economics query about indebtedness in US
Does anyone have recent estimates of the total debt structure of the United States ? My approximate estimates were as follows: Total debt held by households about $32 trillion Total debt held by business about $4.7 trillion Total debt held by state and local government about $1.5 trillion Total debt held by federal government about $3 trillion (gross federal debt $7 trillion) Total debt, United States $41.2 trillion, i.e. about four times GDP and about a fifth of that owing to foreign investors) J.
Democratic Party?
Democratic Party? by Don Fitz February 25, 2004 THIRD PARTY Discussions of the 2004 presidential race often leave out the very important question of whether it is in the best interest of progressive movements for the Democratic Party to run someone for president. I believe that the Democratic Party should stand down in 2004. Here are 10 reasons why. Reason No. 1. The Democratic Party was responsible for the election of George W. Bush in the 2000 election. In the 2000 elections, the Green Party brought at least a million voters to the polls who would have selected the Democratic Party candidate as their second choice if they had been able to. For years, Greens have been advocating Instant Runoff Voting, (IRV) which lets voters rank order candidates and, if their first choice is not among the top contenders, transfers their vote to another choice. Since the Democratic Party knew that IRV is used around the world and that Green votes could be the difference in a close race, they knew that IRV could be the difference between winning and losing the 2000 election. [1] But the Democratic Party power brokers also knew that if voters had access to IRV, tens of millions would have shown their disgust with Gore by ranking him below Nader. Thus, they decided they would rather risk losing the election than see this happen. Democratic Party bosses concluded they had far more in common with George W. Bush than with Ralph Nader. They intentionally kept Nader out of the presidential debates, despite more voter apathy and a lower turnout. They refused to aggressively challenge the illegal disenfranchisement of African-American voters in Florida or even to demand that every vote be counted. They consciously put George W. Bush in the White House as their lesser evil. Reason No. 2. The Democratic Party opposes Bush but does not oppose Bush's political program. During the US slaughter in Vietnam, many commented that World War II defeated Hitler but fascism won. The 2004 Democratic strategy is the same. The Democrats want to replace Bush, the personality. But they do not care if someone else continues Bush's policies. Their mantra Anyone but Bush blurs and confuses these two concepts. The average person thinks, Stop the horrible things Bush is doing; anyone who replaces him will act differently. But smoke-filled Democratic Party plotting sessions will select a candidate who can capitalize on anti-Bush sentiment and what he would do in office would be irrelevant. In fact, Anyone but Bush ignores that the Democratic Party is responsible for each and every one of the atrocities associated with the one they demonize. If the Democrats are against the Bush program, why do they wait until the election to fight it? Why don't they mobilize, as a party, [not as individual people, but as a political party] to demonstrate, strike, etc. to stop the Bush program now? Why would they tell us Wait until the 2004 elections to stop the Bush program? Democratic candidates pretend to be less pro-war, more pro-labor, and more pro-human rights; then they move to the right to get the nomination, and further to the right to win the election. The Democrats only nominate a 2004 presidential candidate to lull voters into believing they are an alternative. Voters need an honest choice in 2004, therefore the Democratic Party should stay out of the presidential race. Reason No. 3. The Democratic Party made Richard Nixon the most progressive president in the last 30 years. The following occurred during the Nixon reign: a. an end to the Vietnam War; b. beginning of the Food Stamp program; c. creation of the Environmental Protection Agency; d. recognition of China; e. passage of the Freedom of Information Act; f. formal dismantling of the FBI's COINTEL program; g. decriminalization of abortion; h. creation of Earned Income Tax Credits; i. formal ban on biological weapons; and, j. passage of the Clean Water Act. These did not happen because Nixon and Kissinger tiptoed through the tulips concluding that warm fuzzy feelings beat genocide in Southeast Asia. They happened because corporate heads and agents in government were terrified of the convergence of anti-war, Black power, women's and environmental movements and their potential impact on the labor movement. The Nixon years prove beyond a doubt that mass movements can force good things from horrible people in power. The Democratic Party presidencies after Nixon prove that people in power without mass movements have no value no matter which party selects them. No presidency since Nixon reaped so many progressive results. This is because the Democratic Party defuses mass movements and channels them into dead-end politics. full: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=33ItemID=5042 -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Blaming Nader
THE DEMOCRATS: OPEN UP OR SHUT UP SAM SMITH For the past four years, the only thing the Democrats and their media enablers have had to say about Ralph Nader is that he was to blame for their troubles. It was an utter lie that ignored, among other things, the lack of correlation between Nader and Gore in the polls leading to the election. For example between August and September 2000 Gore's average poll results rose 7.5 points but Nader's went down only 1 point. Between September and October, Gore's average went down 5.7 points and Nader's went up .8 points. At least 85% of Gore's changes were due to something other than Nader. The Democrat's libel is further revealed in exit polling which showed that: --34% of union members voted for Bush but only 3% for Nader --13% of self-described liberals voted for Bush but only 6% for Nader --25% of gays voted for Bush but only 4% for Nader --15% of people who voted for Clinton in 1996 voted for Bush in 2000 but only 2% for Nader. --26% of those who voted for a Democratic candidate for governor split their ticket to vote for Bush but only 2% for Nader. More significantly, and totally unmentioned by either Democrats or the media, was the role that Clinton's corruption played in the electon. Sixty percent of votes had an unfavorable opinion of Clinton and 68% said he would go down in history books for his scandals rather than his achievements. Further the party remains in deep denial about what had happened to it during the Clinton years. It went into the 2000 race having lost under Clinton nearly 50 seats in the House, 8 seats in the Senate, 11 governorships, over 1200 state legislative seats, 9 state legislatures, and over 400 Democratic officeholders who had become Republicans. It also ran as a presidential candidate a loyal member of the Clinton political machine which had chalked up criminal convictions for drug trafficking, racketeering, extortion, bribery, tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement, fraud, conspiracy, fraudulent loans, illegal gifts, illegal campaign contributions, money laundering, perjury, and obstruction of justice yet still insisted that its only problem was about sex. None of this mattered, however. It was, we were constantly reminded, solely Ralph Nader's fault. And so we come to the 2004 race and guess what? Ralph Nader is pissed off and ready to try again. For four years, while insisting that Nader and the Greens had cost it the election, the Democrats did not do one thing to insure that what they claimed was true didn't happen again. In fact, they went out of their way to insure that American progressives would feel as unwelcome in 2004 as they did in 2000. They made no common cause with Greens on any issue. They appointed no Greens to positions in federal, state or local government. They took not one step to institute instant runoff voting which would have eliminated the problem they complained about. They even moved immediately to redistrict the first state legislative seat won by a Green. This has not prevented a hideous whining and gratuitous nastiness upon Nader's announcement that he intends to run again. For example, Tim Russert told Nader on Meet the Press, I've got thousands of e-mails from people over the last several weeks talking about you and your potential candidacy and many of them come down to three letters, E-G-O, ego, this is all about Ralph. He's going to be a spoiler because of his ego. How do you respond? A proper response might have been, Gee, Tim, it sounds like I must be watching your show too much for in fact there is not a scintilla of evidence that Nader's ego, robust as it may be, is any more hypertrophied than that of the major party candidates or of the host of Meet the Press full: http://prorev.com/ -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
McScience
NY Review of Books Volume 51, Number 4 March 11, 2004 Review The Dawn of McScience By Richard Horton Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted Biomedical Research? by Sheldon Krimsky Rowman and Littlefield, 247 pp., $27.95 One of the most striking aspects of John Paul II's papal leadership has been his frequent and outspoken forays into science, especially the life sciences. His positions on abortion, sexuality, and contraception have alienated vast numbers of Catholics and non-Catholics. Many people had seen his tenure in the Vatican as an opportunity for progressive leadership on issues ranging from AIDS in Africa to the reproductive rights of women. They have been disappointed. But his staunch orthodoxy has had one unexpected, and some would say beneficial, consequencea decisive opposition to the commercial exploitation of science. In a letter to the apostolic nuncio in Poland on March 25, 2002, John Paul II condemned the overriding financial interests that operate in biomedical and pharmaceutical research. These forces, he wrote, prompted decisions and products which are contrary to truly human values and to the demands of justice. His particular target was the medicine of desires, by which he meant those drugs and procedures that are contrary to the moral good, serving as they do the pursuit of pleasure rather than the eradication of poverty. In an especially thoughtful passage, he wrote that the pre-eminence of the profit motive in conducting scientific research ultimately means that science is deprived of its epistemological character, according to which its primary goal is discovery of the truth. The risk is that when research takes a utilitarian turn, its speculative dimension, which is the inner dynamic of man's intellectual journey, will be diminished or stifled. Sheldon Krimsky, a physicist, philosopher, and policy analyst now at the Tufts University School of Medicine, puts it more bluntly. In Science in the Private Interest, a strongly argued polemic against the commercial conditions in which scientific research currently operates, he shows how universities have become little more than instruments of wealth. This shift in the mission of academia, Krimsky claims, works against the public interest. Universities have sacrificed their larger social responsibilities to accommodate a new purposethe privatization of know- ledgeby engaging in multimillion-dollar contracts with industries that demand the rights to negotiate licenses from any subsequent discovery (as Novartis did, Krimsky reports, in a $25 million deal with the University of California at Berkeley). Science has long been ripe for industrial colonization. The traditional norms of disinterested inquiry and free expression of opinion have been given up in order to harvest new and much-needed revenues. When the well-known physician David Healy raised concerns about the risks of suicide among those taking one type of antidepressant, his new appointment as clinical director of the University of Toronto's Centre for Addiction and Mental Health was immediately revoked. Universities have reinvented themselves as corporations. Scientists are coming to accept, and in many cases enjoy, their enhanced status as entrepreneurs. But these subtle yet insidious changes to the rules of engagement between science and commerce are causing, in Krimsky's view, incalculable injury to society, as well as to science. full: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16954 -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Democratic Party?
