date:20030123

This is from an article by Tom Gorman in from today's Counterpunch on
the web, http://www.counterpunch.org/gorman01222003.html:

 The Seventh  Amendment to the United  States Constitution ensures
 that, In  suits at  common law, where  the value  in controversy
 shall exceed twenty dollars, the  right of trial by jury shall be
 preserved,  and no  fact  tried  by a  jury,  shall be  otherwise
 reexamined in any  court of the United States,  than according to
 the  rules  of  the  common  law.  Suits  at  common  law  are
 otherwise known as lawsuits. This is more colloquially referred
 to as one's right to his  or her day in court.  This bedrock of
 American  contract  law--the  ability  to  seek  redress  in  the
 judiciary  for   injury--is  also  one  of   the  foundations  of
 capitalism. If individuals did not have the opportunity to settle
 their grievances  through the rule  of law, the only  option left
 would  be  violent force.  ...

Doug Henwood has been critical of Ralph Nader, if I remember
correctly, for, among other things, relying on the court system to
solve what are at root political problems.  Gorman seems to believe
that there are two choices: use the courts or use violence.  But what
about political organizing?  Doug, is this basically your criticism
and response? (I think Doug may have used the words antagonistic
system or some such ... my memory is hazy on the specifics.)

Going further, how would one describe a political problem?  Would
this be one which affected more than one person?  Would it be one
of behavior of the government?  How is the word political being used
(I'm putting this word in Doug's mouth)?

Perhaps everything outside of your home is political?  And, of
course, politics should not stop at the doors of economic power.  So,
broadly considered, then, there is really a great deal of area covered
by the term.

But what role does that leave for law?  Would it evolve into something
that was more designed to settle disputes via arbitration and less as
a winner-take-all model?


Bill

RE: RE: Re: tax theory/policy

Title: RE: [PEN-L:34061] RE: Re: tax theory/policy





so Mankiw may replace Hubbard? I didn't know he was that conservative. 



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




 -Original Message-
 From: Max B. Sawicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 6:56 AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: [PEN-L:34061] RE: Re: tax theory/policy
 
 
 career damage control.
 
 
 
 January 23, 2003
 Report: Bush Economist Hubbard to Leave
 
 
 [Hmm, I wonder what the real story is here.]
 
 http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-White-House-Econo
mist.html

Re: Re: tax theory/policy

On Thursday, January 23, 2003 at 09:17:56 (-0800) Devine, James writes:
so Mankiw may replace Hubbard? I didn't know he was that conservative. 

Are you using that in the modern sense of willing to lie to serve
power?


Bill

RE: Re: Re: tax theory/policy

Title: RE: [PEN-L:34065] Re: Re: tax theory/policy





yeah, Mankiw's willing to serve power. 


But remember that even though Krugman worked for the Council of Economic Advisors under Reagan (and wanted to head the CEA under Clinton), he's pretty good at critiquing Bush (version 2.0) these days. So we might be able to judge the economist by who he or she is willing to work for. 


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




 -Original Message-
 From: Bill Lear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 9:33 AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: [PEN-L:34065] Re: Re: tax theory/policy
 
 
 On Thursday, January 23, 2003 at 09:17:56 (-0800) Devine, 
 James writes:
 so Mankiw may replace Hubbard? I didn't know he was that 
 conservative. 
 
 Are you using that in the modern sense of willing to lie to serve
 power?
 
 
 Bill

Davos

2003-01-23 Thread Ian Murray

January 23, 2003
World Forum, Back in Davos, Confronts Slow Growth
By REUTERS
Filed at 7:41 a.m. ET

DAVOS, Switzerland (Reuters) - Global business and political leaders
gathering for the annual World Economic Forum on Thursday faced a
sobering prospect of weak global growth and possible war with Iraq that
would darken the outlook further.

Economists warned at the opening session that in a troubled world where
growth is stalled in three of the world's largest economies, the United
States provides the only set of broad shoulders to muscle forward the
global economy.

But those shoulders are shaky ones at the moment.

``We are looking forward to a set of risks, certainly surrounding war in
the Middle East, that have a truly profound downside,'' Gail Fosler,
chief economist for the U.S.-based Business Council.

She was upbeat on prospects that a pickup in business investment after
three grim years will allow the U.S. economy to grow by 3.5 percent on
average in 2003 -- enough to support world growth of about two percent.

But Fosler, who heads a research group funded by over 5,000 companies
worldwide, warned that the hit to consumer and investor confidence from
a Gulf war, especially if chemical weapons are unleashed, is
unpredictable.

``The big wild card is will there be an event, or will the war take a
course that scares the wits out of the American consumer?'' Fosler told
Reuters.

WAR WORRIES

Some 2,300 delegates from 104 countries are expected to take part in
this year's meeting of the World Economic Forum, the largest and perhaps
the most illustrious gathering of leaders. Yet worries over the U.S.-led
war on Iraq are expected to dominate the six-day meeting, which started
on Thursday.

Switzerland is mounting its biggest ever security operation at a cost of
some $10 million, equivalent to around $5,000 per delegate.

Hundreds of police and soldiers are patrolling the small Swiss mountain
resort where a light snow fell. Davos is not on the route of commercial
airlines, and Swiss government officials have said any light plane
seeking to overfly it could be shot down by Swiss fighters if it ignores
orders to change course.

The Forum returns to Davos this year after transferring to New York in
2002 in a gesture of solidarity with the United States following the
September 11 attacks.

