Re: Ceaucescu and Romanian transition
Quite a time before, unless I am mistaken. He is still an associate member. (I am assume you mean Berezovsky? Gusinsky quit directing I think in the 80s to go into various forms of sordid business, if my fuzzy memory serves). Khodorskocky was head of the Moscow Komsomol. -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 13:41:47 -0800 Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Ceaucescu and Romanian transition Was that before or after he became rich? On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 02:09:07PM +0300, Chris Doss wrote: He's an associate member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Gusinsky was a theater director. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Question for you econ types out there
On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 16:00:23 +0300, Chris Doss wrote: Does anybody know how per capita income figures are usually calculated for countries like Russia, which have a large shadow economy in which workers are paid under the table and off the books? Thanks. Not actually as uncommon as you'd think; Spain and Italy have big off-the-books sectors. Basically, you estimate, estimate, estimate. Double-check with criminal authorities, carry out surveys, etc. Also cross-check with observable facts; ie, you know how many buildings are going up, you know how many brickies it takes, so you can guesstimate how many are employed in the building trade. Then you use an econometric model going forward, to scale up the ongoing inome numbers based on the last time you did a proper check. It's a bit of a black art but by no means the most difficult thing a national statistics agency does. Here's a bit piece by the UK Office of National Statistics. To be honest the final chapter is the funniest (sample text Under ESA95 the sale of illegal drugs should be treated in the same way as the sale of legal goods. They are imported or produced within the UK, sold through a chain of dealers (each adding their own margin), and eventually sold to a final consumer.). But there's some stuff on the issues you're looking for too. cheers dd Official income figures for Russia have always baffled me. How do you calculate them when underreporting of incomes is rampant in the private sector?
Competent ? No, Creeps ! ( was Ceaucescu and Romanian transition)
From: Sabri Oncu Hi Charles! Good to hear from you. I have not seen you around for quite a while. How have you been? I don't think there is much point in furthering this debate, as it appears to me to be more about what certain words mean and they don't but let me object one last time and I will leave this at that. Getting underlings to the tough work does not take any competence. The underlings are already prepared to do the tough work when they join these firms. The incompetents are us: I have tried many times to convince my coworkers that the real power resided with us and if we got organized and stopped production until we get what we want, the upper management had nothing to sell and hence no way to make profits. But of course I had always failed. Whenever I made such arguments my coworkers told me things like this: It is dangerous to have such ideas such as organizing against the upper management in the US. If you do that, they throw you out. So it is us who are incompetents and competence does not reside with the upper management either. It has to be looked for elsewhere. Best, Sabri Greetings , Sabri ! I feel you. Professionals, professionals everywhere, but not a competent one in the lot . Although, we might have to give the Devil a bit of due credit. The Man is making superprofits still. But one day ! We'll get Competent. Charles
Conference on the Special Relationship (UK)
[ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ] Call for a Conference on the Special Relationship Website: www.specialrelationship.net Subscribe to the discussion list by sending a blank message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You are invited to participate in a project to organise a two-day Conference on the Special Relationship. It will be a national conference with international dimension, with speakers from the US, the Middle East and elsewhere. It will take place in Sheffield in early 2005, and maybe also in Manchester and London. A book will be produced of the Conference papers. The main themes of the Conference will include: -the origins of the special relationship in post-WW2 Middle East, in particular the 1953 military coup in Iran and the 1956 Suez Crisis; -the economic relations between the US and the UK; -the $ vs.?, US vs. Europe -the special relationship goes to war - the invasion and military occupation of Iraq; -the Israel-US-UK triangle -what is imperialism? (This has been included as a theme since examination of the specific alliance between imperialist USA and UK needs to be informed by a working concept of imperialism in general) Please contact us via our website or discussion list for a full Conference Prospectus, in which these themes are broken down into individual elements. All who read this are invited to consider submitting a paper on any of these topics - and we welcome suggestions for new topics. The Conference Working Group invites and urges you to offer some of your time over the next twelve months to realising this project. We need YOUR help with many and varied tasks - from selecting articles for the website and considering proposed papers, to designing publicity, raising funds, translating important articles into English, organising the Conference itself. Please volunteer to help share these tasks, and you will also share in the overall design and direction of the event. *** What is the special relationship? The 1956 Suez crisis ended