Interesting, however, Reason No. 1. The Democratic Party was responsible for the election of George W. Bush in the 2000 election. George W. Bush was not elected in 2000. Gore was. Bush took the presidency using his family friends in the Supreme Court. Democratic candidates pretend to be less pro-war, more pro-labor, and more pro-human rights; then they move to the right to get the nomination, and further to the right to win the election. The Democrats only nominate a 2004 presidential candidate to lull voters into believing they are an alternative. Voters need an honest choice in 2004, therefore the Democratic Party should stay out of the presidential race. Both Bushes did the same thing on the right to get elected: they pretended to be more right-wing than they really were, then moved to the left to get the nomination, and further to the left to win the election. That's the way elections are won. Once in power however, Bush Jr moved back to his core constituency and is right-wing again. Kerry could do the same. At 09:45 25/02/04 -0500, Louis Proyect wrote: Democratic candidates pretend to be less pro-war, more pro-labor, and more pro-human rights; then they move to the right to get the nomination, and further to the right to win the election. The Democrats only nominate a 2004 presidential candidate to lull voters into believing they are an alternative. Voters need an honest choice in 2004, therefore the Democratic Party should stay out of the presidential race. Robert Scott Gassler Professor of Economics Vesalius College of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel Pleinlaan 2 B-1050 Brussels Belgium 32.2.629.27.15
Democrats nominate Hitler
Democrats nominate Hitler by Ran Prieur Wednesday, February 18, 2004 http://ranprieur.pitas.com/ BOSTON. After switching their allegiance from anarcho-communist Howard Dean to ultra-liberal John Kerry, and then to liberal John Edwards, on the final day of their convention Democrats switched one last time to extreme moderate Adolf Hitler, convinced that he's the man who has the best chance of beating Bush. This election has never been about issues, said Democratic Party spokesman Heinrich Himmler. It's not about whether we go to war, about military spending, or taxes, or the federal budget, or the environment, or civil liberties, or even abortion. That's the kind of starry-eyed idealism that killed us in '72. This election is about one thing -- getting that bastard Bush out of there, that lying, draft-dodging, coke-snorting, beady-eyed, stupid, bad, bad person. Hate him! Hate him! Hate him! General Hermann Goering, an early supporter of Hitler's campaign, agreed. Clearly, for the Democratic Party to be relevant, they have to capture the presidency, and the way to do it is by moving farther and farther to the center. John Kerry is a war veteran, and voted for the Iraq war, but he's haunted by his anti-war background. After September 11, that's just not going to play in the heartland, or in the South. Hitler, on the other hand, has always been pro-war. He's called for the liberation of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Canada, even Europe. On national defense and the war on terror, he's even more moderate than Bush! Moderation, says columnist Joseph Goebbels, is the key. On so many issues, such as his proposals to clear-cut the national forests, to put all dissidents into detention facilities, to double defense spending, to abolish all corporate taxes, to prohibit labor unions, and to conquer the world in a thousand year American homeland, Hitler makes the other Democrats, and even Bush, look like raving Green Party radicals, tree-hugging, granola-eating, flower-sniffing hippie-anarchists. If moderate means making your opponents look liberal in comparison, and clearly that's exactly what it means, then Hitler is as moderate as they come. Senator Joseph Lieberman has enthusiastically endorsed Hitler's campaign. At last, Lieberman said, we have a candidate who will do something about degenerate culture, about all the filth coming out of Hollywood, someone who will clean up those stinking subhumans who have defiled the purity of American culture. I think this will be a final solution. When asked about Hitler's repeated statements that he wants to kill all Jews, Lieberman laughed. We know he's not really going to do that. That would be absurd. I mean, some of his best friends are Jews. No, he's just a tough talker. Americans like that -- it's presidential. Although Democrats rank Hitler consistently low (roughly 0%) in terms of personal agreement with his policies, most of them are happily falling behind him. Says Cedar Rapids activist Wendy Pipkin, I mean, if I could pick anyone I wanted, it would be Dennis Kucinich, but the people can't just pick anyone they want. This is a democracy, which means you have to pick someone who people believe other people will vote for, and nobody will vote for Kucinich because, you know, nobody will vote for him. Hitler gives us a real chance to get a Democrat back in the White House. But not everyone agrees. Some Democrats are nervous about Hitler's candidacy, like Seattle precinct committee officer Richard Shodley. Hitler's a vegetarian, he says, wringing his hands, and he's made statements that could be construed as sympathetic to animal rights activists. If the Republicans get their hands on that, they can nail him to the wall in November. I'm just afraid it gives them too much ammunition. What I really fear is, Bush could still win. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Winning with Nader
Counterpunch, February 25, 2004 Campaign Diary Winning with Ralph Nader By ALEXANDER COCKBURN and JEFFREY ST. CLAIR Listening to Democrats screaming about Ralph Nader's entry into the presidential race we finally understand the mindset of those Communist dictatorships that used to take such trouble to ensure that the final count showed a 99 percent Yes vote for the CP candidate. It's a totalitarian logic. Anybody But Bush chorus the Democrats. But they don't mean that. They mean, Nobody But Kerry. And if John Edward wins big in the primaries next week, they'll start shouting Nobody But Edwards. What they're saying is that no one has the right to challenge Bush but a Democrat, whoever that Democrat might be, no matter what that Democrat stands for. As CounterPuncher Fred Feldman recently sarcastically parodied this totalitarian logic: Democracy is when everybody but the good candidate pulls out of the race, and indeed the only way to save democracy is for all candidates except Kerry to withdraw. That should include Bush too, of course. If there is more than one candidate, the horror of 2000 may be repeated! More than one candidate means vote-stealing, reactionary advertising campaigns, the possibility of Republican and Green and socialist candidates, and unpredictable outcomes. The good candidate may not win. The stream of abuse at Nader, a man who has toiled unceasingly for the public good for half a century has been childishly vulgar and vitriolic. Nader is a faded chanteuse in a dingy nightclub, wrote Robert Scheer venerable liberal pundit for the Los Angeles Times. He should know. If Nader had an ounce of principle, railed Bruce Jackson, distinguished professor of culture at the University of Buffalo here on the CounterPunch site, he'd go sit on the capitol steps, douse himself with gasoline and exit this world of imperfect humanity in a blaze of protesting glory. He could even wear a monkish robe. What has Nader done since 2000, asked Scheer scornfully, albeit stupidly. As Jim Ridgeway points out in the Village Voice, It's been Nader and his groups, not the Democrats, who've spearheaded universal health care ever since Hillary Clinton botched the chance for health reform in the early 90s. It's been Nader and his troops who've kept the searchlight on corporate crime, who raised the hue and cry on Enron, when Democrats were smoothing the counterpane for Lay in the Lincoln Bedroom. From the point of view of democracy, the American political system is a shambles of corruption, gerrymandered to ensure that it is almost impossible to evict any sitting member of the House of Representatives. The presidential debates are fixed to exclude unwelcome intruders. Nader says that in the whole of his 2000 challenge he got about 3 minutes face-time on the major networks. You can understand why the two major parties don't want any outsider spoiling the fun. They arranged things that way, as Nader understands, and explains better than anyone. I think the mistake the Democrats are making said Nader at the National Press Club on Monday when they use the mantra 'anybody but Bush' is, first of all, it closes their mind to any alternative strategies or any creative thinking, which is not good for a political party. And second, it gives their ultimate nominee no mandate, no constituency, no policies, if the ultimate nominee goes into the White House. And then they'll be back to us. I guarantee you the Democrats, the liberal groups, the liberal intelligentsia, the civic groups that are now whining and complaining, even though they know they're being shut out increasingly, year after year, from trying to improve their country when they go to work every day. And they'll be saying, 'Oh, you can't believe -- we were betrayed. The Democrats are succumbing to the corporate interests in the environment, consumer protection.' How many cycles do we have to go through here? How long is the learning curve before we recognize that political parties are the problem? They're the problem! They're the ones who have turned our government over to the corporations, so they can say no to universal health insurance and no to a living wage and no to environmental sanity and no to renewable energy and no to a whole range of issues that corporations were never allowed to say no to 30, 40, 50 years ago. Things really have changed. Nader's seen it happen time and again. Bold promises from a Democratic candidate, followed by ignominious collapse. And each time the promises are vaguer, more timid. Each time the whole system tilts further in the direction of corporate power. Nader is saying that the Democrats are so hopelessly compromised that they don't know how to energize people to get them into the polling booths to vote against Bush. So he's going to lend a hand. Nader can be the candidate denouncing the war that Bush started and Kerry voted for. Nader can denounce the corporate slush that's given Bush his hundred million dollar war chest and
less support for free trade
I got this from the right wing Marginal Revolution web site. High-income Americans have lost much of their enthusiasm for free trade as they perceive their own jobs threatened by white-collar workers in China, India and otonal trade. The poll shows that among Americans making more than $100,000 a year, support for actively promoting more free trade collapsed from 57% to less than half that, 28%. There were smaller drops, averaging less than 7 percentage points, in income brackets below $70,000, where support for free trade was already weaker. The same poll found that the share of Americans making more than $100,000 who want the push toward free trade slowed or stopped altogether nearly doubled from 17% to 33%. http://www.pipa.org/ -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Post-election, Korea?