U.S. WEAKLING

The fallout from those attacks still is uppermost in the forecasts
provided by prominent economists. Stephen Roach, chief economist at
Morgan Stanley in New York who long has forecast the slowing U.S.
economy will slip back into a double-dip recession, was especially dour.

``The engine of the world, the U.S., is struggling,'' he said and
doubted it can provide much power.

The U.S. is still mired in a post asset-bubble hangover and growth last
year was ``pathetic,'' he said. Moreover, it probably stalled in the
final few months of 2002.

``If we went into war with a big (economic) cushion, we might be able to
come out of it. When you hit with a zero growth rate, we will go into
recession,'' Roach told Reuters.

If that happens, Roach said he expects the U.S. economy to contract by
1.0 percent to 2.0 percent for several quarters, even if oil prices are
high for only a few weeks.

Concerns over the vulnerability of the U.S. economy was shared by Robert
Hormats, vice chairman at Goldman Sachs.

``We are very well prepared militarily but not prepared economically,''
Hormats told Reuters. ``We have a big U.S. budget deficit. We are using
more of our budgetary powder for non-stimulative purposes,'' he said.

NO LIGHT FROM EUROPE, JAPAN

Europe is in no better position.

Growth in Germany, which accounts for one-third of the euro zone
economy, is stalled. Juergen von Hagen, economics professor at the
University of Bonn, held out little hope that his country will undertake
the structural reforms to labor markets and social benefit programs
needed to restore European growth to its potential rate of just under
2.0 percent.

``I think the chances are very strong of getting lots of rhetoric and
lots of committees, doing lots of reports,'' but little more, he said.

Indeed, with labor costs rising, productivity low and monetary
conditions loose, the spectre of stagflation stalks Europe, economists
agreed.

The rapid appreciation in the value of the euro, up about 15 percent in
the past year, also will apply a brake to Europe's export-driven
manufacturing sector, von Hagen said.

As for Japan, Haru Shimada, an adviser to Japan's Prime Minister
Junichiro Koizumi and economics professor at Keio University, said the
government's plan to accelerate bad loan write offs, while badly needed,
will worsen unemployment in a country that has seen 12 years of
virtually flat growth.

He said many view the government's forecast for 0.6 percent growth this
year as optimistic, and it depends on the U.S.

``It is up to mainly the U.S. economy,'' he said.

In the medium to long term, China will emerge as a major driver of world
growth,

WSF

2003-01-23 Thread Ian Murray

Published on Wednesday, January 22, 2003 by the Daily Times (Pakistan)
World Social Forum: Coming Together of a Movement
by Walden Bello

Since Seattle, the anti-corporate globalization movement has attained
critical mass globally, in the sense that its ability to mass forces at
significant junctures, such as the December 1999 Seattle WTO ministerial
and the July 2001 Genoa meeting of theG-8, enabled it to effect
international developments and acquire a high ideological and political
profile globally

The World Social Forum (WSF), to be held on January 23-28 for the third
year in Porto Alegre, Brazil, has become the prime organizational
expression of a surging movement against corporate-driven globalization
Since the events of September 11, 2001, it has also acquired a strong
anti-war dimension, and opposition to US plans to launch a war on Iraq
is expected to dominate this year's proceedings.

The Porto Alegre phenomenon has had its share of critics, even among
progressives. One prominent American intellectual has characterized it
as a gathering mainly of people who want to reform globalization
Another has blasted it as a forum dominated intellectually and
politically by Northern political and social movements.

These criticisms have not, however, deterred the WSF from drawing
widespread adherence globally. This year, some 100,000 people are
expected to show up, up from 75,000 in 2002 and this year's meeting will
be the culmination of an exciting year-long global process. A number of
cities, including Buenos Aires and Caracas, have held Porto Alegre-style
social forums. It was, however, the regional social forums that were the
exciting innovation of the year. The European Social Forum (ESF), held
in Florence, Italy, on November 6-9, 2002, drew over 40,000 people, more
than three times the expected number. Even more amazing was the
ESF-sponsored million-person march on November 9 against the planned US
war on Iraq, which took place with not one of the incidents of mass
violence that scare mongerers like Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci had
predicted.

Equally impressive was the recently concluded Asian Social Forum (ASF)
that took place in the historic city of Hyderabad, India, from January 2
to 7, which drew over 14,400 registered participants, mostly from the
host country, though there was representation from 41 other countries.
Topics included resistance to the World Trade Organization (WTO), Dalit
(outcaste) rights, the threat of fundamentalist movements, women's
empowerment, food sovereignty, big dams, the Palestinian struggle,
natural resource theft, and alternative economics.

Former president of India K.R. Narayanan characterized the message of
the ASF as a voice for human rights, against violence, and against
imperialism, and it is only right that it has come from India because it
was India that sounded the death knell for an empire on which the sun
was never supposed to set.

One of the main reasons the Porto Alegre process is gaining such
momentum is precisely that is provides a venue where movements and
organizations can find ways of working together despite their
differences. While the usual ultra leftist groups remain defiantly
outside it, the Porto Alegre process in Brazil, Europe, and India has
brought to the forefront the common values and aspirations of a variety
of political traditions and tendencies.

The Porto Alegre process may be the main expression of the coming
together of a movement that has been wandering for a long time in the
wilderness of fragmentation and competition. The pendulum, in other
words, may now be swinging to the side of unity, driven by the sense
that in an increasingly deadly struggle against unilateralist
militarization and aggressive corporate globalization, movements have no
choice but to hang together or they will hang separately.

