Re: Beyond Pussyfooting: a story to end all stories ?
We need a philosopher to invent some adequate concept for the below...somehow, fetishism doesn't quite cover it. Perhaps, it is just that academics are finally getting around to prostituting entities more appropriate to prostitution. Who knows. I become nostalgic for those days when we worried about how many angels we could fit on the head of a pin. Joanna Jurriaan Bendien wrote: Review of: Catherine Blackledge, The Story of V: Opening Pandora's Box (London: Weidenfeld Nicholson, 2003), 322 pp. What in heaven's name is this book about, and why would anybody buy it ? Does it make sense, or is it a fuck-up ? What is V, is it the 21st letter in the alfabet, or a Latin numeral denoting the number 5 (26-5=21) ? Well I got sucked in, and had a think about what I got sucked into, while seeking to drink from the cup of knowledge. According to the blurb on the front flap, it is about the seat of female sexual pleasure, the site of the creation of humankind, and the channel of its birth... a potent arouser of sexuality. Yet we know less about the vagina - its structure and function - than we do about any other organ of the human body - why ?. You guessed it, it is a book about vaginas. On the rear flap, we learn that Dr Catherine Blackledge was born in 1968. She completed as science degree and a Phd, and then worked as science journalist and freelance broadcaster. This is her first published book, featuring a black and subtly greenish/grayish cover with the lower half of a woman lifting up her skirt. [snip]
Richard Gott's _Our Empire Story_
Richard Gott's _Our Empire Story_ (forthcoming) charts the history of the British Empire and reveals an astonishing statistic: for every single day that this Empire existed there was a corresponding act of rebellion by its subjects against its rule (Tariq Ali, _Bush in Babylon: The Recolonization of Iraq_, Verso, 2003, p. 50). -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Where Have All the European Investors Gone?
* Dollar Doldrums Where have all the European investors gone? By Daniel Gross Posted Wednesday, Dec. 10, 2003, at 2:24 PM PT Several months into the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq, frayed trans-Atlantic ties show no signs of mending. Last week, having failed to make any progress on its own, the Bush administration brought former Treasury Secretary James Baker off the bench to negotiate a workout of Iraq's debt, much of which is held by France, Germany, and Russia. This week, the Pentagon explicitly banned France, Germany, and Russia from bidding on reconstruction work in Iraq. Of course, the United States needs European cooperation to finance something even more crucial than the reconstruction of Iraq. We rely on Europe-Old and New-to finance our private companies and, to a lesser extent, our government. After all, the United States' biggest exports today aren't movies or software programs. They're paper products-stocks, bonds, and other securities. The Europeans are among the biggest purchasers of these goods. But recent data and recent currency market action, which has seen the dollar plummet to record lows against the euro, suggest our erstwhile continental friends may not be buying what we're selling. If that continues, it could spell trouble for the already weakened dollar. The United States exports dollars to buy food, oil, and manufactured goods. Our foreign trading counterparts tend to send dollars back to America by purchasing U.S. government bonds, U.S. dollars, so-called agency debt-which consists largely of mortgage-backed securities-and corporate stocks and bonds. By recycling the capital we export, foreigners fund our debt, keep interest rates low, and keep currency ratios relatively stable. In 2002, foreigners bought a net $547 billion in U.S. assets. In the first nine months of 2003, they purchased a net $523 billion in U.S. assets. (To see the data, go here http://fms.treas.gov/bulletin/b43cm5.doc and open the file as a Microsoft Word file. Chart CM-V-1 shows totals for the last several years; CM-V-3 breaks down the data by country and region.) The main sources of capital are Europe and Asia. Asia-particularly Japan and China-accounts for a decent chunk of U.S. government and agency debt. But the private sector relies largely on Europe, the broad swath of countries from Turkey to Great Britain. In 2002, Europe accounted for nearly two-thirds of net corporate stock sales and 60 percent of net corporate bond sales. This chart http://www.treasury.gov/tic/exhibitscd.pdf shows that the United Kingdom is our most stalwart ally in economic matters, in addition to geopolitical ones. Since the beginning of 2002, the dollar has fallen by about 25 percent compared with the euro. That means an espresso at that café just off the Ponte Vecchio in Florence now costs an American tourist $2.50 instead of $2. On the flip side, European purchasing power is higher in U.S. markets than it has ever been. As a result, one might expect European purchases of dollar-denominated goods-whether they're Disneyland tickets or Disney's stocks and bonds-to be growing. But in September, as chart CM-V-1 shows, net foreign purchases of U.S. assets were less than $16 billion, down dramatically from $62.4 billion in August and $75 billion in July. In September, Europeans collectively sold about $400 million in U.S.-denominated assets. Are Europeans going on a buyer's strike in a fit of pique over Iraq? Not necessarily. For the first nine months, inflows from Europe were $224 billion. And one month's data does not a trend make. But more recent data isn't exactly encouraging. Last week the Wall Street Journal reported that at November's auction of two-year U.S. Treasury notes held last week foreign investors bought just 32% of the $26 billion issue. That compares with the 42% foreigners snapped up at October's auction of the same size. . . . Daniel Gross (www.danielgross.net) writes Slate's Moneybox column. You can e-mail him at [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://slate.msn.com/id/2092348/ * -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Beyond Pussyfooting: a story to end all stories ?
We need a philosopher to invent some adequate concept for the below...somehow, fetishism doesn't quite cover it. Perhaps, it is just that academics are finally getting around to prostituting entities more appropriate to prostitution. Who knows. I become nostalgic for those days when we worried about how many angels we could fit on the head of a pin. Fair comment. I had a chat once to this military guy in New Zealand, in a bar, and asked him a question. He considered the question was valid, but objected to me asking it, or at any rate wouldn't answer it. I asked him why. He replied, there is a time and a place to talk about these things. So I said how was I to know ? What is the best time - after I'm dead ?. He replied, You ought to know, and I'm having a beer. On the latest point of controversy in French politics, compare http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/12/international/europe/12FRAN.html and http://www.icl-fi.org/SPARTACI/immig-57.htm . The bourgeoisie want to focus on lifting the veil while mystifying the position of immigrant women, and the Spartacists will defend the veil on the bayonets of the Red Army. A feminist girlfriend of mine in 1990 told me that prior to the invasion of Poland, the Luftwaffe airdropped pornographic literature on the unsuspecting Poles (if I remember correctly, she'd written an article mentioning that - but I don't have the evidence handy here). I don't know if you remember what the German army accomplished in Poland during the second world war, most people would probably prefer to forget, but in retrospect the total picture of human destruction made erotic diversions of any kind totally irrelevant and frivolous. The most basic principle determining politics in the relationship between social classes is divide and rule, and then of course we can make the astonishing discovery that you could also say rule and divide. The working classes are always faced with this problem, of selecting those themes which can actually unite them, while dividing the opposition. But this must occur on a principled basis, and not through rotten compromises or subterfuges. It requires theoretical consistency, imagination, and an effective organisational form which allows this to happen; it takes the combined efforts of many, since no wise philosopher can have all the answers. If somebody objects to the term working classes, they ought to take a good look at the socio-economic background of soldiers in the occupying forces in Iraq. The bourgeois like to think about the money and spiritual values. The workers die in the theatre of war. One could of course say, why let your heart bleed on account of imperialist intervention in Iraq ?. But chickens come home to roost, and wars fought abroad inexorably rebound on the aggressor country. The civilising mission of imperialism is a fraud, because the civilisation doesn't exist at home. Regards Jurriaan
Re: A conversation overheard
My take on the phenomenon from an April 24th post to LBO below. Regards, Mike B) Zizek indicates that people don't want to know, they like the idea of being represented by a simpleton (Bush) who is manipulated behind the scenes by the evil intellectual genius (Cheney) because they accept that 'their' governing structures will do bad things and they don't want to have to think about it. They pay taxes so that others can do the dirty work, so to speak, for them. I've noticed this phenomenon over the years and developed a name for it, militant ignorance. Is it possible that this militant ignorance is a product of both the natural desire to protect oneself from harm--survival instinct--which is nurtured ideologically ( e.g. among others: the dualism inherent in Christianity's attempt to hold back the chaotic tide of Nature) in our daily lives under class rule? http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20030421/012179.html --- joanna bujes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I fear to think of what it will take to wake this country up...or what will happen if they choose not to. Joanna Eugene Coyle wrote: Stopped at an I-Hop for lunch on the road today. Three women, dressed as office workers, perhaps 25 - 35 years old, took the next table. They chatted, then one spoke of a friend in the service in Iraq, working on restoring the electrical grid. They'd come under attack, and one boy lost an arm, a second a leg, taken off at the very top. The second one said I'm not paying attention to that. The third one said Have you got your Christmas lights up yet? and they chatted. Gene Coyle = * So long as little children are allowed to suffer, there is no true love in this world. ISADORA DUNCAN Memoirs, 1924 This Quarter Autumn 1929 http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal http://personals.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Personals New people, new possibilities. FREE for a limited time.