Todays Financial Times says the Bush administration is going through the motions of negotiating with North Korea, and will push for economic sanctions which could lead to war after the US election. FT reporter Andrew Ward says the US needs to bring the Chinese and South Koreans onboard, but both are strongly opposed, fearing [sanctions] would lead to war or destabilizing regime failure in the North. The Pentagon estimates a war would kill a staggering 500,000 South Korean and US troops, and hundreds of thousands more civilians in the first 90 days. The unspecified destabilizing effects alluded to by Ward which most concern North Koreas neighbours are their borders being overrun by starving refugees. Some analysts point to similar US threats in an identical crisis in 1994, and the resulting succcessful Chinese pressure on the Kim il-Jong regime to freeze nuclear weapons development. But others note the North Koreans are on the brink of permanently guaranteeing their security as the worlds ninth nuclear power, and believe the US and others will have no choice but to reconcile themselves to it. FT (sub only) article available on www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross posting.
Re: Winning with Nader
Where was all this talk before Nader entered the race? Did I miss it? At 11:00 25/02/04 -0500, you wrote: Counterpunch, February 25, 2004 Campaign Diary Winning with Ralph Nader By ALEXANDER COCKBURN and JEFFREY ST. CLAIR Listening to Democrats screaming about Ralph Nader's entry into the presidential race we finally understand the mindset of those Communist dictatorships that used to take such trouble to ensure that the final count showed a 99 percent Yes vote for the CP candidate. It's a totalitarian logic. Anybody But Bush chorus the Democrats. But they don't mean that. They mean, Nobody But Kerry. And if John Edward wins big in the primaries next week, they'll start shouting Nobody But Edwards. What they're saying is that no one has the right to challenge Bush but a Democrat, whoever that Democrat might be, no matter what that Democrat stands for. As CounterPuncher Fred Feldman recently sarcastically parodied this totalitarian logic: Democracy is when everybody but the good candidate pulls out of the race, and indeed the only way to save democracy is for all candidates except Kerry to withdraw. That should include Bush too, of course. If there is more than one candidate, the horror of 2000 may be repeated! More than one candidate means vote-stealing, reactionary advertising campaigns, the possibility of Republican and Green and socialist candidates, and unpredictable outcomes. The good candidate may not win. The stream of abuse at Nader, a man who has toiled unceasingly for the public good for half a century has been childishly vulgar and vitriolic. Nader is a faded chanteuse in a dingy nightclub, wrote Robert Scheer venerable liberal pundit for the Los Angeles Times. He should know. If Nader had an ounce of principle, railed Bruce Jackson, distinguished professor of culture at the University of Buffalo here on the CounterPunch site, he'd go sit on the capitol steps, douse himself with gasoline and exit this world of imperfect humanity in a blaze of protesting glory. He could even wear a monkish robe. What has Nader done since 2000, asked Scheer scornfully, albeit stupidly. As Jim Ridgeway points out in the Village Voice, It's been Nader and his groups, not the Democrats, who've spearheaded universal health care ever since Hillary Clinton botched the chance for health reform in the early 90s. It's been Nader and his troops who've kept the searchlight on corporate crime, who raised the hue and cry on Enron, when Democrats were smoothing the counterpane for Lay in the Lincoln Bedroom. From the point of view of democracy, the American political system is a shambles of corruption, gerrymandered to ensure that it is almost impossible to evict any sitting member of the House of Representatives. The presidential debates are fixed to exclude unwelcome intruders. Nader says that in the whole of his 2000 challenge he got about 3 minutes face-time on the major networks. You can understand why the two major parties don't want any outsider spoiling the fun. They arranged things that way, as Nader understands, and explains better than anyone. I think the mistake the Democrats are making said Nader at the National Press Club on Monday when they use the mantra 'anybody but Bush' is, first of all, it closes their mind to any alternative strategies or any creative thinking, which is not good for a political party. And second, it gives their ultimate nominee no mandate, no constituency, no policies, if the ultimate nominee goes into the White House. And then they'll be back to us. I guarantee you the Democrats, the liberal groups, the liberal intelligentsia, the civic groups that are now whining and complaining, even though they know they're being shut out increasingly, year after year, from trying to improve their country when they go to work every day. And they'll be saying, 'Oh, you can't believe -- we were betrayed. The Democrats are succumbing to the corporate interests in the environment, consumer protection.' How many cycles do we have to go through here? How long is the learning curve before we recognize that political parties are the problem? They're the problem! They're the ones who have turned our government over to the corporations, so they can say no to universal health insurance and no to a living wage and no to environmental sanity and no to renewable energy and no to a whole range of issues that corporations were never allowed to say no to 30, 40, 50 years ago. Things really have changed. Nader's seen it happen time and again. Bold promises from a Democratic candidate, followed by ignominious collapse. And each time the promises are vaguer, more timid. Each time the whole system tilts further in the direction of corporate power. Nader is saying that the Democrats are so hopelessly compromised that they don't know how to energize people to get them into the polling booths to vote against Bush. So he's going to lend a hand. Nader can be the candidate denouncing the war that Bush started and Kerry voted
Facing South
F A C I N G S O U T H A progressive Southern news report February 6, 2004 - Issue 71 _ INSTITUTE INDEX - Bowl Barings Seconds that Janet Jackson's breast was exposed during Super Bowl halftime show: 2 Rank of Janet Jackson boob among most-searched words in internet history: 1 Value of personal injury a Tennessee woman says she suffered from the incident: $75,000 Number of co-defendants she seeks for her lawsuit, in millions: 80 Percent of Canadians who say they are unconcerned by the incident: 80 Cost of advertising during Super Bowl, per second: $75,000 Cost of spending in George Bush's proposed 2005 budget, per second: $73,300 Sources on file at the Institute for Southern Studies. _ DATELINE: THE SOUTH - Top Stories Around the Region EDWARDS TO STICK WITH SOUTHERN STRATEGY Embracing the strategy that led to victory in South Carolina, Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards is claiming that trade agreements have eliminated jobs for working-class Americans, Edwards is hoping the same recipe he used to win South Carolina -- a dash of Southern charm combined with the promise to protect blue-collar jobs - resonates in Tennessee and Virginia. (Associated Press, 2/5)http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/politics/7875982.htm BUSH MILITARY RECORD COMES UNDER FIRE Although first raised before the 2000 presidential election, charges that President Bush skipped out on an Alabama National Guard assignment in 1972-1973 are gaining traction in this year's election coverage. The Boston Globe, which first covered the story, reviews the evidence. (Boston Globe, 2/4) http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush/articles/2004/02/05/bushs_guard_service_what_the_record_shows/ HALLIBURTON FACES SECOND PROBE OVER DEALS IN 1990s The Justice Department has opened an inquiry into whether Halliburton Co. was involved in the payment of $180 million in possible kickbacks to obtain contracts to build a natural gas plant in Nigeria during the late 1990's, when Vice President Dick Cheney was chairman of the company. (Newsweek, 2/5) http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0204-11.htm PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES QUIET ABOUT GAY ISSUES IN SOUTH As Democrats fight over key contests in Tennessee, Virginia, and elsewhere in the South, experts agree that voters won't hear much about gay issues, except the lead candidates' common opposition to gay marriage. (Southern Voice, 2/6) http://www.southernvoice.com/2004/2-6/news/national/canidatesshush.cfm JUSTICE WITHELD In a major investigation, the Miami Herald finds that nearly one out of three felons in Florida avoided convictions because of a special plea bargaining tool. White felons are significantly more likely to have their convictions set aside than blacks charged with the same crime. (Miami Herald, 1/25-28) http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/7788988.htm LANDMARK ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM CASE REMEDIED IN NORTH CAROLINA In a case that many say was the birth of the environmental justice movement, residents of predominately black Warren County, North Carolina have scored an important victory over a 142-acre toxic waste dump. Yet activists say the remedy falls short, and the community deserves reparations for what they've endured. (Environmental Justice Resource Center, 1/12) http://www.ejrc.cau.edu/warren%20county%20rdb.htm TENNESSEE WOMAN SUES OVER SUPER BOWL BREAST INJURY A woman in Tennessee has filed a lawsuit demanding billions of dollars in compensation for serious injury suffered when Janet Jackson exposed her breast at the Super Bowl. Bank worker Terri Carlin is demanding compensation for herself and millions of other viewers who saw the shocking moment last Sunday. (PA News, 2/6) http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2499689