There is another development that is equally significant. Since Seattle,
the anti-corporate globalization movement has attained critical mass
globally, in the sense that its ability to mass forces at significant
junctures, such as the December 1999 Seattle WTO ministerial and the
July 2001 Genoa meeting of theG-8, enabled it to effect international
developments and acquire a high ideological and political profile
globally.

Yet being a global actor did not necessarily translate into being a
significant actor at the national level, where traditional elites and
parties continued to be in a commanding position.

Over the last year, however, the movement has achieved critical mass at
the national level in a number of countries, most of them in Latin
America.

Not only has espousal of neoliberal policies been a sure fire path to
electoral disaster, but political parties or movements promoting
anti-globalization policies have achieved electoral power in Ecuador and
Brazil, joining the Hugo Chavez government in Venezuela at the forefront
of the regional anti-neoliberal struggle. Perhaps most inspiring is the
case of Luis Inacio da Silva

plans

2003-01-23 Thread Dan Scanlan

Title: plans


A.N.S.W.E.R. ACTION PLAN:
What's Next for the Anti-War Movement

Before we discuss the A.N.S.W.E.R. Action Plan, we are pleased
to announce that massive pressure on the West Coast has forced the
San Francisco police to issue a revision of their crowed estimate.
Though they originally gave a ridiculously low estimate of 50,000,
they have now tripled their count to 150,000. Organizers estimate
that the crowed reached 200,000. The major anti-war
demonstrations called by the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, on October 26
and January 18, have been confronted by biased reporting and police
underestimates of crowd sizes. This admission of the size of the
protest is a victory for the anti-war movement. As of yet, crowd
estimates made by the authorities and the media have not been revised
to reflect the fact that 500,000 people marched in Washington DC on
January 18.

The rising tide of the anti-war movement cannot be ignored. Monday's
New York Times editorial signifies that a growing section of the
political establishment fears the dynamic rise of the U.S. anti-war
movement, and is deeply concerned that Bush's rush towards war will
have a destabilizing impact on the political system as a whole.

The race towards war is not a response to a military situation. On
the contrary, it is purely political. It is not that the purported
danger posted by Iraq is growing more grave and more imminent with
each passing day. What is growing everyday is a massive anti-war
movement at home and abroad. Even if all the military preparations
are not complete, the Bush administration is likely to begin the war
sooner rather than later in order to preempt the rising tide of
anti-war sentiment.

Bush is in a race for time. We are in a race for time as well. Now is
the time for the movement to intensify activity at the local and
regional level as part of worldwide anti-war movement.

A.N.S.W.E.R. ACTION PLAN:
1) January 29 protests the day after Bush's State of the Union
address
2) February 15 mass mobilization in New York City and thousands of
other cities around the world as part of the February 13-21 Week of
Resistance



JANUARY 29
BUSH'S STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS:
Coordinated day after protests

Bush's State of the Union address will be a war speech.
The speech has one function: to prepare the population for war. That
night, Bush will dominate the air waves and the media coverage. The
very next day, however, it is crucial that people demonstrate in
cities and towns throughout the United States in coordinated actions
to show that the people reject Bush's State of the Union message.

In New York City, there will be a demonstration beginning at 5 pm
on January 29 in Times Square. Possible locations for rallies include
the Federal Building, other federal government facilities, or in a
crowded central shopping area (actions can be held during the day or
in the evening). High schools and college activists should also
consider actions at their school on January 29. Please keep the
A.N.S.W.E.R. informed of activities in your area so that they can be
posted on the web site. Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
details.



On January 18, the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition called for the U.S.
movement to support the call issued from the European movement for
mass anti-war demonstrations on February 15. There will be
demonstrations in thousands of cities across the country and around
the world on February 15. A.N.S.W.E.R. joins with UFPJ and hundreds
of other organizations who will be mobilizing for the NYC action. The
February 15 protest will be part of the Week of Anti-War Resistance
from February 13 to February 21.

WEEK OF ANTI-WAR RESISTANCE
FEBRUARY 13 - 21

FEBRUARY 13: Teach-ins, forums, and youth and student action on
the 12th anniversary of the deliberate destruction of the Amariyah
Bomb Shelter. On this day in 1991, the U.S. unleashed an
unprecedented massive assault, a pinpoint attack by two precision
missiles launched from a stealth bomber against an air raid shelter.
Hundreds and hundreds of young people, mainly children, and some of
their mothers, were incinerated in this calculated effort to
terrorize the Iraqi people in the Gulf War.

FEBRUARY 14: New York City Teach-in from 9 am to 4 pm on Building an
anti-war movement that connects the struggle against war on Iraq with
the fight for social and economic justice and civil rights at home,
followed by an Indoor Rally from 7 to 10 pm on Linking the struggle
against corporate globalization, war, militarism and racism.

FEBRUARY 15: Stop the War through mass resistance and protest in New
York City and around the world. Support self-determination for the
people of the Middle East! The European movement, which initiated the
call for this day of actions, has sent requests to U.S. peace groups,
including A.N.S.W.E.R., to call for actions in the United States.
United for Peace has initiated a mass

Re: RE: RE: Re: tax theory/policy

2003-01-23 Thread Joel Blau

Title: RE: [PEN-L:34061] RE: Re: tax theory/policy



He may not have been, but then you have to factor in the effect of getting
a $1 million advance for his textbook.

Joel Blau

Devine, James wrote:

  
  
  so Mankiw may replace Hubbard? I didn't know he was that
conservative. 
  
  Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
  
  
  
   -Original Message-
   From: Max B. Sawicky [
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
]
   Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 6:56 AM
   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Subject: [PEN-L:34061] RE: Re: tax theory/policy
   
   
   career damage control.
   