Texas redistricting fairness
From today's Washington Post: Judge Patrick Higginbotham, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and one of three federal judges hearing the case, seemed skeptical of the Democrats' suggestion that redistricting had ever been a scrupulously fair undertaking. He recalled that former Texas governor William P. Hobby, a World War I-era Democrat, once likened redistricting to a religious experience in which majority-party lawmakers (then the Democrats) fell to their hands and knees over a state map, and drew new congressional boundaries to reward their friends and punish their enemies. When did this tradition of fair play across the aisles come to Texas? the judge asked to scattered guffaws around the courtroom. Well, judge, I would hope it would start today, said one of the Democratic lawyers, Richard Gladden. Now that would be a religious experience, the judge said.
Re: Texas redistricting fairness
calling Lani Guinere... calling Lani Guinere... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Michael Pollak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 7:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L] Texas redistricting fairness From today's Washington Post: Judge Patrick Higginbotham, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and one of three federal judges hearing the case, seemed skeptical of the Democrats' suggestion that redistricting had ever been a scrupulously fair undertaking. He recalled that former Texas governor William P. Hobby, a World War I-era Democrat, once likened redistricting to a religious experience in which majority-party lawmakers (then the Democrats) fell to their hands and knees over a state map, and drew new congressional boundaries to reward their friends and punish their enemies. When did this tradition of fair play across the aisles come to Texas? the judge asked to scattered guffaws around the courtroom. Well, judge, I would hope it would start today, said one of the Democratic lawyers, Richard Gladden. Now that would be a religious experience, the judge said.
Re: Amy Chua: World on Fire
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: * World On Fire by Amy Chua snip She's overreaching somewhat when she says, early on, markets and democracy were among the causes of both the Rwandan and Yugoslavian genocides. And while Serbian hatred of the Croats was fanned by Croatian economic dominance, the Bosnians they butchered were as poor as they were. Chua makes these caveats herself in the relevant chapters, but they dilute some of the grand claims she lays out in her introduction. If this is the level of analysis and knowledge displayed in the rest of the book, then I wouldn't waste my time reading the book. It suggests a profound ignorance of Balkan history and the politico-economic basis of the ethnic divisions that resulted and which were fanned, not by democracy and markets, but by outside intervention from Germany, the US and the Catholic Church. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
Bush Greenwatch
FYI Yesterday Environmental Media Services (EMS), in conjunction with Moveon.org, launched a new site called BushGreenwatch.org-- a site that includes brief daily articles about how the Bush administration is dismantling America's public health and environmental protections.
http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/ Re: [PEN-L] Bush Greenwatch
Oops! there's the site in the subject line. . . Brian
Re: Estimating the surplus\Doug's question\Fred's comments
Fred,
Very glad you could make it - you were missed! I want to think more about
your post but have one small and one larger reflection.
1. I think we can all agree on the big focus of profit rates, as Paul
put it - that the rate of profit is the most important variable in
analyzing capitalism. And I agree with Paul that this emphasis on profit
and the rate of profit is what distinguishes classical-Marxian theories
from neo-classical theories.
In addition to Doug's main point ('show me the benefit of all this'), Doug
does make me wonder whether my description of the Classical/Marxian
approach should have been more specific (although the change might prove
more narrow-minded). As you know well, historically, the Classical
tradition focused on profits/profit rate but broke this down into the
changes that emerge from the labor\capital shares AND the changes that
emerge from what I was calling the 'capital side' (with lots of differences
and inconsistencies among Classical authors). Of course, since Sraffa
there has been an intelligent and articulate revival of interest in
Classical presentations of the first issue (wage/profit frontiers, etc)
WITHOUT the capital side. The discussion with Doug illustrates a point:
without the 'capital side' just how useful is such a presentation? Doug
gave good examples of how similar arguments could be made sticking to a
Keyensian\Kaleckian tradition that is more accessible to most. (Of course
Doug is also skeptical of the value of this approach even with the capital
side, but that is a different discussion.)
...
6. I have suggested another explanation of these important trends, one
based on Marx's distinction between productive labor and unproductive
labor - that an important cause of the declines in the share and the rate
of profit was a very significant increase in the ratio of unproductive
labor to productive labor. I am not sure that this is the correct
explanation of these trends, but I think it may be, and I think that it
worthwhile to at least consider what Marx's theory implies about the
causes of these trends and the likely prospects for the future.
And one important advantage that this theory has over the profit squeeze
explanation is that it provides a consistent explanation of why the share
and rate of profit have only partially recovered in recent decades, in
spite of the loss of workers' power and stagnant real wages - because the
ratio of unproductive to productive labor has continued to increase.
This theory also provides an important prediction about the future - that
if the ratio of unproductive to productive labor continues to increase (as
I expect), then the recovery of the share and rate of profit will continue
to be slow and partial, thus leading to more wage cuts, speed-up,
etc. According to this theory, the US economy is definitely NOT at the
beginning of another long-wave period of growth and prosperity, similar
to the early postwar period (with steady real wage increases). The only
partial recovery of the share and rate of profit makes such a return to
more prosperous conditions very unlikely.
You have made me think about what is the nature of a long wave
upturn. Here are some quick thoughts and concerns.
1. a. Of course these are waves, not cycles (as in Kondratieff,
investment-accelerator, etc). It is not even as if a simple mechanism such
as the falling of the price of capital in a downturn will, in
itself, produce an upturn.
b. The up and the down of these waves are not symmetrical. While
there are forces common and inherent in the accumulation process to
downturns (tendencies to a rising OCC, etc), the upturns require
exceptional events that are not inherently produced by the downturn
process. Mostly these require some combination of major technological
change AND socio-political conditions that allow capital to overcome
resistance to the labor processes and social organization needed to
introduce the technological change. Each upturn is sui generus in its
causes (although some may want to argue for inherent links to the
innovation and political change process, these are links with more lengthy
chains).
c. There are no inherent 'rules' about the strength or duration of
a wave. Definitions are hard to make; mostly we have relied on historical
observations to generalize about size and length.
d. History gives little guidance as to the possible economic
processes in today's world that would produce an upturn and how would one
look. The last upturn involved WWII. The one before (1890's?) had our
great-great-grandfathers at work.
2. It is fairly obvious that a large part of the upswing in profit
rates has been from a shift in shares from labor to capital. Not (by
itself) the stuff to inspire thoughts of a long upswing. But my eye was
caught by this smaller (but steady) increase in capital productivity in
Dumenil's RRPE paper. We would need to know more of the source of this
Re: Amy Chua: World on Fire
If this is the level of analysis and knowledge displayed in the rest of the book, then I wouldn't waste my time reading the book. It suggests a profound ignorance of Balkan history and the politico-economic basis of the ethnic divisions that resulted and which were fanned, not by democracy and markets, but by outside intervention from Germany, the US and the Catholic Church. That could well be true - but... here's me reflecting on it, I hope you don't mind. Suppose that you are constantly having to contend with godfearin' folks who deeply believe in the American way as the foundation of the market, freedom and democracy, and cannot conceive that anybody else might think differently about it, or understand how different that view might be. The question is then whether such a book as by Amy Chua might be a bridge that opens a path to another way of looking at the subject - how you could actually take an existing theme, and show that you might reach a different conclusion, if you took the idea seriously. So the question is then, about how you might actually put a book that already exists to good use. I don't pretend to have all the answers to that, I don't pretend always to do this, most times I struggle more with the questions, but I am just offering this as a constructive thought, if you think it is rubbish, so be it. Personally I have had quite a lot of criticism for my reading habits from people who considered them incomprehensible, as they could not see what those reading habits had to do with anything going on in my life. Probably some of the criticism is quite valid, since one can have one's nose too deep in the books and live in another world, a mental world not accessible to anybody else, but each book is also possibly a pathway to a new understanding, a new view of things. In this Internetised world, I often wonder why it is that people still enjoy reading books and buy them in large quantities (particularly women, actually). It seems to be that reading a book involves an inner world involving a relationship between the reader and a text which people value highly, they can read and think their own thoughts, undistracted by all sorts of other influences, as sort of personal liberty if you like, an experience which, if not sacred, is at least self-nurturing, a meaning which cannot easily be stolen. They will read in the bus, on the tram, in the laundromat and all sorts of unlikely places in which it is difficult to believe how you could concentrate at all on reading a text... Generally, I do consider Yoshie a bridge builder, opening up new vistas for people interested in her area of concern. That's a capacity I think we ought to value highly. Of course, there are no guarantees of success - one might build a bridge too far, or get run over by the traffic, or build a bridge in the wrong place, at least that's among the klutzy personal experiences I have had (as anyone knows, I'm far removed from Georges Simenon right now). Nobody gets it correct all of the time, even if inspired by the most sincere spirit. If however we all share approximately the same goals, it occurs to me that, if we disagree about the pathways to those goals, we would support each other best by showing an alternative route which could be taken for the same theme, a different take. In that way, people can learn something new, and decide for themselves if it's something for them. We're all for some things, and we're all against some things, so then it would be useful if we built each other up, by adding alternatives, while directing negative criticism primarily at the opposition. No mass movement was ever built on the basis of explaining how different we all are. Rather, it is built on what we have in common, but what we have in common must be asserted in a way which doesn't obliterate individual differences, respects subjectivities, and doesn't concede to leadership cults. And that takes a constructive habit of mind, which, rather than negating, just shows a different pathway which could work much better. We may not be able to prove definitely that it is better, or in what sense it is better, but at least we have shown that it exists, and no one can complain that we haven't. Frequently sectarians and dogmatists present this interpretation as liberal nonsense - they feel threatened when their cherished beliefs are challenged, or of reformist co-optation - and of course it could be, but it could also be applied in a way that definitely convinces people of an alternative along the lines that we really share. If indeed it was liberal nonsense then an alternative could be presented to that nonsense, and the inability to do this really shows we are just dealing with abuse rather than serious thought about the topic. Real leadership, surely, is formed when we stop negating ourselves and think in terms of: if we cannot do it this way, we do it that way. It's terribly difficult at times, we all have our gripes, foibles and