Facing South Too
F A C I N G S O U T H A progressive Southern news report February 17, 2004 - Issue 72 INSTITUTE INDEX - To Our Health Percent of U.S. residents who rank health care as one of their top issues: 82 Number of people in U.S. without health insurance, in millions: 43.6 Percent of personal bankruptcies due in part to medical expenses: 50 Amount by which President's budget cuts Medicaid over 10 years, in billions: $16 Amount his Medicaid plan will increase drug company profits, in billions: $139 Percent of health care costs that go to administrative overhead in private insurance: 11.7 Percent for administrative overhead in the Medicaid program: 3.6 Percent for administrative overhead in Canada's national health system: 1.3 Number of times a December government report mentioned racial health disparities: 30 Number of times it mentioned this after being edited by Bush officials: 2 Sources on file at the Institute for Southern Studies. _ DATELINE: THE SOUTH - Top Stories Around the Region SOUTH-LESS WIN CALLED POSSIBLE FOR DEMOCRATS With a Senator from Massachusetts now the Democratic presidential front-runner, Democrats are increasingly mulling a strategy that bypasses the South on the road to the White House in 2004. (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2/9) http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/election/0204nation/10dems.html EX-HALLIBURTON EMPLOYEES SAY OVERCHARGES ARE ROUTINE Two former Halliburton Co. employees are accusing the Houston firm of routinely overcharging American taxpayers for work performed under a military contract. Halliburton selected embroidered towels when ordinary ones would have cost a third as much, and leased cars, trucks, SUVS, and vans for up $7,500 a month, the whistleblowers said. (Houston Chronicle, 2/12) http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/2399777 TEXAS NO LONGER DEATH PENALTY LEADER Texas has a reputation for being the Death State, and it still has the highest number of executions. But a new study shows that the state is less likely than some other states to sentence convicted murderers to death. (Associated Press, 2/15) http://www.news8austin.com/content/headlines/?ArID=98007SecID=2 PEACE ACTIVISTS PLAN SOUTHERN MARCH ON FAYETTEVILLE March 20 has been called as an international Global Day of Actino Against War and Occupation. In the South, a broad range of groups will be converging on Fayetteville, North Carolina -- home of Fort Bragg, one of the largest military bases in the United States. (NC Peace Hub) http://www.ncpeacehub.org/M20Fayetteville/ SOUTHERN GOVERNORS DECLARE WAR ON DIVORCE Four of the five states with the highest resident divorce rates in the country are in the Deep South, where families pray together but, apparently, can't stay together. The Governors of Arkansas and Oklahoma are making it a campaign issue. (Salon, 1/24) http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2000/01/24/divorce/ CRITICS CHALLENGE TOUCH-SCREEN VOTING IN GA As election officials prepare 28,000 machines for Georgia's March 2 presidential primary, accusations that they can be rigged have put the state's top election official on the defensive. (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2/14) http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0204/15voting.html WEBSITE HONORS AFRICAN AMERICANS IN SPANISH CIVIL WAR Before World War II, nearly 3,000 Americans joined tens of thousands of international volunteers to defend the Spanish government from a fascist take-over. Included were a small group of African Americans, whose story is remembered in a multi-media educational program now online. (ALBA, 2/8) http://www.alba-valb.org/curriculum/index.php?module=2
Re: less support for free trade
Michael Perelman writes: I got this from the right wing Marginal Revolution web site. High-income Americans have lost much of their enthusiasm for free trade as they perceive their own jobs threatened by white-collar workers in China, India and otonal trade. Why is this surprising, or even noteworthy? Doesn't everybody believe in free trade for other people and protectionism for themselves? David Shemano
Re: demo fervor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/23/04 09:20PM Maybe I was not clear. If the Repubs. were clear about what they were, no working class people would vote for them. In fact, many do, including union workers. Michael Perelman although union members are more likely to identify themselves as dems than reps and labor organizations are more likely to support dem candidates, republicans have captured more than 33% of votes from union households in 10 of last 13 prez elections... michael hoover union households voting rep for prez 52/eisenhower 44% 56/eisenhower 57% 60/nixon 36% 64/Goldwater 17% 68/nixon 44% 72/nixon 57% 76/ford 36% 80/reagan 45% 84/reagan 43% 88/bush 41% 92/bush 32% 96 dole 30% 00 bush 37%
Treacherous bastards
Counterpunch, February 25, 2004 Treacherous Bastards The Greens and the Dems and Nader By BRUCE ANDERSON We have one national political figure in this country of undoubted integrity and what does he get from this nation of ingrates? Accusations of spoiler and ego-maniac. Naturally the Greens joined the din denouncing Ralph, not mentioning that their pot-addled, dithering leadership won't even convene until June, way too late in the process to try to put forward a presidential candidate. If it weren't for Nader, Pete Camejo and Matt Gonzales, the lamebrain Greens would still be invisible. Treacherous bastards, these Greens and, in the crunch, not standing for a goddam thing except the two party, corporate dictatorship. Did Ralph keep Gore out of the White House? No. Gore and the rancid Democratic Party kept Gore out of the White House. Will Ralph take enough Democrat votes from Kerry to keep Bush in the White House for four more catastrophic years? Only Kerry and the Democrats can lose to Bush, not Ralph. So here's what's going to happen: Kucinich, the only plausible Democrat from any kind of progressive perspective, won't even get his intense little mug on national tv at the Democratic convention in late July. Just as Den-Den comes on the networks will cut away for commercials and commentary from George Will and Bill O'Reilly. Then, when the assembled mob of suburban warm-fuzzies who comprise the party's base erupts in a sea of placards made in China, heaving their smug selves up out of their seats for Korporate Kerry, Kucinich, Sharpton, Dean, and the rest of them will gather on stage for a great big group hug to a 30-minute ovation from limo labor, ethnic demagogues, gays in wedding gowns, three people in wheelchairs, and a hundred fatsos in public ed t-shirts. By August 1st, Ralph will be the only guy out there pushing the Democrats to stand for all the things they stood for under FDR, and all of us who want an economy run for the people who comprise it will again be out in the political cold. The Democrats, just like Gore four years ago, standing for nothing but Bush Lite, will again lose to the worst president in the history of the country. Bruce Anderson is the publisher of the Anderson Valley Advertiser, America's best newspaper. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: FW: Things you don't want to know
God, this is SO American! Life is dirty. Enjoy! Joanna
Norman Solomon versus Peter Camejo
Jon Flanders posted a link to a debate between Norman Solomon and Peter Camejo about the 2004 elections. Unfortunately it didn't point to the correct page. If you go to http://leftcoastradio.org/, you will find the proper link. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Mel Gibson and Opus Dei