   
   
   January 23, 2003
   Report: Bush Economist Hubbard to Leave
   
   
   [Hmm, I wonder what the real story is here.]
   
   
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-White-House-Econo
  
  mist.html

Re: tax theory/policy

This article is truly wierd.  It makes it sound as if this tax plan was
the responsibility of a single economist.  The right has been calling for
this for a long time.

Why would this story play this way?
 -- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

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

Social Security and Ideology Question

Some time ago, I recall seeing some gloating about how the elimination of
Social Security, by making workers more reliant on the stock market, will
make workers more business friendly.  Does anyone here have a better
memory than I do? 


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

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

Re: Courts or violence

Bill Lear wrote:


Doug Henwood has been critical of Ralph Nader, if I remember
correctly, for, among other things, relying on the court system to
solve what are at root political problems.  Gorman seems to believe
that there are two choices: use the courts or use violence.  But what
about political organizing?  Doug, is this basically your criticism
and response? (I think Doug may have used the words antagonistic
system or some such ... my memory is hazy on the specifics.)


Of course litigation is political, but what I meant by this is that 
Nader uses the courts as a substitute for more organized forms of 
regulation or advocacy. He's hardly alone in this - most American 
liberals share the tendency. So instead of unions we get sex 
discrimination lawsuits; instead of product safety regulation, we get 
after-the-fact lawsuits, etc. Nader has argued that a lawsuit heard 
before a jury is much preferable to a regulatory body, since 
regulators develop their own interests and agenda, whereas a jury has 
no interest in the case and dissolves when the verdict is rendered. 
It fits in perfectly with American individualism. This is all nicely 
dealt with in Thomas Burke's book Lawyers, Lawsuits, and Legal 
Rights; I interviewed Burke on my radio show a few weeks ago, and you 
can hear the interview at 
http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html.

Doug

RE: Re: RE: RE: Re: tax theory/policy

Title: RE: [PEN-L:34061] RE: Re: tax theory/policy



hey, he's got 
expenses to pay! 
;-)

strictly 
speaking, I'm told that a publisher's advance is not really an advance (i.e., 
cash on the barrel). There are all sorts of limits on it. But I have no direct 
knowledge and it would be interesting to hear how advances really work. 

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

  -Original Message-From: Joel Blau 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 10:17 
  AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [PEN-L:34071] 
  Re: RE: RE: Re: tax theory/policyHe may not have been, 
  but then you have to factor in the effect of getting a $1 million advance for 
  his textbook.Joel BlauDevine, James wrote:
  

so Mankiw may replace Hubbard? I didn't know he was that 
conservative. 
Jim Devine 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine 
 -Original Message- 
From: Max B. Sawicky [ 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Sent: 
Thursday, January 23, 2003 6:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:34061] RE: Re: tax theory/policy   career 
damage control.  
  January 23, 
2003 Report: Bush Economist Hubbard to 
Leave  
 [Hmm, I wonder what the real story is 
here.]   
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-White-House-Econo 
mist.html

Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: Re: tax theory/policy

Devine, James wrote:


strictly speaking, I'm told that a publisher's advance is not really 
an advance (i.e., cash on the barrel). There are all sorts of limits 
on it. But I have no direct knowledge and it would be interesting to 
hear how advances really work.

Advances are technically advances against royalties - royalties 
being a fixed percentage (usually 10-15%) of a book's cover price 
paid to the author. But you don't get paid royalties until enough 
books are sold to cover the advance.

Say Mankiw's book retails for $40, and he gets a 15% royalty. (Dunno 
the real numbers, just guessing.) That works out to $6 per copy sold. 
To earn back the advance, he'd have to sell 166,667 copies. If it 
sold less than that, he'd get to keep the $1m. If it sold more, he'd 
get $6 per copy (in addition to the $1m).

Generally advances are paid in tranches - e.g. a third on signing the 
contract, a third on delivery of the ms., and the final third on 
publication. Details may vary, of course.

There's a saying in the biz that if you get paid royalties, your 
advance wasn't big enough.

Doug

Re: Social Security and Ideology Question

2003-01-23 Thread Louis Proyect



Some time ago, I recall seeing some gloating about how the elimination of
Social Security, by making workers more reliant on the stock market, will
make workers more business friendly.  Does anyone here have a better
memory than I do?


--
Michael Perelman


It is not surprising that the PSA system in Chile has proven so popular and 
has helped promote social and economic stability. Workers appreciate the 
fairness of the system and they have obtained through their pension 
accounts a direct and visible stake in the economy. Since the private 
pension funds own a sizable fraction of the stocks of the biggest companies 
of Chile, workers are actually investors in the country's fortunes.

When the PSA was inaugurated in Chile in 1981, workers were given the 
choice of entering the new system or remaining in the old one. Half a 
million Chilean workers (one fourth of the eligible workforce) chose the 
new system by joining in the first month of operation alone--far more than 
the 50,000 that had been expected. Today, more than 90 percent of Chilean 
workers who had been under the old system are in the new system. By 1995, 5 
million Chileans had PSA accounts, although not all belonged to active, 
full-time workers, and therefore not all contribute in any given month.

The bottom line is that when given a choice, workers vote with their money 
overwhelmingly for the free market--even when it comes to such sacred 
cows'' as social security.

full: http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n2-3-1.html


Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org

Re: Re: Courts or violence

I just read Burke yesterday.  He emphasizes how the US consitution
structures government so that the courts are the only recourse here --
unlike in Europe.