Re: Texas redistricting fairness
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/12/03 10:14AM From today's Washington Post: Judge Patrick Higginbotham, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and one of three federal judges hearing the case, seemed skeptical of the Democrats' suggestion that redistricting had ever been a scrupulously fair undertaking. He recalled that former Texas governor William P. Hobby, a World War I-era Democrat, once likened redistricting to a religious experience in which majority-party lawmakers (then the Democrats) fell to their hands and knees over a state map, and drew new congressional districts boundaries to reward their friends and punish their enemies. don't recall who said that redistricting is political equivalent of moving left field fence for a right handed pull hitter (maybe grantland rice who may have also said 'tell me results you want and i'll draw district map to do it')... surprise, surprise, courts (or 2 major parties for that matter) have adequately addressed integrity of competitive electoral process as constitutional matter...so-called good-clean gov't/fair election types correlate competitive and meaningful which, i suppose, has some validity...of course, choices in competitive contest may/may not themselves be meaningful... some evidence suggests that recent redistricting in many states has been less partisan in terms of party but more so in terms of incumbency...and some folks like to cite use of computers in shaping districts as if people controlling machines, their programming, and their data are non existent... 'reformers' tend to like iowa's 'non-partisan' methods that prohibits using party identification, prior election outcomes, and info about incumbents. in drawing new districts...much of work is done by a legislative districting office...for what it's worth, iowa does tend to have more competitive legislative elections... just kidding about grantland rice, keep the x in xmas... michael hoover
frontiers of the knowledge economy/public property
http://www.nhgri.nih.gov/11509418 Chimp Genome Assembled by Sequencing Centers *Draft Sequence Aligned With Human Genome* *BETHESDA**, **Md.**,* Dec. 10, 2003 - The National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), one of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), today announced the first draft version of the genome sequence of the chimpanzee and its alignment with the human genome. All of the data have been deposited into free public databases and are now available for use by scientists around the world. The sequence of the chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes, was assembled by NHGRI-funded teams led by Eric Lander, Ph.D., at The Eli Edythe L. Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.; and Richard K. Wilson, Ph.D., at the Genome Sequencing Center, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis. Researchers deposited the initial assembly, which is based on four-fold sequence coverage of the chimp genome, into the NIH-run, public database, GenBank http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/Genbank. In turn, Genbank will distribute the sequence data to the European Molecular Biology Laboratory's Nucleotide Sequence Database, EMBL-Bank, and the DNA Data Bank of Japan, DDBJ http://www.ddbj.nig.ac.jp. To facilitate biomedical studies comparing regions of the chimp genome with similar regions of the human genome, the researchers also have aligned the draft version of the chimp sequence with the human sequence. Those alignments can be scanned using the University of California, Santa Cruz's Genome Browser; the National Center for Biotechnology Information's Map Viewer; and the European Bioinformatics Institute's Ensembl system. An international team of scientists, led by researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle, Washington University and the Broad Institute (MIT/Harvard), is currently comparing the chimp and human genome sequences and plans to publish results of its analysis in the next several months. Chimpanzees are the most closely related species to humans. Consequently, comparative analysis of the human and chimp genomes can reveal unique types of information impossible to obtain from comparing the human genome with the genomes of other animals. For more on the scientific rationale for sequencing the chimp genome, go to: Sequencing the Chimpanzee Genome. For more on comparative genomic analysis, go to: Background on Comparative Genomic Analysis. NHGRI is one of 27 institutes and centers at NIH, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services. The NHGRI Division of Extramural Research supports grants for research and for training and career development at sites nationwide. Information about NHGRI can be found at: www.genome.gov. *For additional information on the chimp genome assembly, contact:* *National Human Genome Research Institute* Geoff Spencer (301) 402-0911 [EMAIL PROTECTED] *The Eli Edythe L. Broad Institute, MIT/Harvard* Lisa Marinelli (617) 252-1967 [EMAIL PROTECTED] *Washington** University School of Medicine* Joni Westerhouse (314) 286-0120 [EMAIL PROTECTED] *University of **Washington* Walter Neary (206) 685-3841 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Texas redistricting fairness
On Friday, December 12, 2003 at 14:33:22 (-0500) Michael Hoover writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/12/03 10:14AM From today's Washington Post: Judge Patrick Higginbotham, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and one of three federal judges hearing the case, seemed skeptical of the Democrats' suggestion that redistricting had ever been a scrupulously fair undertaking. ... ... surprise, surprise, courts (or 2 major parties for that matter) have adequately addressed integrity of competitive electoral process as constitutional matter...so-called good-clean gov't/fair election types correlate competitive and meaningful which, i suppose, has some validity...of course, choices in competitive contest may/may not themselves be meaningful... I'm surprised that on a progressive econ list such as this, the motives of the gerrymanderers (er?) to escape competition have not been compared to those who undertake corporate gerrymandering of markets to avoid dread ruinous competition and how thereby a large percentage of our so-called market economy is anything but. Bill
Re: Texas redistricting fairness
In all fairness, John Burton did one of the first modern redistricting in California. What is new here is that the Repugs. want to do it whenever they can rather than wait for the next census. On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 02:32:30PM -0600, Bill Lear wrote: On Friday, December 12, 2003 at 14:33:22 (-0500) Michael Hoover writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/12/03 10:14AM From today's Washington Post: Judge Patrick Higginbotham, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and one of three federal judges hearing the case, seemed skeptical of the Democrats' suggestion that redistricting had ever been a scrupulously fair undertaking. ... ... surprise, surprise, courts (or 2 major parties for that matter) have adequately addressed integrity of competitive electoral process as constitutional matter...so-called good-clean gov't/fair election types correlate competitive and meaningful which, i suppose, has some validity...of course, choices in competitive contest may/may not themselves be meaningful... I'm surprised that on a progressive econ list such as this, the motives of the gerrymanderers (er?) to escape competition have not been compared to those who undertake corporate gerrymandering of markets to avoid dread ruinous competition and how thereby a large percentage of our so-called market economy is anything but. Bill -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Texas redistricting fairness
in many states, there's also a deal between incumbents (of both parties) to protect the positions of incumbents using gerrymandering. It's not just a partisan thing. it pushes me in the direction of favoring term limits, but I'm not that far gone yet. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] In all fairness, John Burton did one of the first modern redistricting in California. What is new here is that the Repugs. want to do it whenever they can rather than wait for the next census.
Re: Estimating the surplus\Doug's question
Hi, Fred. you write: 6. I have suggested another explanation of these important trends, one based on Marx's distinction between productive labor and unproductive labor - that an important cause of the declines in the share and the rate of profit was a very significant increase in the ratio of unproductive labor to productive labor. I am not sure that this is the correct explanation of these trends, but I think it may be, and I think that it worthwhile to at least consider what Marx's theory implies about the causes of these trends and the likely prospects for the future. And one important advantage that this theory has over the profit squeeze explanation is that it provides a consistent explanation of why the share and rate of profit have only partially recovered in recent decades, in spite of the loss of workers' power and stagnant real wages - because the ratio of unproductive to productive labor has continued to increase. A big question: _why_ does the ratio of unproductive to productive labor increase over time? if this ratio is squeezing profits, it seems that profit-seeking capitalists would make an effort to lower it. or is there some sort of technological or social imperative that pushes capitalists to increase the ratio anyway? or is it a matter of it being good for capitalists as individuals to raise the ratio even though it's bad for capital as a whole? why the ratio rises is important. For example, if we posit that demand-side stagnation has been the rule of late, that would push up the ratio (for a few years, at least) in that unproductive labor is typically overhead labor, while productive labor is laid off. However, this explanation doesn't fit the waves of downsizing (thinning out of management, etc.) that hit US business during the 1990s. (see below) alternatively, it could be that the geographical unit of analysis is wrong. What if the US-based operations of capital are specializing in what Marxists term unproductive labor, while exporting the productive jobs to other countries? In that case, we should be calculating the world-wide rate of profit, no? This theory also provides an important prediction about the future - that if the ratio of unproductive to productive labor continues to increase (as I expect), then the recovery of the share and rate of profit will continue to be slow and partial, thus leading to more wage cuts, speed-up, etc. According to this theory, the US economy is definitely NOT at the beginning of another long-wave period of growth and prosperity, similar to the early postwar period (with steady real wage increases). The only partial recovery of the share and rate of profit makes such a return to more prosperous conditions very unlikely. why can't the ratio of unproductive to productive spending change quickly in the future? didn't something like that happen in the 1990s, lowering the ratio? One indicator of what happened can be seen in Michael Reich's 1998 article Are U.S. Corporations Top-Heavy? Managerial Ratios in Advanced Capitalist Countries (in the REVIEW OF RADICAL POLITICAL ECONOMICS, vol. 30, no. 3, 33-45). Reich's data on p. 37 show a rise in the management ratio until 1982 or so -- fitting with David Gordon's fat and mean hypothesis -- but then the ratio levels off. In the 1990s, it falls pretty steeply. This is not the same as the unproductive/productive labor ratio, but it seems close.