Title: Message Here are some links on Gibson's relationship with Opus Dei an ultra-rightist cult inside the Catholic Church--Skull and Bones of the Catholic Church. At one prominent Opus Day church in Virginia, the membership included Scalia, Thomas, Louis Freeh and Robert Hanssen (the FBI master spy). This cult, founded by an outright fascist priest Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer, favored by JP II, is an extremely well connected and very fascist network. Part of their rituals, involves, every week, putting a belt with spikes around the legs to inflict pain--there is a strong S M/Bondage element in all of their rituals. http://www.odan.org/ Here is Mr. "Super Christian/Catholic" Gibson in action in part of an interview for Playboy: PLAYBOY: We take it that you're not particularly broad-minded when it comes to issues such as celibacy, abortion, birth control -- GIBSON: People always focus on stuff like that. Those aren't issues. Those are unquestionable. You don't even argue those points. PLAYBOY: You don't? GIBSON: No. PLAYBOY: What about allowing women to be priests? GIBSON: No. PLAYBOY: Why not? GIBSON: I'll get kicked around for saying it, but men and women are just different. They're not equal. The same way that you and I are not equal. PLAYBOY: That's true. You have more money. GIBSON: You might be more intelligent, or you might have a bigger dick. Whatever it is, nobody's equal. And men and women are not equal. I have tremendous respect for women. I love them. I don't know why they want to step down. Women in my family are the center of things. An good things emanate from them. The guys usually mess up. PLAYBOY: That's quite a generalization. GIBSON: Women are just different. Their sensibilities are different. PLAYBOY: Any examples? GIBSON: I had a female business partner once. Didn't work. PLAYBOY: Why not? GIBSON: She was a cunt. PLAYBOY: And the feminists dare to put you down! GIBSON: Feminists don't like me, and I don't like them. I don't get their point. I don't know why feminists have it out for me, but that's their problem, not mine. [...] PLAYBOY: How do you feel about Bill Clinton? GIBSON: He's a low-level opportunist. Somebody's telling him what to do. PLAYBOY: Who? GIBSON: The guy who's in charge isn't going to be the front man, ever. If I were going to be calling the shots I wouldn't make an appearance. Would you? You'd end up losing your head. It happens all the time. All those monarchs. Ifhe's the leader, he's getting shafted. What's keeping him in there? Why would you stay for that kind of abuse? Except that he has to stay for some reason. He was meant to be the president 30 years ago, if you ask me. PLAYBOY: He was just 18 then. GIBSON: Somebody knew then that he would be president now. PLAYBOY: You really believe that? GIBSON: I really believe that. He was a Rhodes scholar, right? Just like Bob Hawke. Do you know what a Rhodes scholar is? Cecil Rhodes established the Rhodes scholarship for those young men and women who want to strive for a new world order. Have you heard that before? George Bush? CIA? Really, it's Marxism, but it just doesn't want to call itself that. Karl had the right idea, but he was too forward about saying what it was. Get power but don't admit to it. Do it by stealth. There's a whole trend of Rhodes scholars who will be politicians around the world. PLAYBOY: This certainly sounds like a paranoid sense of world history. You must be quite an assassination buff. GIBSON: Oh, fuck. A lot of those guys pulled a boner. There's something to do with the Federal Reserve that Lincoln did, Kennedy did and Reagan tried. I can't remember what it was, my dad told me about it. Everyone who did this particular thing that would have fixed the economy got undone. Anyway, I'll end up dead if I keep talking shit. (By the way, both of Gibson's parents are Holocaust deniers.) James M. Craven Blackfoot Name: Omahkohkiaayo-i'poyi Professor/Consultant,Economics;Business Division Chair Clark College, 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. Vancouver, WA. USA 98663 Tel: (360) 992-2283; Fax: (360) 992-2863 http://www.home.earthlink.net/~blkfoot5 Employer has no association with private/protected opinion "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." (George Orwell) "...every anticipation of results which are first to be proved seems disturbing to me...(Karl Marx, "Grundrisse") FREE LEONARD PELTIER!!
Re: FW: Things you don't want to know
Title: Message Israel Closes Investigation into Rachel Corrie's Death Call for Independent U.S. Investigation into American's Death The Issue On March 16, 2003, American Rachel Corrie was killed by an Israeli bulldozer as she was attempting to stop the destruction of a Palestinian home in Rafah. We, along with a coalition of groups from around the country, ask you to call, email and fax your members of Congress to try and increase visibility and support for H. Con. Res. 111 which calls for an independent U.S. investigation into Rachel Corrie's death. Help make this campaign a success! Since the resolution was introduced on March 25th, H. Con. Res. 111 by Brian Baird (D-WA) has gained 42 co-sponsors and has been referred to the House Subcommittee on the Middle East. Support for this resolution is needed now more than ever. On June 26, the Israeli government closed the investigation and absolved the bulldozer driver of wrongdoing. Although the Israeli government autopsy report gives the cause of death as "pressure on the chest (from a mechanical apparatus)," the Israeli government continues to claim that Rachel was killed by dirt or concrete pushed by the bulldozer while the driver claims not even to have seen her. This makes an independent U.S. investigation all the more important. What You Can Do: 1) Please call, e-mail and fax your members of Congress and urge their support for H. Con. Res. 111. Together, with our coalition, this bill will gain the visibility it deserves so that it will pass and acknowledge the non-violent efforts of an extraordinary woman who was simply trying to make this world a better place. --To contact your members go to http://capwiz.com/arab/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=2737291 and enter your contact information. 2) Please contact Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and urge him to pursue an independent U.S. investigation into Rachel Corrie's death. 3) Please contact the US Ambassador to Israel, Daniel Kurtzer, and urge the US embassy to support an independent US investigation into Rachel's death. --To contact Secretary Powell and Ambassador Kurtzer go to http://capwiz.com/arab/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=2737276 and enter your contact information. INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY MOVEMENT www.palsolidarity.org Source: http://www.coalitionofwomen4peace.org/others/rachelcorrie.htm
Re: demo fervor
Here's a note from a friend of mine. Cheers, Mike B) * The Bush economic team is apparently at a loss on how to stop the erosion of US manufacturing jobs. (I think every monthly employment report for more than 40 consecutive months has shown declining manufacturing employment.) Their latest idea: the most recent Economic Report of the President questions whether fast-food restaurants should continue to be counted as part of the service sector or should now be reclassified as manufacturers. Here's a response from one Midwestern legislator. -Original Message- A letter sent from Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) to Council of Economic Advisors Chairman Greg Mankiw. No, this is not a parody. Here's the actual letter: http://www.house.gov/dingell/Manufacturing_letter_02-23-04.pdf ** Dr. Gregory Mankiw Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers Executive Office of the President Washington, DC 20502 Dear Dr. Mankiw I noticed in the recently released Economic Report of the President that there was some consternation in the defining of manufacturing. It could be inferred from your report that the administration is willing to recognize drink mixing, hamburger garnishing, French/freedom fry cooking, and milk shake mixing to be vital components of our manufacturing sector. I am sure the 163,000 factory workers who have lost their jobs in Michigan will find it heartening to know that a world of opportunity awaits them in high growth manufacturing careers like spatula operator, napkin restocking, and lunch tray removal. I do have some questions of this new policy and I hope you will help me provide answers for my constituents: - Will federal student loans and Trade Adjustment Assistance grants be applied to tuition costs at Burger College? - Will the administration commit to allowing the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) to fund cutting edge burger research such as new nugget ingredients or keeping the hot and cold sides of burgers separate until consumption? - Will special sauce now be counted as a durable good? - Do you want fries with that? Finally, at a speech he gave in Michigan this past September, Secretary Evans announced the creation of a new Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing. While I understand that it takes a while to find the right candidate to fill these positions, I am concerned that five months after the announcement no Assistant Secretary has yet been named. I do, however, know of a public official who would be perfect for the job. He has over thirty years of administrative and media experience, has a remarkable record of working with diverse constituencies, and is extraordinarily well qualified to understand this emerging manufacturing sector: the Hon. Mayor McCheese. With every good wish, Sincerely, John D. Dingell = You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus. --Mark Twain http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
Re: demo fervor
Mike Ballard wrote: (I think every monthly employment report for more than 40 consecutive months has shown declining manufacturing employment.) 42, actually. Doug
Re: Democratic Party?
Please tell me how either Bush moved to the left to win a nomination and then moved left again to win an election, ignoring for the moment, the self-contradiction between your first paragraph Bush was not elected, and your description of how both Bush's won their elections. dms - Original Message - From: Robert Scott Gassler [EMAIL PROTECTED] George W. Bush in the 2000 election. George W. Bush was not elected in 2000. Gore was. Bush took the presidency using his family friends in the Supreme Court. Both Bushes did the same thing on the right to get elected: they pretended to be more right-wing than they really were, then moved to the left to get the nomination, and further to the left to win the election. That's the way elections are won. Once in power however, Bush Jr moved back to his core constituency and is right-wing again. Kerry could do the same.