On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 02:00:29PM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote:
 Bill Lear wrote:
 
 Doug Henwood has been critical of Ralph Nader, if I remember
 correctly, for, among other things, relying on the court system to
 solve what are at root political problems.  Gorman seems to believe
 that there are two choices: use the courts or use violence.  But what
 about political organizing?  Doug, is this basically your criticism
 and response? (I think Doug may have used the words antagonistic
 system or some such ... my memory is hazy on the specifics.)
 
 Of course litigation is political, but what I meant by this is that 
 Nader uses the courts as a substitute for more organized forms of 
 regulation or advocacy. He's hardly alone in this - most American 
 liberals share the tendency. So instead of unions we get sex 
 discrimination lawsuits; instead of product safety regulation, we get 
 after-the-fact lawsuits, etc. Nader has argued that a lawsuit heard 
 before a jury is much preferable to a regulatory body, since 
 regulators develop their own interests and agenda, whereas a jury has 
 no interest in the case and dissolves when the verdict is rendered. 
 It fits in perfectly with American individualism. This is all nicely 
 dealt with in Thomas Burke's book Lawyers, Lawsuits, and Legal 
 Rights; I interviewed Burke on my radio show a few weeks ago, and you 
 can hear the interview at 
 http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html.
 
 Doug
 

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

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

Re: Re: Courts or violence

On Thursday, January 23, 2003 at 11:24:26 (-0800) Michael Perelman writes:
I just read Burke yesterday.  He emphasizes how the US consitution
structures government so that the courts are the only recourse here --
unlike in Europe.

Definitely sounds worth reading.


Bill

Rich dominate -- FED

2003-01-23 Thread Eugene Coyle


Federal Reserve Report Shows
Rich Dominate 'Investor Class'

By GREG IP
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

WASHINGTON -- Despite the widely hailed creation of a new investor class 
over the 1990s, the fruits of the stock-market boom and the pain of its 
subsequent bust were felt mainly by a small group of wealthy households, 
a new report by the Federal Reserve shows.

The proportion of households owning stocks either directly or 
indirectly, such as through a mutual fund, rose to 52% in 2001 from 49% 
in 1998 and 37% in 1992, according to the report. That, combined with 
the surge in stock prices and home values, sharply lifted household net 
worth -- assets minus debt -- to an average of $395,500 per family in 
2001, up 29% from $307,400 in 1998. The dollar figures are all 
inflation-adjusted and expressed in constant, 2001 dollar terms.

But the report, by Fed economists Ana Aizcorbe, Arthur Kennickell and 
Kevin Moore, also shows that those averages are heavily skewed by the 
enormous stock holdings of the wealthiest 10% of families. The typical 
family's net worth, as measured by the median -- half of families are 
above the median, and half are below -- rose only 10% in the same 
period, to $86,100 from $78,000.
[chart]

Many analysts say the rise in stock ownership to more than half of 
households has created a new investor class whose concerns about their 
stock portfolios heavily influence their economic and political choices. 
President Bush's proposal to eliminate taxes on dividends in part is 
aimed at this group. But Wednesday's report, based on an exhaustive, 
triennial survey of consumers and their finances, suggests that in 
dollar terms, the increase in stock wealth has been narrowly based.

Among all stock-owning families, the median holding was $34,000 in 2001, 
up 26% from $27,000 in 1998 and more than double its 1992 figure of 
$13,000. But the typical homeowner had four times as much wealth tied up 
in his house: $122,000 in 2001, up 12% from $109,000 in 1998, the report 
concludes.

Of those families who own stock, the median holding of the richest 10% 
by income shot up 69% to $248,000 in 2001 from $147,000 in 1998, the Fed 
report found. For the middle 20% of households, however, the median 
holding rose just 15% to $15,000. For the bottom 20%, it rose 29%, to 
$7,000 but that's below the 1992 level of $10,000.

Just as the wealthiest disproportionately enjoyed the boom, the pain has 
also been concentrated among them. Fed economists, lacking survey data 
for 2002, estimated the average household's net worth stood at $341,300 
on Oct. 4 last year, roughly when the stock market hit a five-year low, 
a 14% decline from 2001. But the median household's net worth, they 
estimate, declined just 6% in the same period, to $80,700.

Stock ownership is still highly skewed towards upper-income 
households, said Dean Maki, an economist at Putnam Investments and 
former Fed researcher. So the boom and the bust are also going to be 
highly skewed, and those affect the average more than the median. The 
median household isn't terribly exposed to the stock market.

This, in turn, helps explain why the enormous loss of stock-market 
wealth since the peak in 2000 hasn't crushed consumer spending. Most of 
the stock loss has been born by the rich minority. Other Fed data 
suggest that they have in fact cut back on their spending as a result, 
whereas the vast majority of families haven't altered their spending and 
saving behavior significantly.

The report also finds that minority households saw little increase in 
their net worth during the boom era. The median nonwhite or Hispanic 
household's net worth was $17,100 in 2001, down from $17,900 in 1998, 
though up 16% from $14,800 in 1992. By contrast, the median white 
household's net worth rose 17% to $120,900 in 2001 from $103,400 in 
1998, up 40% from $86,200 in 1992.

The report also suggests that households aren't as indebted as commonly 
thought. The median family paid 16% of its after-tax income to service 
its debts in 2001, down from 18.1% in 1998 and up only slightly from 
1995. Every income group, from the poorest to the richest, experienced a 
decline.

Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: Re: tax theory/policy

2003-01-23 Thread Joel Blau

Title: RE: [PEN-L:34061] RE: Re: tax theory/policy



You're right--you don't get $1 million on signing. The typical deal is more
likely structured as 50% on signing and 50% on delivery of a satisfactory
manuscript. The assumption is that the advance represents the projected first
year royalties. 