Re: Estimating the surplus\Doug's question\Fred's comments
--- Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: that if the ratio of unproductive to productive labor continues to increase ** Paul or someone on the list...do you mean by uproductive labour, that labour which does not produce a profit for an employer of wage-labour? Are you saying that a single barber who owns his shop and employs nobody and who cuts hair for a price is an example of unproductive labour whereas a bunch of hairdressers employed by a chain for wages and whose accumulated services are sold at a profit are productive? Or, is that unproductive as well? In other words, can services as well as material goods be counted as part of productive labour in this definition? Paul continued: As I recall, your 1997 RRPE article was focusing on the productive\unproductive issue and so did not get into the question of productivity of capital. and 3. IF, IF there were a long-ish by very modest upturn in profit rates partly fueled by some serious capital productivity\technical change would it not still be consistent with your points on productive\unproductive labor? (The improvements in capital productivity were cut in half by the drain in unproductive labor.) And what does the productivity of capital mean? Can capital, of and by itself be productive? I mean, is there is such a measure as say, output by unit of capital? Or, are we talking Capital as a social relation here i.e. wage-labour implied? Curious, Mike B) = * So long as little children are allowed to suffer, there is no true love in this world. ISADORA DUNCAN Memoirs, 1924 This Quarter Autumn 1929 http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal __ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/
Re: Texas redistricting fairness
The idea is that you want to put as many of the opposing party as you can in one district -- 100% would be ideal -- then have 50+ percent in each of the districts you expect to hold. Rep. Berman's brother has the computer system that did the redistricting. On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 03:09:09PM -0800, Devine, James wrote: in many states, there's also a deal between incumbents (of both parties) to protect the positions of incumbents using gerrymandering. It's not just a partisan thing. it pushes me in the direction of favoring term limits, but I'm not that far gone yet. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Estimating the surplus\Doug's question\Fred's comments
Mike asks: ...do you mean by uproductive labour, that labour which does not produce a profit for an employer of wage-labour? according to Marx's definition, unproductive labor (U) does not produce surplus-value, though it may help the capitalists _realize_ surplus-value. To my mind, that says that U doesn't help capital as a whole, but it can be profitable for an individual capitalist to hire. So a stock-broker can be profitable to hire, even though (s)he's not productive. Are you saying that a single barber who owns his shop and employs nobody and who cuts hair for a price is an example of unproductive labour whereas a bunch of hairdressers employed by a chain for wages and whose accumulated services are sold at a profit are productive? Marx used a similar example. A teacher hired by a business is productive, whereas a self-employed tutor is not. Note that there's nothing morally good about being productive. ... In other words, can services as well as material goods be counted as part of productive labour in this definition? for Smith, service laborers were unproductive. For Marx, they were productive in most cases. And what does the productivity of capital mean? Can capital, of and by itself be productive? the productivity of capital is sloppy writing. It refers to the ratio of output to fixed capital equipment (the inverse of some measures of the organic composition of capital). But, at least in Marxian lingo, fixed capital isn't productive. However, it can be indirectly productive, i.e., raising the productivity of productive labor. Or, are we talking Capital as a social relation here i.e. wage-labour implied? capital as a social relation is usually productive -- for capital. the more I think about this stuff, the less productive it seems. Jim
Re: Estimating the surplus\Doug's question
Devine, James wrote: Hi, Fred. you write: spite of the loss of workers' power and stagnant real wages - because the ratio of unproductive to productive labor has continued to increase. A big question: _why_ does the ratio of unproductive to productive labor increase over time? if this ratio is squeezing profits, it seems that profit-seeking capitalists would make an effort to lower it. or is there some sort of technological or social imperative that pushes capitalists to increase the ratio anyway? or is it a matter of it being good for capitalists as individuals to raise the ratio even though it's bad for capital as a whole? why the ratio rises is important. For example, if we posit that demand-side stagnation has been the rule of late, that would push up the ratio (for a few years, at least) in that unproductive labor is typically overhead labor, while productive labor is laid off. However, this explanation doesn't fit the waves of "downsizing" (thinning out of management, etc.) that hit US business during the 1990s. (see below) Jim, I tried to offer one suggestion in my post a few days ago. In the 1970s, corporations attempted to restore the profit level through price increases (leading to a price-wage spiral) which was cut off by the recession of the 1980s. Since that time, we have been in a period of demand constraint. As a result, increasing productivity has been met by downsizing and wage restraint resulting in stagnant wages which leads, as you point out, to an underconsumption undertow. Major corporations respond to this demand constraint by increasing promotion, marketing and advertising thereby increasing the ratio of unproductive to productive labour. But given globalisation and Asian competition, firms can't raise prices to match the increased cost of unproductive labour. They respond by trying to cut managers, etc. In the 1990s, they were aided by technological change in white collar work (i.e. computerization) which reduced the relative demand for/employment of unproductive labour. (My figures for Canada indicate a significant decline in the employment of certain types of secretarial and clerical labour in the early 1990s.) But given the deflationary effect of global competition using low-wage 3rd world labour, 1st world corporations are unable to raise prices to restore (realized) profitability. Thus, the profit recovery in the 1990s was only partial in the light of continuing need to increase unproductive selling/marketing expenditures despite the rise in productive worker productivity. To the extent that the growth in non-productive worker productivity is on a declining projectory, there is little to give hope for a new long-term, profit-based expansion based on technological change, at least in North America and Europe where the ratio of productive to unproductive labour is already so low. I think my read on this is similar to Fred's. If not, I would be glad to hear, and if so, why? Paul Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
Re: Estimating the surplus\Doug's question\Fred's comments
Thanks Jim! Now, I feel like I know about where I am in this discussion. One, perhpas two more questions from the peanut gallery: How does the pile of both current and projected future wealth production in the USA measure up against the amount of dollars in circulation, including bonds and other promissary notes? I realize that at this stage in that vast accumulation of commodities, there has to be an excess of dollars over produced exchange-values in order to grease the wheels of circulation. But how much is too much? I'm not sure of the exact figures, but aren't there trillions of dollars out there moving their little electrical impulses around from bank to bank and from exchange to exchange and so on...? From another angle, does the fall in the exchange-value of the US dollar have something to do with an excess of cash and promissary notes in circulation? I'm obviously not an economist. Just a wondering Wobbly, Mike B) --- Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike asks: ...do you mean by uproductive labour, that labour which does not produce a profit for an employer of wage-labour? according to Marx's definition, unproductive labor (U) does not produce surplus-value, though it may help the capitalists _realize_ surplus-value. To my mind, that says that U doesn't help capital as a whole, but it can be profitable for an individual capitalist to hire. So a stock-broker can be profitable to hire, even though (s)he's not productive. Are you saying that a single barber who owns his shop and employs nobody and who cuts hair for a price is an example of unproductive labour whereas a bunch of hairdressers employed by a chain for wages and whose accumulated services are sold at a profit are productive? Marx used a similar example. A teacher hired by a business is productive, whereas a self-employed tutor is not. Note that there's nothing morally good about being productive. ... In other words, can services as well as material goods be counted as part of productive labour in this definition? for Smith, service laborers were unproductive. For Marx, they were productive in most cases. And what does the productivity of capital mean? Can capital, of and by itself be productive? the productivity of capital is sloppy writing. It refers to the ratio of output to fixed capital equipment (the inverse of some measures of the organic composition of capital). But, at least in Marxian lingo, fixed capital isn't productive. However, it can be indirectly productive, i.e., raising the productivity of productive labor. Or, are we talking Capital as a social relation here i.e. wage-labour implied? capital as a social relation is usually productive -- for capital. the more I think about this stuff, the less productive it seems. Jim = * So long as little children are allowed to suffer, there is no true love in this world. ISADORA DUNCAN Memoirs, 1924 This Quarter Autumn 1929 http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal __ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/
TGIF, Dubya style