Re: demo fervor
But the trend since 1980 has been pretty consistenly down. And the trend is your friend. - Original Message - From: Michael Hoover [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] although union members are more likely to identify themselves as dems than reps and labor organizations are more likely to support dem candidates, republicans have captured more than 33% of votes from union households in 10 of last 13 prez elections... michael hoover union households voting rep for prez 52/eisenhower 44% 56/eisenhower 57% 60/nixon 36% 64/Goldwater 17% 68/nixon 44% 72/nixon 57% 76/ford 36% 80/reagan 45% 84/reagan 43% 88/bush 41% 92/bush 32% 96 dole 30% 00 bush 37%
Re: demo fervor
dms: But the trend since 1980 has been pretty consistenly down. And the trend is your friend. But that data are clearly heteroskedastic. You cannot reach a conclusion like that about the trend since 1980 just by eyeballing. Best, Sabri
Re: demo fervor
Sabri Oncu wrote: heteroskedastic. WHAT??? Carrol
Greenspan on Social Security
Is Greenspan working for the Dems.? Make the tax cuts permanent, cut social security to make the economy grow faster. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Our leaders are really smart
Some times we think of your leaders as being stupid. Some people have even questioned our president's intelligence. Look how smart senators are even though economists believed that it was impossible to beat the market. Senators' Stocks Beat the Market by 12 Percent By FT.COM Published: February 24, 2004 US senators' personal stock portfolios outperformed the market by an average of 12 per cent a year in the five years to 1998, according to a new study. The results clearly support the notion that members of the Senate trade with a substantial informational advantage over ordinary investors, says the author of the report, Professor Alan Ziobrowski of the Robinson College of Business at Georgia State University. He admits to being very surprised by his findings, which were based on 6,000 financial disclosure filings and are due to be published in the Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis. The results suggest that senators knew when to buy their common stocks and when to sell. First-time Senators did especially well, with their stocks outperforming by 20 per cent a year on average - a result that very few professional fund managers would be able to achieve. It could be argued that the junior senators most recently came out of private industry, so may have better connections. Seniority was definitely a factor in returns, says Prof Ziobrowski. There was no difference in performance between Democrats and Republicans. A separate study in 2000, covering 66,465 US households from 1991 to 1996 showed that the average household's portfolio underperformed the market by 1.44 per cent a year, on average. Corporate insiders (defined as senior executives) usually outperform by about 5 per cent. The Ziobrowski study notes that the politicians' timing of transactions is uncanny. Most stocks bought by senators had shown little movement before the purchase. But after the stock was bought, it outperformed the market by 28.6 per cent on average in the following calender year. Returns on sell transactions are equally intriguing. Stocks sold by senators performed in line with the market the year following the sale. When adjusted by the size of stocks, the total portfolio returns outperformed by 12 per cent a year on average. The study used a total market index as the benchmark for comparison. The study took eight years to complete because there was no database of information and the documents had to be gathered and examined manually. Stocks held in blind trusts are not included in the disclosure documents. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: the free trade/protectionism debate - let's not dumb down
In order for the argument that American jobs are taken away by foreigners to be at all credible, it must first be proved: (1) the same jobs producing the same output, which were previously performed by Americans, are now being done by foreign workers offshore, in the same proportion; (2) that Americans actually wanted to do those jobs, or were prepared to do them; (3) that it would be practically feasible to do those jobs in the USA, under the given conditions. Undoubtedly this is the case for a portion of jobs lost to the USA. But for many other jobs this is simply not true, because: (1) If an employer closes down a plant in the USA, and opens up a new plant overseas with a different production technique or a different output, then it is silly nonsense to say American jobs are taken away by foreigners, and it ignores who is actually taking those jobs away, namely American employers and American investors. After all, it is American investors and employers who decide to hire workers in the USA or overseas; it is not as though greedy workers offshore are grabbing or stealing employment opportunities from American workers. They are in no position to do so, they can only respond to employment opportunities which are actually being offered where they are. (2) many new so-called outsourced foreign jobs, performed by workers offshore for American employers, do not represent the substitution of an American job by a foreign job at all, but rather the creation of a new and different job by an American employer offshore, reflecting an investment decision that overall production costs are cheaper offshore. In other words, in considering whether to hire new employees in the USA or offshore, the employer decides for economic reasons to hire offshore. The managerial, financial and marketing functions might be sited in the USA, whereas the actual product is made overseas. (3) Production outsourced by American employers to foreign countries very often involves getting less foreign workers to produce a larger output than was made previously within the USA, and so, it is not as though enormous amounts of new jobs are being created in foreign countries as a result of outsourcing anyway. If an American employer previously used 2,000 American workers to produce an output worth $400 million and then uses 1,500 foreign workers to produce an output worth $500 million, it's pretty silly to talk about foreign workers stealing American jobs. The notion of foreign workers stealing American jobs is faulty because: (1) while blaming the working class as per usual, it fails to explain exactly how foreign workers could possibly steal American employment in the first place, (2) it conveniently ignores that the decision to reduce employment levels in the USA, is made by American employers and investors, and not by American workers, who are just looking for a job where they are, because they have no other way to survive, and cannot easily move somewhere else. (3) the same American people who argue foreign workers stealing American jobs, are quite happy to consume competitively priced products imported from overseas, and in many cases could neither do otherwise, nor stay within their budget, without purchasing foreign-made products. Thus, in reality, the argument that American jobs are taken away by foreigners is just imperialist jingoism, the logical endpoint of which is that American workers, uniformed and in civvies, are send to Iraq at the risk of dying, to grab oil resources to fuel American cars, even although they could quite easily negotiate to get oil from other sources if required. Taking 2002 data, the total dollar value of goods imported into the USA for actual use within the USA (i.e. not re-exported) was about $1.1 trillion. But only about 40% of that total dollar value of imported goods used in the USA consisted of ordinary consumer goods used by households, and of all consumer goods and services imported, at least 10-15% consisted purely of luxury consumption goods, i.e. things like jewellery, trinkets, antiques, numismatic coins, works of art, gold, luxury cars, luxury clothing, luxury furnishings, pleasurecraft, luxury cars, personal aircraft and so on. Then you must conclude that out of the total dollar value of all goods imported into the USA, only a third refers to ordinary consumer durable and perishable goods, representing 10% of the value of all consumer goods bought by Americans each year. Out of the total dollar value of all goods and services imported into the USA, only a quarter consists of ordinary consumer durables and perishables. If you are not lazy, and you are prepared to do some research into real American working-class consumer expenditure, then you would conclude, that foreign goods and services they buy, comprise only a very small portion of their wages, and the only big ticket foreign durables in their budget, are foreign-made cars and foreign-made personal computers. (If you actually look
Re: demo fervor
1. Heteroskedastic? What is that? Not in my concise OED. 2. If we can't reach a conclusion about a trend since 1980 then we can't reacch any conclusion period about the degree, the change in the degreee, of union household affinity for the Republican Party, and the whole discussion is pointless. 3. Number 2 above is exactly the point. 4. So let's just disregard the statistical obscurantism in favor of an historical analysis: In the US, as in all bourgeois societies, the ruling class is able to win and maintain the allegiance of some elements of all other classes, including the working class. This historical conditions exists not to be interpreted, but to be change. Pleasure, dms - Original Message - From: Sabri Oncu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 8:26 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor dms: But the trend since 1980 has been pretty consistenly down. And the trend is your friend. But that data are clearly heteroskedastic. You cannot reach a conclusion like that about the trend since 1980 just by eyeballing. Best, Sabri
Re: Greenspan on Social Security
All you need to know about Greenspan is that he's the guy who wrote a letter of recommendation to the Federal Home Loan Banking Board (remember them? regulated the SLs pre Reconstruction Finance Fiasco) to get Charles Keating the charter for Lincoln Savings and Loan. Guy's got the integrity and spine of a tapeworm. dms - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 9:09 PM Subject: [PEN-L] Greenspan on Social Security Is Greenspan working for the Dems.? Make the tax cuts permanent, cut social security to make the economy grow faster. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Greenspan on Social Security
Seems like it. Greenspan said the USA can't afford the retirement benefits promised to baby boomers and urged Congress to trim them. This is a cohort theory of perpetuating capitalism, according to which what you deserve depends on your age, and if by a ceryain age you haven't got the cash together, then you don't deserve social assistance. With this new allocation principle, you can of course rip off a whole bunch of new people. If you have to drastically cut expenditures, then a whole new ideology has to be developed to justify who deserves what. In 2002, the US benefit figures were as follows: Old-age/survivors/disability/health insurance benefit $710 billion Government unemployment insurance benefit $53 billion Veterans benefits $30 billion Family assistance benefit $20 billion That's a total of $813 billion, or about 8% of the total personal income received by all Americans (only about half of that total personal income is wages and salaries). You cannot actually cut those benefits very much, so the revenue gain is not actually very great, but the advantage is, that many of those people are in a weaker position, and so you can attack them, without them being able to do very much about it. But it doesn't solve much as regards balancing government budgets. What they should do first of all, is drastically rationalise and reduce military spending. I think Greenspan possibly argues that many baby-boomer retirees are wealthy anyhow, and thus not deserving social assistance to which they are entitled, but a closer look at the facts would show this has very limited validity. Basically the bourgeoisie is telling the working class to go whoring, instead of receive social assistance benefits for which they were previously taxed by their own elected government. But if you are a pensioner, then you are unlikely to want to go whoring, if anything the probability is greater that you'd be buying sexual services. The real question then is, why should the bourgeois elite get it for free ? Greenspan's new deregulation argument is a bit like depositing money in a bank, and then later the bank manager says instead of paying you interest on your deposit, I am deducting interest from your deposit, and if you protest, you won't get your deposit back at all. Jurriaan