The odd thing about Mankiw's advance (I remember this quite clearly from
a circa 1994 New York Times article about it, in context of replacing Samuelson)
was his discussion of the need for text that was more atuned to the fluidity
of the new economy, justaposed to his previous publisher's ruminations about
loyalty and the propriety of leaving for $1 million.

Joel Blau



Devine, James wrote:

  
  
  
hey, he's got  expenses to pay! 
  
;-)
  
  
strictly  speaking, I'm told that a publisher's advance is not really an
advance (i.e.,  cash on the barrel). There are all sorts of limits on it.
But I have no direct  knowledge and it would be interesting to hear how advances
really work.  
  Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
  
  

-Original Message-
From: Joel Blau[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 10:17AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:34071]Re: RE: RE: Re: tax theory/policy


He may not have been,but then you have to factor in the effect of getting
a $1 million advance forhis textbook.

Joel Blau

Devine, James wrote:

  
  so Mankiw may replace Hubbard? I didn't know he was
that  conservative. 
  
  Jim Devine  
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
  
  
  
   -Original Message-
From: Max B. Sawicky [
  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ]
   Sent:  Thursday, January 23, 2003 6:56 AM
   To: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
   Subject: [PEN-L:34061] RE: Re: tax theory/policy
   
   
   career  damage control.
   

   
   January 23,  2003
   Report: Bush Economist Hubbard to  Leave
   

   [Hmm, I wonder what the real story is  here.]
   
   
  http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-White-House-Econo
  
  mist.html

the business of war

I don't here any upsurge of business support for the war; I don't recall
any from Daddy's war either -- yet the war is fought in the interest of
the corps.  Any thoughts?

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

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

Re: the business of war

2003-01-23 Thread Carrol Cox



Michael Perelman wrote:
 
 I don't here any upsurge of business support for the war; I don't recall
 any from Daddy's war either -- yet the war is fought in the interest of
 the corps.  Any thoughts?
 

1. It is not in the interest of any _specific_ corporation.

2. It is not, really, even in the economic interest of the corporate
establshment itself.

Hence most businesses, even specific oil corporations, have no strong
motive to support it.

3. The only _general_ interest that makes sense is the long-run goal of
controlling the energy supplies of Japan, China, and the EU. There are
no real or immediate domestic interests being served by the projected
war. It only makes sense as a farsighted preparation for a re-run of the
1914-1918 war.

Carrol

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: Re: tax theory/policy

Title: RE: [PEN-L:34076] Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: Re: tax theory/policy





Doug writes: Say Mankiw's book retails for $40, and he gets a 15% royalty. (Dunno 
the real numbers, just guessing.)


I don't know about the %, but the book's more likely to sell for $100. (My students go on-line to avoid the retail price...) 


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




 -Original Message-
 From: Doug Henwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 11:18 AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: [PEN-L:34076] Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: Re: tax theory/policy
 
 
 Devine, James wrote:
 
 strictly speaking, I'm told that a publisher's advance is not really 
 an advance (i.e., cash on the barrel). There are all sorts of limits 
 on it. But I have no direct knowledge and it would be interesting to 
 hear how advances really work.
 
 Advances are technically advances against royalties - royalties 
 being a fixed percentage (usually 10-15%) of a book's cover price 
 paid to the author. But you don't get paid royalties until enough 
 books are sold to cover the advance.
 
 Say Mankiw's book retails for $40, and he gets a 15% royalty. (Dunno 
 the real numbers, just guessing.) That works out to $6 per copy sold. 
 To earn back the advance, he'd have to sell 166,667 copies. If it 
 sold less than that, he'd get to keep the $1m. If it sold more, he'd 
 get $6 per copy (in addition to the $1m).
 
 Generally advances are paid in tranches - e.g. a third on signing the 
 contract, a third on delivery of the ms., and the final third on 
 publication. Details may vary, of course.
 
 There's a saying in the biz that if you get paid royalties, your 
 advance wasn't big enough.
 
 Doug

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: Re: tax theory/policy


He also probably gets something from the supplements.

On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 02:39:11PM -0800, Devine, James wrote:
 Doug writes: Say Mankiw's book retails for $40, and he gets a 15% royalty.
 (Dunno 
 the real numbers, just guessing.)
 
 I don't know about the %, but the book's more likely to sell for $100. (My
 students go on-line to avoid the retail price...) 
 
 
 Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Doug Henwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
  Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 11:18 AM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: [PEN-L:34076] Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: Re: tax theory/policy
  
  
  Devine, James wrote:
  
  strictly speaking, I'm told that a publisher's advance is not really 
  an advance (i.e., cash on the barrel). There are all sorts of limits 
  on it. But I have no direct knowledge and it would be interesting to 
  hear how advances really work.
  
  Advances are technically advances against royalties - royalties 
  being a fixed percentage (usually 10-15%) of a book's cover price 
  paid to the author. But you don't get paid royalties until enough 
  books are sold to cover the advance.
  
  Say Mankiw's book retails for $40, and he gets a 15% royalty. (Dunno 
  the real numbers, just guessing.) That works out to $6 per copy sold. 
  To earn back the advance, he'd have to sell 166,667 copies. If it 
  sold less than that, he'd get to keep the $1m. If it sold more, he'd 
  get $6 per copy (in addition to the $1m).
  
  Generally advances are paid in tranches - e.g. a third on signing the 
  contract, a third on delivery of the ms., and the final third on 
  publication. Details may vary, of course.
  