Friday, December 12, 2003 TGIF -- it must be time for Bush policy changes How the White House uses Stealth tactics (on Fridays) in U.S. By JOEL CONNELLY SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER COLUMNIST http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/152120_joel12.html The Bush I administration perfected Stealth military technology and deployed it to devastating effect as U.S. planes, invisible to Saddam Hussein's radar, began Gulf War I by destroying Iraqi infrastructure. Bush II has taken a giant leap further. It has extended the reach of Stealth tactics into American domestic policy, delivering lethal blows to environmental and health regulations while presenting only the tiniest of targets. The administration's new, political Stealth can be recognized by the familiar set of initials TGIF: Thank God It's Friday. The end of the workweek has come to be the time to announce far-reaching regulatory changes. They do it on Friday afternoon because they know that is when it will get buried in the news cycle, when it will get the least attention, Sen. Jim Jeffords, I-Vt., explained earlier this year. The latest Friday fix came just a week ago. Interior Secretary Gale Norton relaxed Clinton-era rules designed to halt overgrazing by ranchers who pay a pittance to run their livestock on federal land. In baseball lingo, Bush II has hit for the cycle on Fridays this fall, weakening protections on four different fronts. On Friday, Oct. 31, the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Agriculture let out a precedent-setting decision. The feds will trust testing for water pollution from atrazine -- one of America's most applied weed killers -- to the chemical's manufacturer. Two weeks earlier, on Friday, Oct. 17, the EPA announced that it would not be regulating dioxins in sewage sludge used in farm fertilizer, on grounds there are no health or environmental risks. The home run of Friday decisions was on Friday, Oct. 10, start of the Columbus Day weekend. The Interior Department overturned a policy that had strictly limited the amount of public land that can be used for dumping mining waste, which is the largest volume of toxic material unleashed annually in the United States. The limitation had blocked a large open-pit mine in Okanogan County. An environmental group, the Natural Resources Defense Council, has tracked more than 100 environmental rollbacks implemented under Bush II: 58 have been disclosed on Fridays, just before holidays or during holiday weekends. It's not just the Friday timing, said Rob Perks of NRDC. Decisions are announced by low-level officials. They are released in the late afternoon. On the grazing decision, we called up the agency and it would give us no information. Details were made available on Monday, when everyone had moved on. With such tactics, TGIF-Stealth technology puts a spin on stories, keeps flak to a minimum and discourages pursuit of stories. For instance, the lineup for weekend capital talk shows is usually set by early afternoon on Friday. The usual array of talking heads has been apportioned among the networks. And network TV isn't that interested in public health and the environment to begin with. Washington, D.C., talks about and to itself. The Feast of the Nativity and coming of the New Year were, in 2002, occasions for additional demonstration of political Stealth technology by Bush II. On Christmas Eve, the administration changed rules to make it easier for state, county and local governments to gain control of long-abandoned mining roads on federal land -- a change that could bring dirt bikes into backcountry of Grand Canyon, Denali, Death Valley and North Cascades national parks. New Year's Eve was occasion for Bush II to announce that a fishing practice (favored by Mexican fishermen) that entails encircling dolphins with nets would have no significant adverse impact on dolphin populations in the Pacific Ocean. Only a single national journalist -- Washington Post columnist Mary McGrory -- caught the administration's fishy decision. TGIF-Stealth technology is useful even when it comes to suppressing good news -- in cases where upbeat findings are at odds with the administration's agenda. Friday, Sept. 26, saw the (very) quiet release of a new Office of Management and Budget study. It found that environmental rules are well worth the costs they impose on industry and consumers, resulting in major public health benefits and other improvements. Major strikes against pollution and health regulations can require more than one Friday and/or holiday. On Friday, Aug. 22, the Bush administration made final its decision to let America's most polluting coal-fired power plants and refineries upgrade facilities without installing state-of-the-art air quality controls. Original announcement of the plan came from an underling just before Thanksgiving of last year. New rules formally easing requirements on polluters were issued on New Year's Eve. Bush II picked Friday,
Re: Estimating the surplus\Doug's question\Fred's comments
Jim Devine writes: the productivity of capital is sloppy writing. It refers to the ratio of output to fixed capital equipment (the inverse of some measures of the organic composition of capital). But, at least in Marxian lingo, fixed capital isn't productive. However, it can be indirectly productive, i.e., raising the productivity of productive labor. Thanks a lot :-) Actually since I was citing the data from Dumenil Levy in their RRPE article, I stuck to THEIR term. It raised my eyebrows as well, but they are not sloppy people (being French?) and I suspect they are going somewhere with this so I will let it stand - for now. But it is good you clarified it. More seriously, thanks for taking on Mike's question. Paul
Re: Texas redistricting fairness
That was Phil Burton, wasn't it? Gene Michael Perelman wrote: In all fairness, John Burton did one of the first modern redistricting in California. What is new here is that the Repugs. want to do it whenever they can rather than wait for the next census. On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 02:32:30PM -0600, Bill Lear wrote: On Friday, December 12, 2003 at 14:33:22 (-0500) Michael Hoover writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/12/03 10:14AM From today's Washington Post: Judge Patrick Higginbotham, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and one of three federal judges hearing the case, seemed skeptical of the Democrats' suggestion that redistricting had ever been a scrupulously fair undertaking. ... ... surprise, surprise, courts (or 2 major parties for that matter) have adequately addressed integrity of competitive electoral process as constitutional matter...so-called good-clean gov't/fair election types correlate competitive and meaningful which, i suppose, has some validity...of course, choices in competitive contest may/may not themselves be meaningful... I'm surprised that on a progressive econ list such as this, the motives of the gerrymanderers (er?) to escape competition have not been compared to those who undertake corporate gerrymandering of markets to avoid dread "ruinous competition" and how thereby a large percentage of our so-called market economy is anything but. Bill -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Texas redistricting fairness
absolutely. On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 05:18:36PM -0800, Eugene Coyle wrote: That was Phil Burton, wasn't it? Gene Michael Perelman wrote: In all fairness, John Burton did one of the first modern redistricting in California. What is new here is that the Repugs. want to do it whenever they can rather than wait for the next census. On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 02:32:30PM -0600, Bill Lear wrote: On Friday, December 12, 2003 at 14:33:22 (-0500) Michael Hoover writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/12/03 10:14AM From today's Washington Post: Judge Patrick Higginbotham, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and one of three federal judges hearing the case, seemed skeptical of the Democrats' suggestion that redistricting had ever been a scrupulously fair undertaking. ... ... surprise, surprise, courts (or 2 major parties for that matter) have adequately addressed integrity of competitive electoral process as constitutional matter...so-called good-clean gov't/fair election types correlate competitive and meaningful which, i suppose, has some validity...of course, choices in competitive contest may/may not themselves be meaningful... I'm surprised that on a progressive econ list such as this, the motives of the gerrymanderers (er?) to escape competition have not been compared to those who undertake corporate gerrymandering of markets to avoid dread ruinous competition and how thereby a large percentage of our so-called market economy is anything but. Bill -- 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]
Venezuela - a 21st Century Revolution
* Documentary Venezuela - a 21st Century Revolution Produced by the Global Women's Strike, May 2003 Duration: 60 minutes Cost: $15 £10 E15 Crossroads Books Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is not a documentary on Venezuela, but a documentary of Venezuelans speaking on how they are making this revolution. Picketing the Constituent Assembly every day . . . the women's movement, and the Indigenous movement, got our rights enshrined in the constitution. . . . Micro credit is an excuse to empower women. Nora Castañeda, President of the Women's Development Bank We women are strong because as single mothers we have been both mother and father. We are not scared of any golpista. Mano Amiga, cleaning workers co-operative The heroic people woke up. They used to step on us, now we all protest and demand our rights. Co-operative of workers of the Hilton Anauco To re-establish production was a 24-hour struggle. Oil workers gave it everything they had and many grassroots people took part. Nelson Nuñez, President of oil workers' union SITRAPETROL We feel as much pain for the world as we do for Venezuela . . . This revolution is peaceful and democratic, but it is armed . . . We must win by the only path open to us, the path of the revolution, which is the path of life. President Hugo Chavez Frias This documentary aims to help with a better understanding of what this 21st century revolution is winning for all of us, what we can do for it and what it can do for us. In England and the US, viewers from Venezuela and elsewhere, have acclaimed it: Grassroots people are full of optimism and aware of their own power. I have never seen such confident women. I cried with joy. * In 1998 President Chavez was elected by a landslide to tackle poverty and corruption. The two parties in power for over 40 years had left 80% of Venezuelans, mostly people of colour, in poverty despite a lucrative oil industry. * In 1999, a new constitution framed by the population was voted in. As laws implementing the constitution were about to come into force, the US government and Venezuela's white racist elite organized a coup and kidnapped President Chavez. * Two days later, on 13 April 2002, millions took to the streets led by women from the poorest areas. With the support of loyal soldiers they won back their elected President and their constitution. * In January 2003, oil managers, the corporate media and corrupt union leaders tried to stop the revolution by stopping the oil industry. Again they were defeated. * The constitution gives land and housing to rural and homeless people, prioritizes water and food security, promotes co-operatives, recognizes Indigenous peoples' rights, promotes workers' rights, equity between women and men, recognizes housework as productive work, entitles housewives to health care and a pension, promotes unity among Third World peoples . . . The constitution opposes the privatization of oil, enabling the population to reclaim its stolen oil revenue. * Uniquely, on a continent plagued by US-backed military dictatorships and disappearances, the Chavez government promotes a caring use of its military. Soldiers, as well as defending the revolutionary process, work with and for the community: building homes, schools, providing healthcare, teaching literacy . . . In April 2003, the Global Women's Strike was invited to the first anniversary of the popular uprising that saved the revolution, its government and constitution. Six of us went, from Argentina, England, Peru and the US, to celebrate the defeat of the coup. Special thanks to INAMUJER, the Venezuelan Women's Institute. There are Bolivarian Circle of the Global Women's Strike in a number of countries, spreading the achievements of the revolution. To buy a copy of our documentary: Crossroads Women's Centre, 230A Kentish Town Rd, London NW5 2AB Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 020 7482 2496 Web: http://www.allwomencount.net/Publications/Forsalepage.htm, http://www.allwomencount.net/Publications/VIDEOS.htm http://www.allwomencount.net/Publications/venezuelavidflyer.htm * -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Texas redistricting fairness