Re: demo fervor
Since you are talking about union member affinity for the Republican party, how about considering the fact that a growing percentage of present day union members are actually government employees. I am willing to bet that they skew significantly more Democratic than the union members working in the private sector, and that explains why the percentage of union members voting Democratic has grown. And what are the implications of that reality for Left theory? David Shemano --- Original Message--- To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: dmschanoes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 2/25/2004 6:41PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor 1. Heteroskedastic? What is that? Not in my concise OED. 2. If we can't reach a conclusion about a trend since 1980 then we can't reacch any conclusion period about the degree, the change in the degreee, of union household affinity for the Republican Party, and the whole discussion is pointless. 3. Number 2 above is exactly the point. 4. So let's just disregard the statistical obscurantism in favor of an historical analysis: In the US, as in all bourgeois societies, the ruling class is able to win and maintain the allegiance of some elements of all other classes, including the working class. This historical conditions exists not to be interpreted, but to be change. Pleasure, dms - Original Message - From: Sabri Oncu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 8:26 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor dms: But the trend since 1980 has been pretty consistenly down. And the trend is your friend. But that data are clearly heteroskedastic. You cannot reach a conclusion like that about the trend since 1980 just by eyeballing. Best, Sabri
Re: Our leaders are really smart
...members of the Senate trade with a substantial informational advantage over ordinary investors, I don't know whether this tale of a senator is known to others. I remember meeting the Tennessee populist Senator Estes Kefauver on a downtown Minneapolis street corner during his run for the presidency. He had on a broad plaid suit and a coonskin cap. He was very tall. He grabbed my hand and shook it and said simply, Hi, I'm Estes Kefauver. Vote for me for president. Sometime after that, he held pharmaceuticals hearings in the Senate, in which witness after witness detailed the rip-off practices of the drug industry and how it hurt the poor, halt and ailing. Kefauver was shown on TV shaking his head and expressing outrage, while he led the fight for stringent regulation. Then in the midst of the hearings he died. When they opened his portfolio at probate, it was loaded with pharmaceuticals stocks. It was an eye-opening lesson for this gulled young constituent Ralph --- Original Message - From: michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 4:23 PM Subject: Our leaders are really smart Some times we think of your leaders as being stupid. Some people have even questioned our president's intelligence. Look how smart senators are even though economists believed that it was impossible to beat the market. Senators' Stocks Beat the Market by 12 Percent By FT.COM Published: February 24, 2004 US senators' personal stock portfolios outperformed the market by an average of 12 per cent a year in the five years to 1998, according to a new study. The results clearly support the notion that members of the Senate trade with a substantial informational advantage over ordinary investors, says the author of the report, Professor Alan Ziobrowski of the Robinson College of Business at Georgia State University. He admits to being very surprised by his findings, which were based on 6,000 financial disclosure filings and are due to be published in the Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis. The results suggest that senators knew when to buy their common stocks and when to sell. First-time Senators did especially well, with their stocks outperforming by 20 per cent a year on average - a result that very few professional fund managers would be able to achieve. It could be argued that the junior senators most recently came out of private industry, so may have better connections. Seniority was definitely a factor in returns, says Prof Ziobrowski. There was no difference in performance between Democrats and Republicans. A separate study in 2000, covering 66,465 US households from 1991 to 1996 showed that the average household's portfolio underperformed the market by 1.44 per cent a year, on average. Corporate insiders (defined as senior executives) usually outperform by about 5 per cent. The Ziobrowski study notes that the politicians' timing of transactions is uncanny. Most stocks bought by senators had shown little movement before the purchase. But after the stock was bought, it outperformed the market by 28.6 per cent on average in the following calender year. Returns on sell transactions are equally intriguing. Stocks sold by senators performed in line with the market the year following the sale. When adjusted by the size of stocks, the total portfolio returns outperformed by 12 per cent a year on average. The study used a total market index as the benchmark for comparison. The study took eight years to complete because there was no database of information and the documents had to be gathered and examined manually. Stocks held in blind trusts are not included in the disclosure documents. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: demo fervor
Since you are talking about union member affinity for the Republican party, how about considering the fact that a growing percentage of present day union members are actually government employees. I am willing to bet that they skew significantly more Democratic than the union members working in the private sector, and that explains why the percentage of union members voting Democratic has grown. And what are the implications of that reality for Left theory? In the USA, agriculture and related industries have the lowest unionization rate - 1.6 percent. Unionisation as such is lowest in North Carolina and South Carolina. According to the Bureau of labor Statistics, nearly 4 in 10 US government workers are union members, compared with less than 1 in 10 workers in private-sector industries.Of the 1.7 million wage and salary workers represented by a union on their main job, while not being union members themselves, about half were employed in government. Ten percent of unionised workers are parttime workers. In 2003, 12.9 percent of wage and salary workers were union members, down from 13.3 percent in 2002. Union membership rates were higher for men (14.3 percent) than for women (11.4 percent). Blacks were more likely to be union members (16.5 percent) than were whites (12.5 percent), Asians (11.4 percent), or Hispanics (10.7 percent). Union membership rates were highest among workers 45 to 54 years old. Full-time workers were more than twice as likely as part-time workers to be union members. Full-time wage and salary workers who are union members have median usual weekly earnings of $760, compared with a median of $599 for wage and salary workers who are not represented by unions. In 2003, workers in the public sector had a union membership rate more than four times that of private-sector employees, 37.2 percent compared with 8.2 percent. The unionization rate for government workers has held steady since 1983. The rate for private industry workers has fallen by about half over the same time period. Within government, local government workers had the highest union membership rate, 42.6 percent. This group includes the heavily unionized occupations of teachers, police officers, and fire fighters. Nearly two-fifths of workers in education, training, and library occupations and in protective service occupations were union members in 2003. Protective service occupations include fire fighters and police officers. Among major private industries, transportation and utilities had the highest union membership rate, at 26.2 percent. Construction (16.0 percent), information industries (13.6 percent), and manufacturing (13.5 percent) also had higher-than-average rates. Among occupational groups, education, training, and library occupations (37.7 percent) and protective service workers (36.1 percent) had the highest unionization rates in 2003. Natural resources, construction, and maintenance workers and production, transportation, and material moving occupations also had higher-than-average union membership rates at 19.2 percent and 18.7 per-cent, respectively. Among the major occupational groups, sales and office occupations had the lowest unionization rate--8.2 percent. The number of union members is highest in California (2.4 million), New York (1.9 million), and Illinois (1.0 million). The states with the highest union membership rates are .New York (24.6 percent), Hawaii (23.8 percent), Alaska (22.3 percent), and Michigan (21.9 percent). Texas had only about one-fourth as many union members as New York, despite having 1.2 million more wage and salary employees. Faced with the imperative of cutting government spending, a Democratic government could run into some tough opposition. On the other hand, unionised government employees could influence Democratic expenditure reducing ideas. Jurriaan
Re: Greenspan on Social Security
Get a grip Jurriaan, not everything has to do with whoring. Joanna Jurriaan Bendien wrote: Seems like it. Greenspan said the USA can't afford the retirement benefits promised to baby boomers and urged Congress to trim them. This is a cohort theory of perpetuating capitalism, according to which what you deserve depends on your age, and if by a ceryain age you haven't got the cash together, then you don't deserve social assistance. With this new allocation principle, you can of course rip off a whole bunch of new people. If you have to drastically cut expenditures, then a whole new ideology has to be developed to justify who deserves what. In 2002, the US benefit figures were as follows: Old-age/survivors/disability/health insurance benefit $710 billion Government unemployment insurance benefit $53 billion Veterans benefits $30 billion Family assistance benefit $20 billion That's a total of $813 billion, or about 8% of the total personal income received by all Americans (only about half of that total personal income is wages and salaries). You cannot actually cut those benefits very much, so the revenue gain is not actually very great, but the advantage is, that many of those people are in a weaker position, and so you can attack them, without them being able to do very much about it. But it doesn't solve much as regards balancing government budgets. What they should do first of all, is drastically rationalise and reduce military spending. I think Greenspan possibly argues that many baby-boomer retirees are wealthy anyhow, and thus not deserving social assistance to which they are entitled, but a closer look at the facts would show this has very limited validity. Basically the bourgeoisie is telling the working class to go whoring, instead of receive social assistance benefits for which they were previously taxed by their own elected government. But if you are a pensioner, then you are unlikely to want to go whoring, if anything the probability is greater that you'd be buying sexual services. The real question then is, why should the bourgeois elite get it for free ? Greenspan's new deregulation argument is a bit like depositing money in a bank, and then later the bank manager says instead of paying you interest on your deposit, I am deducting interest from your deposit, and if you protest, you won't get your deposit back at all. Jurriaan
Republican vs. Democratic styles
Some interesting comments at: http://www.jofreeman.com/polparties/polculture.htm J.