  There's a saying in the biz that if you get paid royalties, your 
  advance wasn't big enough.
  
  Doug
  
  

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

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

Re:Re: Re: Iraq's oil rents by soula avramidis

2003-01-23 Thread Hari Kumar

Hello:
Do you have a reference for this please?
Lenin wrote to the national bourgeios movement in Syria in 1917 to
inform them of secret plans for
the division of greater Syria, that was because the zarist foreign
minister was in on it with mr sykes
and and mr peucot (the sykes picot treaty).
Thaksn, Hari Kumar

RE: Courts or violence

Title: RE: Courts or violence





Michael Perelman writes: I just read Burke yesterday. He emphasizes how the US consitution structures government so that the courts are the only recourse here -- unlike in Europe.

and nowadays, the big campaign is to restrict the ability of citizens to sue corporations (so-called tort reform, involving capping damages, etc.) and government. 

Sometimes, it seems like only John Grisham is on the side of the small suer. ;-)



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

Re: RE: Courts or violence

Exactly.  The curtailing of regulation is one cause of the increase in
liability.  The courts remain the only recourse in many cases -- so they
push tort reform in which Doug's classmate is a leader.

On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 03:16:48PM -0800, Devine, James wrote:
 Michael  Perelman writes: I just read Burke yesterday.  He emphasizes how
 the US consitution structures government so that the courts are the only
 recourse here -- unlike in Europe.
 
 and nowadays, the big campaign is to restrict the ability of citizens to sue
 corporations (so-called tort reform, involving capping damages, etc.) and
 government. 
 
 Sometimes, it seems like only John Grisham is on the side of the small suer.
 ;-)
 
 
 Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
  
 

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

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

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: Re: tax theory/policy

Title: RE: [PEN-L:34061] RE: Re: tax theory/policy



the odd thing 
about his advance is that it doesn't seem justified by his 
abilities.
Jim 
Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine 

  -Original Message-From: Joel Blau 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 1:19 
  PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [PEN-L:34081] 
  Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: Re: tax theory/policyYou're 
  right--you don't get $1 million on signing. The typical deal is more likely 
  structured as 50% on signing and 50% on delivery of a satisfactory manuscript. 
  The assumption is that the advance represents the projected first year 
  royalties. The odd thing about Mankiw's advance (I remember this quite 
  clearly from a circa 1994 New York Times article about it, in context of 
  replacing Samuelson) was his discussion of the need for text that was more 
  atuned to the fluidity of the new economy, justaposed to his previous 
  publisher's ruminations about loyalty and the propriety of leaving for 
  $1 million.Joel BlauDevine, James wrote:
  

hey, he's 
got expenses to pay! 
;-)

strictly 
speaking, I'm told that a publisher's advance is not really an advance 
(i.e., cash on the barrel). There are all sorts of limits on it. But I have 
no direct knowledge and it would be interesting to hear how advances really 
work. 
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine 

  -Original Message-From: Joel Blau [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: 
  Thursday, January 23, 2003 10:17 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: 
  [PEN-L:34071] Re: RE: RE: Re: tax theory/policyHe may 
  not have been, but then you have to factor in the effect of getting a $1 
  million advance for his textbook.Joel BlauDevine, James 
  wrote:
  

so Mankiw may replace Hubbard? I didn't know he was that 
conservative. 
Jim 
Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine 
 -Original Message- From: Max B. Sawicky [ 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Sent: 
Thursday, January 23, 2003 6:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Subject: [PEN-L:34061] RE: Re: tax 
theory/policy  
 career damage control.   
 January 23, 2003 Report: Bush Economist Hubbard to Leave   
[Hmm, I wonder what the real story is here.] 
  
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-White-House-Econo 
mist.html

RE: Re: the business of war

Title: RE: [PEN-L:34083] Re: the business of war

I have some quibbles/comments.

Michael Perelman wrote:
I don't here any upsurge of business support for the war; I don't recall
any from Daddy's war either -- yet the war is fought in the interest of
the corps. Any thoughts?

Carrol writes:
1. It is not in the interest of any _specific_ corporation.

some companies, like Halliburton military contractors will clearly gain, but I'd agree that most corporations don't see the war as in their specific interest.

2. It is not, really, even in the economic interest of the corporate
establshment itself.

Hence most businesses, even specific oil corporations, have no strong
motive to support it.

The US corporate establishment faces all sorts of complications in forming a unified foreign policy for their state (e.g., the benefits of US multilateralism vs. those of arrogant unilateralism). Thus they typically leave these issues to the experts politicians, so that the state has a relative autonomy. Within this autonomy, of course, the state can't go against what's perceived as being good for capitalism as a whole or against what's good for the more powerful and influential corporations.

3. The only _general_ interest that makes sense is the
long-run goal of controlling the energy supplies of Japan, China, and the EU. There are
no real or immediate domestic interests being served by the projected
war. It only makes sense as a farsighted preparation for a re-run of the
1914-1918 war.

I'd say it's more than just a matter of energy issues. Most corporations these days favor the neo-liberal policy revolution of markets, markets, and more markets (with a healthy safety net for corporations, of course) on a global scale. Global capitalism eventually requires a global state, just as national capitalism requires a national state. I'd say that the objective long-term interests of US corporations are for the US state to become that world state.

Jim

Re: the business of war

Michael Perelman wrote:


I don't here any upsurge of business support for the war; I don't recall
any from Daddy's war either -- yet the war is fought in the interest of
the corps.  Any thoughts?