I know it wasn't Dan Burton! JD From: Eugene Coyle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] That was Phil Burton, wasn't it? Gene Michael Perelman wrote: In all fairness, John Burton did one of the first modern redistricting in California. What is new here is that the Repugs. want to do it whenever they can rather than wait for the next census. On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 02:32:30PM -0600, Bill Lear wrote: On Friday, December 12, 2003 at 14:33:22 (-0500) Michael Hoover writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/12/03 10:14AM From today's Washington Post: Judge Patrick Higginbotham, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and one of three federal judges hearing the case, seemed skeptical of the Democrats' suggestion that redistricting had ever been a scrupulously fair undertaking. ... ... surprise, surprise, courts (or 2 major parties for that matter) have adequately addressed integrity of competitive electoral process as constitutional matter...so-called good-clean gov't/fair election types correlate competitive and meaningful which, i suppose, has some validity...of course, choices in competitive contest may/may not themselves be meaningful... I'm surprised that on a progressive econ list such as this, the motives of the gerrymanderers (er?) to escape competition have not been compared to those who undertake corporate gerrymandering of markets to avoid dread ruinous competition and how thereby a large percentage of our so-called market economy is anything but. Bill -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
North Korea: Beyond the DMZ (Dirs. JT Takagi Hye Jung Park)
* NORTH KOREA: BEYOND THE DMZ JT Takagi Hye Jung Park / Edited by Dena Mermelstein (56 min./Color/2003) Axis of evil? While this tiny state on the divided Korean peninsula is continually demonized in America, few have any first hand knowledge of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. What is it like on the other side of the 38th parallel? How do Koreans in the north view this past decade - the fall of Soviet communism, natural disasters that brought famine and power shortages, and a continued, dangerously hostile relationship with the U.S.? What are the concerns of the Korean American community - many of whom have family in the north? This new documentary follows a young Korean American woman to see her relatives, and through unique footage of life in the D.P.R.K. and interviews with ordinary people and scholars, opens a window into this nation and its people. Go to www.twn.org/update.html for a listing of upcoming screenings near you! With support from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the National Asian American Telecommunications Association (with funds provided by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting), Media Arts Fellowships/Rockefeller Foundation,the New York State Council on the Arts, the Paul Robeson Fund for Independent Media/The Funding Exchange Film Rental Film Sale Video Rental Video Sale N/A N/A 75 225 English Pre-orders now accepted http://www.twn.org/record.cgi?recno=434 * * The human face of North Korea By Alisa Givental NEW YORK - Few Americans know that no army won the Korean War - it ended in a truce. But most are familiar with United States charges that North Korea has weapons of mass destruction, and they might also be used to thinking of the communist nation as a serious threat. A new documentary titled North Korea Beyond the DMZ looks at the human side of this country, and discusses the origins of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's (DPRK) outlook on the world and the US in particular. The film analyzes Korean history from World War II until the present. Using footage from the US and the North Korean capital Pyongyang and environs, combined with TV broadcasts, photographs interviews and archival footage, this film creates an image of the DPRK that differs from the harsh version usually presented by traditional news sources. Our goal was to create some glimpse of what life there is like, that there are people there. Usually, we are only seeing coverage about the leadership, said one of the documentary's two directors, J T Takagi. Accomplishing that mission was not easy. It took three years of paperwork for a crew of two to get permission to enter the DPRK with their subject, a young Korean-American woman on a quest to locate her father's long-lost family. After the Korean War - in which more than 30,000 US troops and 2 million Koreans died - ended without a peace treaty, more than 10 million families were separated and have remained so for more than 50 years. The young woman's father had a brother and mother left in the North from whom he has never heard. On arriving in the country, she learns about the contemporary culture of North Korea, one of the last communist countries. The young woman is exposed to juche, a system of thought created by the late ruler Kim Il-sung, which teaches that everyone is master of his own fate and the power to control that fate lies within oneself. Self-reliance has been the official mantra of North Korea for more than 50 years. The documentary discusses the life of modern North Koreans and their problems: the lack of electricity and hot water, the famines caused by massive flooding at the end of the last decade and the economic crisis precipitated by the loss of the country's main ally, the Soviet Union. Though often portrayed in the West as a country run by a maniacal militaristic leader, the film portrays North Korea as much more complicated than this simplistic version allows. It is a nation of few freedoms but an almost 100 percent literacy rate. It is a place with little nightlife or entertainment but a country that has proclaimed every Saturday a countrywide study day. According to Takagi, the current tension with the US is the result of fear and propaganda, and the fact that people in the North have grown up with the idea that the US would inevitably invade. North Koreans feel that they are under siege and respond accordingly, she said in an interview. North Korea has been trying to change, to move to a market economy or at least to an economy that could interface with the world market, Takagi said, yet the US has been preventing that from happening. The existence of North Korea as a supposed threat is a good reason to maintain a military presence in the area, Takagi added. Today, Washington has 37,000 troops stationed in South Korea. Takagi, a Japanese-American independent filmmaker who works with Third World Newsreel, a media arts center in New York City, co-directed the film with Hye Jung
Re: Estimating the surplus\Doug's question\Fred's comments
an excess of money in circulation if anything means inflation. But that's something that's not happening these days. The fall of the US dollar is due to an excess of US dollars in circulation relative to the supplies of other currencies (rather than there being too much money over-all). The excess of US$ comes from the practice of excessive borrowing by US consumers, corporations, and (now) the government and the shrinking willingness of those outside the US to lend. I knew there were Wobblies in Australia, but I've never met one. Jim -Original Message- From: Mike Ballard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri 12/12/2003 4:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Estimating the surplus\Doug's question\Fred's comments Thanks Jim! Now, I feel like I know about where I am in this discussion. One, perhpas two more questions from the peanut gallery: How does the pile of both current and projected future wealth production in the USA measure up against the amount of dollars in circulation, including bonds and other promissary notes? I realize that at this stage in that vast accumulation of commodities, there has to be an excess of dollars over produced exchange-values in order to grease the wheels of circulation. But how much is too much? I'm not sure of the exact figures, but aren't there trillions of dollars out there moving their little electrical impulses around from bank to bank and from exchange to exchange and so on...? From another angle, does the fall in the exchange-value of the US dollar have something to do with an excess of cash and promissary notes in circulation? I'm obviously not an economist. Just a wondering Wobbly, Mike B) --- Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike asks: ...do you mean by uproductive labour, that labour which does not produce a profit for an employer of wage-labour? according to Marx's definition, unproductive labor (U) does not produce surplus-value, though it may help the capitalists _realize_ surplus-value. To my mind, that says that U doesn't help capital as a whole, but it can be profitable for an individual capitalist to hire. So a stock-broker can be profitable to hire, even though (s)he's not productive. Are you saying that a single barber who owns his shop and employs nobody and who cuts hair for a price is an example of unproductive labour whereas a bunch of hairdressers employed by a chain for wages and whose accumulated services are sold at a profit are productive? Marx used a similar example. A teacher hired by a business is productive, whereas a self-employed tutor is not. Note that there's nothing morally good about being productive. ... In other words, can services as well as material goods be counted as part of productive labour in this definition? for Smith, service laborers were unproductive. For Marx, they were productive in most cases. And what does the productivity of capital mean? Can capital, of and by itself be productive? the productivity of capital is sloppy writing. It refers to the ratio of output to fixed capital equipment (the inverse of some measures of the organic composition of capital). But, at least in Marxian lingo, fixed capital isn't productive. However, it can be indirectly productive, i.e., raising the productivity of productive labor. Or, are we talking Capital as a social relation here i.e. wage-labour implied? capital as a social relation is usually productive -- for capital. the more I think about this stuff, the less productive it seems. Jim = * So long as little children are allowed to suffer, there is no true love in this world. ISADORA DUNCAN Memoirs, 1924 This Quarter Autumn 1929 http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal __ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/