Re: Greenspan on Social Security
Get a grip Jurriaan, not everything has to do with whoring. More than you think anyway. J.
Re: demo fervor
Sabri Oncu wrote: heteroskedastic. WHAT??? Carrol Heteroskedastic means non-constant variance. If you look at the way the data varies with time, the fluctuations are larger initially and the fluctuations attenuate as the time progresses, although they appear to get larger again towards the end. Moreover, you just have 13 observations. I would never reach any conclusions with that many observations. This is why most macroeconomic theories are fucked up. Since in the long run we are all dead, we have no means of collecting enough data, not to mention potential structural changes, of course. Best, Sabri
Britain in Iraq: still no contracts
White House rebuffs UK contracts bid Terry Macalister Thursday February 26, 2004 The Guardian Top-level lobbying by British ministers on a trip to Washington on behalf of UK companies trying to win work in Iraq has been rebuffed by White House officials. The trade minister, Mike O'Brien, insisted at a reconstruction conference on Tuesday that his visit had been successful, but well-placed sources argue differently. Confidential papers seen by the Guardian show the US national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, phoned Tony Blair's office to discuss the issue after she read a leak about the concerted lobbying in this newspaper on February 13. But Mr O'Brien and Tony Blair's trade envoy, Brian Wilson, were told clearly there could be no special efforts to help win deals for UK firms. The White House is sympathetic but officials there say they cannot intervene in a procurement process handled by the Pentagon, said a well-placed source. Briefing documents dated February 20 - before the trip to Washington - suggest Mr Blair might raise the issue directly with President George Bush if there is no progress. Depending on the outcome of the minister's visit, he [Mr O'Brien] may want to recommend to the prime minister that he raise this directly with President Bush, according to documents marked restricted. The British government has become embarrassed about domestic firms' failure to win a big slice of the Iraq reconstruction contracts. Billions of dollars worth has gone to American companies such as Halliburton, which used to be headed by US vice-president Dick Cheney. A new round of contracts come up early next month and the UK looks better placed, with stakes in 15 of the 17 bids being considered. But there is still acute nervousness. Mr O'Brien told a London gathering on rebuilding Iraq that 20 UK firms had already won deals, although he denied he had made the visit to Washington last week to plead Britain's case. The trip had been to discuss transparency and a level playing field. But the documents prepared ahead of that meeting make clear the true reason for the mission by Mr O'Brien and Mr Wilson. Special guidance on how to handle media interest in the Washington trip argues: The purpose of the visit is to lobby for UK contracts and if there [are] none offered, then the media would report on this negatively. Despite Mr O'Brien's comments that we have secured quite a lot of contracts already, the briefing documents from the UK trade and investment unit of the Department of Trade and Industry admit the question of how successful UK firms are in Iraq is impossible to answer because details are not available. The Guardian revealed two weeks ago that Mr O'Brien and Mr Wilson were planning a trip to the US to lobby for more UK contracts, and the article triggered a flurry of action in Washington. The latest set of confidential documents reveal that Condoleezza Rice telephoned Nigel Sheinwald [Mr Blair's special foreign affairs envoy] on February 13 to ask about the Guardian article that day. Last night Mr Wilson insisted the US trip was not aimed at avoiding political embarrassment but an attempt to ensure Britain benefited commercially from the biggest construction programme in history.
Re: Republican vs. Democratic styles
The deepest insight is that power flows down the hierarchy with the Repugs; upward with the Dems. On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 05:05:58AM +0100, Jurriaan Bendien wrote: Some interesting comments at: http://www.jofreeman.com/polparties/polculture.htm J. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Getting Our Money's Worth
Organized labor gave $85 million to the Democrats during the 2000 election cycle, but the Democrats still lost the White House and, even with another $90 million of labor money in 2002, are the minority party on Capitol Hill (Labor: Background, http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/background.asp?ind=P). I don't know how much other liberal interest groups spent on the Democratic Party in 2000 and 2002. Anyone got the estimates? Also, I'd like to know exactly on what the money was spent. Anyone has any information? Anyhow, the question that I would like to ask is if organized labor and other liberal interest groups that contribute money to the Democratic Party are getting their money's worth. Can't they spend less on votes for the Democratic Party and receive higher policy returns at the same time? What if organized labor and other liberal interest groups concentrated their efforts to register new voters and to get them to vote for the Democrats only in the following thirteen states? * STATE RESULTS FLORIDA BUSH2,912,790 (48.85%) GORE2,912,253 (48.84%) NADER 97,488 (1.63%) OTHERS 40,539 (0.68%) IOWA BUSH 634,373 (48.3%) GORE 638,517 (48.6%) NADER 29,374(2.2%) OTHERS 12,131(0.9%) MAINE District 1 BUSH 148,618 (42.6%) GORE 176,293 (50.5%) NADER 20,297(5.8%) OTHERS 3,743(1.1%) MAINE District 2 BUSH 137,998 (45.6%) GORE 143,658 (47.4%) NADER 16,830(5.6%) OTHERS 4,380(1.4%) MAINE At-Large BUSH 286,616 (44.0%) GORE 319,951 (49.1%) NADER 37,127(5.7%) OTHERS 8,123(1.2%) MINNESOTA BUSH1,109,659 (45.5%) GORE1,168,266 (47.9%) NADER 126,696(5.2%) OTHERS 34,064(1.4%) MISSOURI BUSH1,189,942(50.4%) GORE1,111,138(47.1%) NADER 38,515 (1.6%) OTHERS 20,315 (0.9%) NEVADA BUSH 301,575(49.8%) GORE 279,978(46.2%) NADER 15,008 (2.5%) OTHERS 12,409 (2.0%) NEW HAMPSHIRE BUSH 278,559(48.6%) GORE 266,848(46.2%) NADER 22,188 (3.9%) OTHERS 5,700 (1.0%) NEW MEXICO BUSH 286,417(47.8%) GORE 286,783(47.9%) NADER 21,251 (3.6%) OTHERS 4,154 (0.7%) OHIO BUSH2,350,363(50.0%) GORE2,183,628(46.4%) NADER 117,799 (2.5%) OTHERS 50,208 (1.1%) OREGON BUSH 713,577(46.6%) GORE 720,342(47.1%) NADER 77,357 (5.1%) OTHERS 19,273 (1.3%) PENNSYLVANIA BUSH2,281,127(46.4%) GORE2,485,967(50.6%) NADER 103,392 (2.1%) OTHERS 41,699 (0.8%) WASHINGTON BUSH1,108,864(44.6%) GORE1,247,652(50.2%) NADER 103,002 (4.1%) OTHERS 27,915 (1.1%) WISCONSIN BUSH1,237,279(47.6%) GORE1,242,987(47.8%) NADER 94,070 (3.6%) OTHERS24,271 (0.9%) http://www.presidentelect.org/e2000.html * Hiring workers to collect signatures costs at least $1 a name. To simplify our calculation, let's say that organized labor and other liberal interest groups want to register one million new voters each in Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin; and 300,000 to 500,000 in each of the other six battleground states. Wouldn't $26 million be more than enough for voter registration and turnout efforts for the Democratic Party (especially given that organized labor and other liberal interest groups contribute manpower in addition to money)? $85 million - $26 million = $59 million What if organized labor diversified its electoral investments and spent a saving of $59 million on building up the Green Party in the rest of the nation, where regular voters are either decidedly Republican or doggedly Democratic, with other liberal interest groups pitching in here and there? That way, organized labor and liberal interest groups can make sure that the Democratic Party presidential nominee will carry the electors of the battleground states while putting organized electoral pressures on the Democratic Party to move to the left -- thus getting more policies favorable to the working class without spending more than before. -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * 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: demo fervor
Sabri Oncu wrote: Since in the long run we are all dead, we have no means of collecting enough data If I'm remembering the literature correctly, there's not enough data to prove with statistical certainty that stock returns are positive over the long term. Doug
Re: demo fervor
Doug: If I'm remembering the literature correctly, there's not enough data to prove with statistical certainty that stock returns are positive over the long term. Well! It depends on what is meant by the long term but I don't think there exists such a concept as statistical certainty. It is certain however that not only the stock returns but even the nominal interest rates can go negative, as both have happened in the past. The latter is a rare event but the former happens every day. I guess I am getting too technical so I stop here. By the way, someone talked about the IMF Polak Model on another list and then I read an IMF paper by Polak from 1997 on that model. What do my economist friends think about that model? It looked quite dubious to me. What is the rationale behind forcing these Structural Adjustment Programs down the throats of countries like mine based on such a highly dubious model? Best, Sabri
Re: demo fervor
Sabri Oncu wrote: What is the rationale behind forcing these Structural Adjustment Programs down the throats of countries like mine based on such a highly dubious model? Making sure the investors make their profits? Joanna
