least 119 people died when one of those craft, an Mi-26
transport, crashed into a minefield not far from General Moltenskoi's
headquarters outside of Grozny.

In the latest attack, on Sept. 26, an Mi-24 helicopter gunship was downed in
a neighboring republic, Ingushetia, during a fierce battle that commanders
said was fought by Chechens infiltrating from Georgia and supported by
Islamic mercenaries.

Capt. Alikhan Gaisanov, commander of a detachment of Russian interior troops
who fought there, said the rebels had fired five missiles at the helicopter.
Four missed, but the last sent it plunging into a pumpkin patch, killing
three. When they hit it, we could hear the bandits shouting, `Allah Akbar,'
 he said.

The missiles may not change the balance in the conflict, but the rebels'
recent successes have undercut Russia's insistence that the conflict in
Chechnya is all but over.

Russian forces have reduced Chechnya's rebels to isolated pockets of
resistance, and battles for territory have ended. But there are still deadly
clashes almost daily, and a bomb in Grozny's central market last month
killed 11 civilians.

Grozny remains a heavily militarized ruin, patrolled by wary, hunkered-down
troops who control the streets by day but retreat at night to heavily
fortified bases and bunkers.

The accusations against Georgia - like the accusations that the Chechens are
sponsored by Muslim Brotherhood and other foreign fighters - appear rooted
in Russia's frustration and a desire to assign external blame for the
continued fighting.

General Moltenskoi said that when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991,
Georgia, like other Soviet republics, inherited the weaponry on its
territory, including 147 of the missile systems, known as Igla, or needle,
which it is now accused of supplying to the rebels. He said serial numbers
on missiles Russian troops had captured in several raids and battles, some
of which he displayed in his heavily fortified headquarters at Khankala, the
main Russian base, were traced to Georgia's inventory, and he estimated that
the rebels have 30 to 40 of the missiles.

The effect of the missiles on Russian operations was evident in the
stomach-churning maneuvers of a transport helicopter that ferried
journalists into the mountains of southern Chechnya on Monday. A short ride
over territory Russia ostensibly controls required an escort by two Mi-24's
firing flares to ward off missiles.

Of course it causes lots of trouble for us, General Moltenskoi said. I've
been here for more than two years, and during all this time we were flying
without any fire at us.

Foreign fighters - notably, a Jordanian-born commander known as Khattab, who
was killed in April - have been involved in both Chechen wars.

Since Sept. 11 last year, however, the Russians have used the foreigners'
presence to recast the war in what appears in part to be an effort to win
American and international support for a campaign criticized by human rights
groups as brutal and indiscriminate.

On the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, in words that directly echoed
President Bush's warnings to the Taliban last year and Saddam Hussein now,
Mr. Putin threatened to launch pre-emptive strikes in Georgian territory
unless President Eduard A. Shevardnadze did more to crack down on Chechen
rebels.

Georgia has repeatedly denied the Russian accusations of providing a haven
for the rebels, much less the missiles. However, Mr. Shevardnadze has
ordered more than 1,000

The Anvil of War and the Ailing American Economy


CounterPunch

October 4, 2002

The Anvil of War and the Ailing American Economy
by AHMAD FARUQUI

As the Bush administration gears up to fight Iraq, it overlooks 
deep-rooted economic and social problems on the home front that 
represent a clear and present danger to America's national security. 
The person on the street is more concerned about whether he or she will 
be employed tomorrow, and whether he would be able to earn enough to get 
out of debt prior to retirement, then with whether or not Iraq poses a 
military threat to the US.

In a statement issued prior to the meetings of the International 
Monetary Fund and the World Bank, US Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill 
said, I remain convinced that we are on a path to 3-3.5 percent real 
annual growth by the end of the year. The reality is quite different. 
According to Professor David Levine of the University of California, 
Berkeley, a tech downturn coincided with a recession for the first time 
last year during President's Bush tenure. In the spring of 2001, the 
dot-com bubble burst, dashing with it the prospects of many twenty 
something's who had hoped to become instant millionaires. Then came the 
terrorist attacks of September 11, and the accompanying hike in spending 
on homeland security. The $10 trillion US economy went into a recession 
that many said would be a V-shaped recession, but is proving to be more 
like a W-shaped recession. The economy grew at the anemic rate of 1.3% 
in the second quarter of this year.

Scared by incessant talk about fighting a multi-year war over several 
continents with an invisible enemy, and facing joblessness, consumer 
confidence has began to erode. The University of Michigan's index of 
consumer confidence has declined four months in a row and is at 86.1%, 
its lowest level since November 2001.