Re: Estimating the surplus\Doug's question
Paul,. your story makes sense (though I'd add a lot). My question is for Fred, though. The classical Marxian story stresses the role of the organic composition rising due to some societal or technological imperative. For Fred, the rise of the ratio of productive to unproductive labor costs has replaced -- or now complements -- that's story. I wanted to know his logic. Jim --- Devine, James wrote: Hi, Fred. you write: spite of the loss of workers' power and stagnant real wages - because the ratio of unproductive to productive labor has continued to increase. A big question: _why_ does the ratio of unproductive to productive labor increase over time? if this ratio is squeezing profits, it seems that profit-seeking capitalists would make an effort to lower it. or is there some sort of technological or social imperative that pushes capitalists to increase the ratio anyway? or is it a matter of it being good for capitalists as individuals to raise the ratio even though it's bad for capital as a whole? why the ratio rises is important. For example, if we posit that demand-side stagnation has been the rule of late, that would push up the ratio (for a few years, at least) in that unproductive labor is typically overhead labor, while productive labor is laid off. However, this explanation doesn't fit the waves of downsizing (thinning out of management, etc.) that hit US business during the 1990s. (see below) - Jim, I tried to offer one suggestion in my post a few days ago. In the 1970s, corporations attempted to restore the profit level through price increases (leading to a price-wage spiral) which was cut off by the recession of the 1980s. Since that time, we have been in a period of demand constraint. As a result, increasing productivity has been met by downsizing and wage restraint resulting in stagnant wages which leads, as you point out, to an underconsumption undertow. Major corporations respond to this demand constraint by increasing promotion, marketing and advertising thereby increasing the ratio of unproductive to productive labour. But given globalisation and Asian competition, firms can't raise prices to match the increased cost of unproductive labour. They respond by trying to cut managers, etc. In the 1990s, they were aided by technological change in white collar work (i.e. computerization) which reduced the relative demand for/employment of unproductive labour. (My figures for Canada indicate a significant decline in the employment of certain types of secretarial and clerical labour in the early 1990s.) But given the deflationary effect of global competition using low-wage 3rd world labour, 1st world corporations are unable to raise prices to restore (realized) profitability. Thus, the profit recovery in the 1990s was only partial in the light of continuing need to increase unproductive selling/marketing expenditures despite the rise in productive worker productivity. To the extent that the growth in non-productive worker productivity is on a declining projectory, there is little to give hope for a new long-term, profit-based expansion based on technological change, at least in North America and Europe where the ratio of productive to unproductive labour is already so low. I think my read on this is similar to Fred's. If not, I would be glad to hear, and if so, why? Paul
Baghdad in No Particular Order (Dir. Paul Chan)
* Baghdad in No Particular Order This disarming 60-minute video of everyday life in prewar Baghdad was shot by Paul Chan during a sojourn to Iraq in late December and early January, organized by the antiwar group Voices in the Wilderness. His ambient documentary records a local cafe, a Sufi poetry performance, a wedding party, a dozing monkey, and a group of middle-aged uniformed women at a military parade who brandish automatic rifles and chant, Hey thunder, Saddam is your son! Many Iraqis playfully address the camera, and Chan decenters the perspective by occasionally handing the camera to one of them and by adding allusive female voice-over in six different languages. http://www.chireader.com/movies/sidebars/SELECT2003.html * * Baghdad in No Particular Order. 2003. USA. Directed by Paul Chan. Chan spent a month in Baghdad as a member of the Iraq Peace Team, a group initiated by the Nobel Peace Prize-nominated organization Voices in the Wilderness that is working to end the sanctions against Iraq. This work is a reflection of the video ephemera Chan collected while in Baghdad. 60 min. Saturday, December 13, 3:00 (introduced by the director) http://www.moma.org/visit_moma/momafilm/docu_fort_2003.html http://www.moma.org/visit_moma/momafilm/ * * The Retriever - Features Politics At No Extra Charge: Paul Chan's Multi-Dimensional Artwork Richard McNey Retriever Weekly Staff Writer For the last several weeks, images of Iraq have monopolized the news. Video of burning buildings, bombs exploding, and soldiers with raised guns have become Iraq's representation in American eyes. These pictures are pumped daily into our homes and over all of them is always some journalist's voice telling us what we are looking at. Paul Chan's video art filmed in Iraq speaks for itself by displaying the lives Iraqis lead; the lives not shown on television. InterArts and the Visiting Artists Lecture Series presented a lecture by New York City artist Paul Chan. A full UMBC Fine Arts lecture hall listened to Chan, who is a 2003 Rockefeller Arts Fellow and teaches video and film at the University of Pennsylvania, discuss several pieces of his artwork. I do digital work, said Chan sitting on the back of a chair, dressed in all black save for brown pointy shoes that only an artist could pull off. He continued, which basically means I make shit on computers. The shit the artist refers to includes digital video, new media artwork and interactive media. Chan has dual interests in politics and art. As a result, much of his artwork has political implications. From Dec. 14 to Jan. 14, Chan lived in Baghdad filming the people and the culture. He traveled to Iraq as a member of the Iraq Peace Team, a group initiated by Voices in the Wilderness, an independent international campaign that since 1996 has attempted to end the economic sanctions and warfare against the people of Iraq. Members of Voices include teachers, artists and church workers who live in Iraq at different times documenting the lives of Iraqi citizens. The Iraq Peace Team began in Sept. 2002 in an attempt to prevent a U.S. attack on Iraq through the use of non-violent actions. Today the team remains in Iraq recording the Iraqi citizens' experiences throughout the war and occupation with the goal of increasing awareness of the situation. This is too tragic and woeful of a time to be remembered only through op-ed pieces and human interest stories, Chan said. Voices in the Wilderness knew that artists and writers and poets had to be involved, had to be on the ground to remember what is happening down there because we can't count on the journalists and the historians and the Pentagon. I was really touched; I was really moved by this idea that a political group was thinking aesthetically. Chan was so moved that he signed up and lived in Baghdad for a month filming the Iraqi people. The piece he is in the process of editing will probably be titled, Baghdad in No Particular Order and is a montage of scenes filmed in single channel digital video. It is amazing how determined things are when you watch it on the news, Chan said. When you watch video footage or stills someone is always talking over it as if they are telling you how to look. It is refreshing that I didn't do any interviews or I didn't want to show any talking heads. Indeed, in the clips Chan showed, the images spoke for themselves. In one scene, a man covering his head and face with a red turban stands near a beat-up yellow car while the beautiful singing of the Islamic call to prayer fills the air. The scene following shows water spraying out of a small hole in a pipe on a Baghdad street. The sounds of nearby traffic and the sprinkling water are the only sounds heard. Following the scene are close-ups on the twitching face of a monkey dreaming in a cage in the lobby of the hotel where Chan stayed. There were also scenes of twin girls dancing and other children smiling, seemingly without
Tsuchimoto Noriaki's Afghan Documentaries
* Traces: The Kabul Museum 1988. 2003. Japan. Directed by Tsuchimoto Noriaki. During the fall of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, in 1992, most of the artifacts of the national museum were destroyed or stolen. This video represents a rare film documentation of the Kabul Museum. 32 min. Another Afghanistan: Kabul Diary 1985. 2003. Japan. Directed by Tsuchimoto Noriaki. Another Afghanistan traces the daily life of the citizens of Kabul during its civil war. In Japanese with English subtitles. 