Sorry to keep touting the work of my radio guests 
http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html, but in their book 
The Global Political Economy of Israel, Jonathan Nitzan and Shimshon 
Bichler argue that there's a specific weapondollar-petrodollar 
coalition that has an interest in instability and war in the Middle 
East, which raises the price of oil and the demand for arms. I think 
that's the gang that Bush represents most of all. Financial and 
consumer capital has much less interest in such mayhem.

Doug

query

Title: query





does anyone know David Laibman's e-mail address. Please respond off-line. 


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

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: Re: tax theory/policy

Devine, James wrote:


Doug writes: Say Mankiw's book retails for $40, and he gets a 15% 
royalty. (Dunno
the real numbers, just guessing.)

I don't know about the %, but the book's more likely to sell for 
$100. (My students go on-line to avoid the retail price...)

My god. Amazon sez it's $120.70. Assuming 15%, he gets $18.11 apiece.

Doug

War is NOT the answer

2003-01-23 Thread Sabri Oncu

Friends,

I just received this press release from Muge, one of the
organizers. Please distribute.

Seth,

Can you send this to Common Dreams?

Also, Louis and Doug,

Maybe for Marxmail and LBO, respectively?

I lost Michael Albert's e-mail address and so would appreciate it
if someone can forward this to him.

Best,
Sabri

+++

War is NOT the answer   International Peace Forum in Turkey

Istanbul, January 22

Peace activists from Britain, Greece, Germany, Israel, Sweden,
USA, and Yugoslavia are meeting in Istanbul to voice their
opposition to the war plans on Iraq. Turkey holds the key to the
northern front in this war. The International Peace Forum will
voice the call of the international community to turn this key
into a key for peace. The Turkish government has not yet given
permission to the U.S.A for the use of its bases, and deployment
of U.S forces on Turkish soil. A NO from Turkey would throw a
wrench into the war machine. The Forum will voice the cries of
the rapidly growing global anti-war coalition and ask the Turkish
government to play an active role in preventing this war.

Invited to Turkey by a broad coalition of peace and human rights
groups, the international peace activists will participate in a
major domestic peace forum, Assembly of the 100s, on January 25,
organize an international peace forum on January 26, and will
visit officials in Ankara on January 27.

The Assembly of the 100s, organized by the Peace Initiative of
Turkey, will consist of 100 representatives each from 20
occupational groups (including academics, writers, students,
workers, doctors, lawyers, business people, and the
unemployed). Statements from each occupational group will be
followed by a joint statement against the proposed war on Iraq:
Peace Declaration of the 100s.  About 2000 people are expected to
meet in the Lutfi Kirdar Congress Hall in Istanbul for this
event.

On January 26, a three-hour long International Peace Forum will
be held at Bogazici University. In two consecutive panels, the
speakers will talk about their diverse experiences in wars and
share their views on the current conflicts. There will be
simultaneous translation.

In the evening, there will be a major music event, a Peace Night,
at Babylon, Istanbul. Local and international musicians will take
stage and an anti-war song composed by local groups will be
performed for the first time during this event.
On January 27, the international delegation will visit members of
the government and opposition party and urge them to vote against
the US demands on the deployment of soldiers and the use of
bases.

International participants:

1) Norman Finkelstein (Political Scientist, DePaul University,
Chicago, USA) - writer of The Holocaust Industry Reflections on
the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering (Verso, 2000), A Nation on
Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis and Historical Truth (Henry
Holt,1998, with Ruth Bettina Birn), Image and Reality of the
Israel-Palestine Conflict (Verso, 1995), and The Rise and Fall of
Palestine (University of Minnesota, 1996).
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com

2) Scilla Elsworthy (Director, Oxford Research Group, Britain)
http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/

3) Peter Curman (Poet, Sweden)
http://www.petercurman.com

4) Jan Myrdal (Writer, Sweden) - writer of Confessions of a
Disloyal European (Lake View Press, 1990)

5) John Hipkin (Cambridge City Councillor, spokesperson for
CAMPEACE-Cambridge Campaign for Peace, Britain)
www.campeace.org

6) Ryan Amundson (Midwest Coordinator, September Eleventh
Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, USA)
http://www.peacefultomorrows.org/

7) Obrad Savic (Philosopher, Writer, Editor, Belgrad Circle
journal, Yugoslavia)  editor of Balkan As Metaphor: Between
Globalization and Fragmentation (2002, MIT Press, with Dusan
Bjelic) The Politics of Human Rights (1999, Verso), and The
European Discourse of War (1995)

8) Michael Simmons (Director for European Programs, American
Friends Service Committee, USA)

9) Marijana Komarcevic (Woman in Black, Belgrade, Yugoslavia)

10) Dusan I. Bjelic (Professor of Criminology, University of
Southern Maine, USA; participant in the US group of academics who
visited Iraq last month)

11) Prof. Ursula Schumm-Garling ((Professor of Sociology,
University of Dortmund, Spokesperson for the Peace Movement,
Germany)

12) Suzanna Bötte (Peace Movement, Germany)

13) Konstantin Wecker (Musician, Germany)

14) Anthony Simpson (Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation, Britain)
http://www.russfound.org/

15) Angelika Claussen (President, International Physicians for
the Prevention of Nuclear War /IPPNW  Germany)
http://www.ippnw.de

16) Raya Rotem (representative of Bat Shalom, founder of the War
Widows Movement, member Women in Black, Israel)
www.batshalom.org

17) Daniele Tramonti (Peace activist, l'Associazione Papa
Giovanni XXIII, Italy)


For further information, please contact:

Muge Gursoy Sokmen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: +90-212-245 45 09
+90-532-705 23 63

Ayse Berktay

Re: Re: the business of war