The stock market remains the best predictor of future economic growth. 
It is indeed in bad shape. The Dow Jones index is at a four-year low, in 
the high 7,000s. The technology heavy NASDAQ composite index is at a 
six-year low, in the low 1,000s. The broad based Standard  Poor's 500 
index is in the low 800s. If these trends persist, within the next two 
years, one can envision the Dow hitting 5,000; the NASDAQ dropping to 
1,000; and the Standard  Poor's dropping to 500.

The fall in stocks can be traced to a loss of investor confidence in 
corporate leadership and lower expectations of future earnings growth. 
Inflated balance sheets drove the market to record levels, and as news 
broke about one corporate scandal after another, involving giants such 
as Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, the market has beaten a retreat to 
more realistic valuations. Just when the analysts on Wall Street say the 
market has bottomed out, and this is a great time to buy, another 
scandal erupts, making us realize that we had not bottomed out.

The unemployment rate stands at 5.7%. It is much higher in the 
technology and telecoms sectors. One and a half million Americans have 
been unemployed for more than six months stands, the highest level since 
1994. This number is up 80% compared to a year ago. Unemployment is 
taking a psychological toll on the unemployed, in addition to taking an 
economic toll. According to people who were interviewed by USA Today 
recently, it has led to frustration, alienation, personal and 
professional self-doubt among many middle-aged professionals. In some 
cases, it has become a cause of illness as well.

full: http://www.counterpunch.org/faruqui1004.html

-- 

Louis Proyect
www.marxmail.org

Re: An excerpt from Michael Yates's new book

In a message dated 10/4/02 5:42:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Let us conclude this book by making some observations on three things we
will have to do to achieve a society founded upon the above principles.
First, any new society worthy of the name will have to embrace
comprehensive economic planning. Markets rely upon self-interest to make
them function, and self-interest is inimical to collective well-being
and equality. We know enough from the experiences of the former
socialist economies and, indeed, from the daily operations of large
corporations, to understand that planning is possible. We have the
technology to plan effectively. And we can use the history of the Soviet
Union and its satellites to make sure that our comprehensive planning is
done democratically. We may choose to have as much local control of
production and distribution as is possible, but we cannot choose to
allow the anarchic market to make fundamental production and
distribution decisions.

Lou's excerpt from Michael Yates new book it thought provoking. It is true that far to often those who visualized and have fought for a practical program of public property relations as the basis for distribution of social products according to need, have limited themselves to a critique of the negative consequences of capital.

On the other hand many - including myself, have over the course of the past several decades articulated a vision that more than less was modeled on the consequences of the industrial infrastructure or Sovietism. Sovietism was industrial socialism as it arose from semi-feudal conditions.

"Comprehensive economic planning" is a practical and theoretical category depended upon the specific advance and stage of development of the societal infrastructure and productive forces. Distribution according to need presuppose having an abundance of items to distribute and the network to make such distribution possible.

Our country long ago superseded the economic stage the Soviet Union had to go through. This "economic stage" was the task assigned by history to the revolutionaries carried to power in old Russia and came down to building an industrial infrastructure. Under such conditions, any talk about distribution according to need was out of the question and pure utopia.

We have the economic foundation and distribution network in our country to give everyone in America the fundamentals for a cultured, orderly, decent existence. Everybody today could go into a nice home; tonight everybody could eat a good healthy meal; could go to the opera or rock, rap, blues, or soul concert. Every person could own a computer and every school could be supplied with the best literature and an interactive system of education and learning. Everyone could have access to transportation and even rent a car if that was desired - or, hop a plane.

We have the gear to accomplish the above and do not have to create it. This gear - infrastructure, could be easily expanded. The Soviet Union was organized to industrialize the country. This country is already industrialized.

We do not need a state that is the owner of all the means of production to guarantee their development. We do need a government that regulates things, but not people. We will need for example an agency or interactive computerized network that determines that if there will be ten million babies born this year, we will need so many million diapers this year. Somebody has to do that and ensure the networks meet the demands of society.

We do not need a government to order people to do things. What will the government order people to do . . . go to the movies? The question of cultural development of our diverse people is best left in the hands of the locals. The local people will figure out how to ensure their development.

Questions of democratic control and workers democracy are still discussed within the old framework of the development of the industrial infrastructure. There still persist much talk about "bottom up democracy" versus top down planning and control of things and people, but this is a feature of an industrial society and not the computerized infrastructure network that already exist in broad features.

Much of the talk of "bottom up" democracy and "workers control" has not kept pace with the development of the material wherewithal of our society, which has altered the meaning of the word "control." The administration of things is radically different from "control"and this "control" has in the past been a feature of state authority.

The emerging stage of robotics has not merely polarized control and administration into antithetical parts, but morphed the concept of control and totally separated it from the concept of ownership. This stage of robotics "control" the production process in the absence of human intervention into the production process or rather human intervention is manifest as administration.

We have the

reforming corporate governance= socialism