42 min. Friday, December 19, 6:30 http://www.moma.org/visit_moma/momafilm/docu_fort_2003.htm http://www.moma.org/visit_moma/momafilm/ * ** In Another Afghanistan: Kabul Diary 1985 (2003), Japanese director Tsuchimoto Noriaki narrates over footage shot in Soviet-controlled Kabul in 1985, giving rhapsodic accounts of nourishing orphanages, coed schools, the issuing of land deeds en route to collectivization. His companion piece, Traces: The Kabul Museum 1988 (2003), tours the place prior to Taliban-ordered destruction. Reciting each artifact's heritage-Indian, Greco-Roman, Egyptian-Noriaki implicitly argues for Afghanistan's cultural value, though curiously basing his claims on genteel notions of sophistication and first-world civility. http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0350/sinagra.php * * Afghan Spring 116min, 16mm, 1990 Director: Noriaki Tsuchimoto, Hiroko Kumagai, Abdul Latif Under the political structure of the Cold War, the West refuses to recognize the republic democratic government of Afghanistan, claiming that it was a puppet government of the Soviet Union. This film is a record of the Afghan people around this time. - TSUCHIMOTO Noriaki A portrait of Afghanistan between the Soviets and Taliban, the last glimpses of the architectural and sculptural treasures perished during the wars of the last decade, riveting interviews with members of opposing forces, socialists, mujahedins, women, villagers who repeat in unison their desire for peace and stability... Afghan Spring is made by a team of Japanese documentary filmmakers headed by Noriaki Tsuchimoto. The interest of Afghan Spring lies in its perspective offered by outsiders who have a very short time to cover very large ground. The filmmakers attempt to penetrate through the novelty values offered by the country itself: the fact that they are perhaps the first Western-aligned journalists to be allowed into the country during the actual withdrawal of Soviet troops is one of the themes that is exploited. The filmmakers visited the country in phased periods in the Spring and Autumn of 1988. Clearly, they had visited a country in the brink of transformation as the Afghans themselves - without the intervention of the Soviet Union - try to grapple with their own political and military problems. The film is wholly shot from the side of the authorities and it is this official view which proves to be the film's strength as well as its ultimate weakness. The civil was is, at last estimation, still not won by the government and the Mujahedin rebel army seems to be buying time for a decisive military confrontation. Yet, the film breezes through this conflict with an umistakable sense of a breakthrough. The return to normalcy, the stated desire for peace, the deadlock of the civil conflict are themes which come through when the film is at its best... - Yamagata Documentary Film Festival TSUCHIMOTO Noriaki is regarded as one of the major figures in Japanese documentary history. Born in 1928 in Gifu Prefecture, Tsuchimoto grew up in Nagoya. In 1938, he moved to Tokyo and graduated from the law department in the processional school at Waseda University in 1949. He then studied western history in the literature department at Waseda University, but was expelled in 1952 because of his political activities and his academic record was removed. In 1956, he began working as a part-time staff member at Iwanami Film Productions making educational and public-relations documentaries but soon chose to work freelance. Tsuchimoto is best known for a series of over 15 films made over the past 40 years focusing on the plight of the victims of Minamata disease, an illness caused by mercury pollution in the coastal waters around the fishing community of Minamata. Other major works include Pre-History of the Partisans (1969), a documentary on the feelings of radical students engaged in subversive activities in Japan while political movements by leftist students were thriving and spreading globally, and A Scrapbook about Nuclear Power Plants (1982), a collage film entirely from newspaper clippings. Hiroko Kumagai was born in 1951 and was educated at Waseda University. She became a documentary filmmaker for TV in 1975 but has been working as a freelance director since 1985. Her work has been mainly TV on the Nippon Television Network, TV Tokyo and TV Asahi channels. She has travelled to numerous countires in the course of her work and is also the author of a
Re: when Quinn the Eskimo gets here, Ev'rybody's gonna jump for joy?
http://www.gao.gov/ Alaska Native Villages: Most Are Affected by Flooding and Erosion, but Few Qualify for Federal Assistance. GAO-04-142 Today's Reports - December 12, 2003
Re: Estimating the surplus\Doug's question\Fred's comments
Thanks again, Jim. If you ever get to Perth, we'll have to have a Coopers ale (or three) at the Brass Monkey. I can bring my Little Red Songbook. Comes in handy after a few ales and hearty. So, there is an excess of money in circulation relative to the other currencies of the world. Increased supply, decreased demand and therefore lower price for the US dollar. I get it. When you refer to the others outside the US and their unwillingness to lend, is that the same thing as those others buying up US bonds and other pieces of paper which represent some future or current exchange-value and their unwillingness to risk these purchases at this moment in time? Again, thanks for your time, Mike B) --- Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: an excess of money in circulation if anything means inflation. But that's something that's not happening these days. The fall of the US dollar is due to an excess of US dollars in circulation relative to the supplies of other currencies (rather than there being too much money over-all). The excess of US$ comes from the practice of excessive borrowing by US consumers, corporations, and (now) the government and the shrinking willingness of those outside the US to lend. I knew there were Wobblies in Australia, but I've never met one. Jim other posts leading up to this one deleted for brevity = * So long as little children are allowed to suffer, there is no true love in this world. ISADORA DUNCAN Memoirs, 1924 This Quarter Autumn 1929 http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal __ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/
Re: Estimating the surplus\Doug's question\Fred's comments
My take on profit rates is a bit different from the thrust of this conversation so far. I suspect that the measurement of profit rates is a very, very inexact exercise, because the denominator cannot be measured. Invested capital requires some means of calculating depreciation rates. The government does this calculation by means of rules of thumb based on the permanent inventory method. Over a short period of time, problems with this method of calculation will not cause too much difficulty as long as the business cycle does not move too rapidly, but measurement over decades is exceedingly questionable. The data can give you a rough idea about what's happening, but not with the exactitude that we pretend in journal articles. Jim's mention of Reich's article is interesting. I suspect that a rising amount of unproductive labor can be an effect as well as a cause of a falling rate of profit. I'm thinking of periods when capital cannot make much profit from direct production, and thus reverts to more financial manipulation in lieu of production. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Estimating the surplus\Doug's question\Fred's comments
--- michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Invested capital requires some means of calculating depreciation rates. The government does this calculation by means of rules of thumb based on the permanent inventory method. Over a short period of time, problems with this method of calculation will not cause too much difficulty as long as the business cycle does not move too rapidly, but measurement over decades is exceedingly questionable. * What I've wondered about are the calculations concerning the depreciation of fixed capital in these times of rapid technological advance. One never knows what's around the corner in terms of the revolutionizing of the means of production in this day and age. So, a capitalist might figure that so and so much amount of fixed capital depreciates into so and so many commodities over say five years and then the piece of fixed capital is replaced. But what happens when the technological advance is so rapid that the old calculation is off by years? I guess that the capitalist just takes a financial bath or goes out of business. But maybe not? Maybe BIG CAPITAL is not allowed to go out of business (Chrysler?) because the overall effect on the economy would be too great. Is this another avenue where excess currency is being pumped into the economy? I think that I'm over posting today. So, will stop with this one. Best to all, Mike B) = * Where parents do too much for their children, the children will not do much for themselves. ELBERT HUBBARD (1856-1915) The Note Book of Elbert Hubbard ed., Elbert Hubbard II p. 193 http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal __ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/
Re: Estimating the surplus\Doug's question\Fred's comments
- Original Message - From: Mike Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] What I've wondered about are the calculations concerning the depreciation of fixed capital in these times of rapid technological advance. One never knows what's around the corner in terms of the revolutionizing of the means of production in this day and age. So, a capitalist might figure that so and so much amount of fixed capital depreciates into so and so many commodities over say five years and then the piece of fixed capital is replaced. But what happens when the technological advance is so rapid that the old calculation is off by years? In the non-short run, fixed capital isn't even fixedit's as malleable as wax, just like the institutions that make 'it' what 'it' is. Ian
Re: Estimating the surplus\Doug's question\Fred's comments
Thanks again, Jim. If you ever get to Perth, we'll have to have a Coopers ale (or three) at the Brass Monkey. I can bring my Little Red Songbook. Comes in handy after a few ales and hearty. I'll have some cheap Pinot Grigio some horizontal athletics. ... When you refer to the others outside the US and their unwillingness to lend, is that the same thing as those others buying up US bonds and other pieces of paper which represent some future or current exchange-value and their unwillingness to risk these purchases at this moment in time? Right. lending to the US is the same as buying those pieces of paper. in international solidarity, Jim
Question re basics
I'd like some patient response to a query that appears to be a whopper to me, which I've never before posed. I'm missing some crucially essential connections, which Sweezy in some of the things he had written some years ago, just as he stopped writing for publication, alluded to. Maybe it's been discussed and accounted for in the interim somewhere but I haven't seen it. I'd like to attempt to rephrase his question and ask for clarification or a referral to the relevant literature. It's simple enough, maybe, as a posed problem but it seems enormously complex, even abstruse, if one were to undertake its detailed working out. It has to do with the connection between the accumulation of capital ascribable to the creation of surplus value on one side, and the cascading mountainous accretion of debt instruments on the other, the whole multi-trillion dollar financial complex. How, basically, do the two connect in a framework consistent with what Marx wrote? I had assumed without being able at my level of comprehension to elaborate, that all credit creation rests ultimately, fantastic as it might seem, on call-ins of indebtedness to the creators of the surplus value, the working class [of course, Sweezy called it 'surplus']. But how for one thing does that include Schumpeter's 'creative destruction', a product of cycles of reproduction? How for another thing does that affect the validity of the Marxist theory of value creation, that is, how does it preserve the practicability of Marx's theory of surplus value? How does that work out as a historical development question? And how in the Marxist schematics can this be represented? I know there's an answer in there someplace. Thanking you in advance for your kind attention, Ralph Johansen