Britain's pretensions of being a stand-alone imperial power. Ever since, Britain has protected its vast interests in the Middle East and elsewhere by maintaining the closest of alliances with the USA. This special relationship is responsible for doz-ens of military coups and invasions, the deaths of millions of people, and the theft of trillions of dollars. Few phenomena are as important, yet suffer such incomprehension, as the special relation-ship. At the Labour Party Conference, Jeremy Corbyn asked with amazement why are we, a British Labour Government with a very large Parliamentary majority, so signed up to the ul-tra-right wing George Bush? A review of the 50-yearspecial relationship and of the Labour Party's rôle within it would show that nothing could be more natural. Did you know. Question: what is the name of biggest oil com-pany within the US? Answer: BP (British Petroleum), which has 40% of its employees in the USA. Question: the ruling families of which country own two of the three biggest oil companies in the world? Answer: Britain (BP and Shell; Exxon is the big-gest). BP has major interests from Colombia to Africa to central Asia. Along with other British banks and multinationals, it relies on US mili-tary power to protect its property and super-profits. Question: which country is 2nd only to the USA in the size of its empire of overseas wealth? Answer: .you've guessed it; Britain. In 2001, Britain's overseas direct investments totalled $902bn, 14.4% of the world total (compared to 21.1% owned by US imperialists, 7.9% owned by the French, 7.8% owned by Germans, and 4.6% owned by Japanese). * The motive for the Conference is to respond to the almost universal failure of the anti-war movement to comprehend why Britain has joined in the US-led war and occupation of Iraq. Blair is Bush's poodle sums up a widespread view, propounded by Steve Bell cartoons, Tony Benn, the SWP and many other influential voices critical of the Blair government's actions. It is a notion which only makes sense if we ignore the fact that Britain is itself an imperialist power, the home for two of the three largest oil companies in the world, and the owner of the second-largest stock of FDI after the USA (second to none in relation to its size). The Conference organisers (at the moment, myself and a number of other non-aligned activists in the anti-sanctions and anti-war movements) have a working concept of the 'special relationship' which the Conference will test and enrich. Central to it is the perception that the 'special relationship' was forged in the Middle East following WW2, as the US and UK were forced into an alliance in order to confront and roll back democratic and nationalist movements in oil-rich and strategically important Iran and Arabia. There is no special relationship (or only a weak reflection of it) in
Call for papers
Title: Message CFP: Exterminating Narratives: Identifying and Resisting Genocidal Cultural Logics (Deadline: 9/15/2004)Seeking proposals for papers for an edited volume exploring andforegrounding genocide as a cultural and literary category for approaching narrative with the objective of identifying cultural logics of genocidethat might not typically be understood as such and also of highlightingnarratives of resistance of resistance to genocide that provide animagination of an alternative way of living and organizing socialrelationships. In the current critical discourses of literary and culturalstudies, we hear much about postcolonialism, colonialism, nationalism,globalization, citizenship, and, of course, paradigms of race, class,gender, and sexuality. Related to such discourses but much less mentionedare the discourse, concept, and above all practice of genocide which suchcritical discourses rarely confront directly or in depth. Thesediscourses, however, could be mobilized to help us address, comprehend, and resist the practices and cultural logics of genocide that, far from being facts of history we seek to understand retrospectively, are ongoingpractices that often elude naming, identification, and redressas we see byrecent events in Rwanda, Bosnia, Chiapas, and persistently in NativeAmerica. Proposals for papers are sought exploring such issues as howgenocide is represented, how it is narratively recognized, misnamed, ormisidentified, how it is defined; what is the continuum of genocidal logicinto practices of everyday life not usually or necessarily understood aspart of such a logic, such as the logic of the commodity? What do comparingacts of genocide reveal about its logic? Papers should deal with specifictexts which might include literary works as well as political texts such asUN policies and resolutions and also critical studies of genocide such as Samantha PowersThe Problem from Hell, Philip Gourevitchs work, andothers.Inquiries and abstracts should be sent to Tim Libretti at[EMAIL PROTECTED]. === From the Literary Calls for Papers Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Full Information at http://www.english.upenn.edu/CFP/ or write Erika Lin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ===Tiokasin GhosthorseFirst Voices Indigenous RadioWBAI NY 99.5 FM 10 AM Thursdays EST[EMAIL PROTECTED]212.209.2979 voicemail Wake Up Call6-9am Fridays ESTwww.wbai.orgWBAI Pacifica Radio covers an audience area of 21 millionWho is really listening?Mother Earth will have her day and night.forever!www.earthpeoples.orgwww.wole.org/index.htmLong ago the peoples of the Americas were divided into two groups--the people of the Eagle (North America) and people of the Condor (South America). When the two begin to come together again, mixing the tears of the Eagle and the Condor, there will begin an era of renewed life and spirit for Indigenous peoples. inline: Untitled01.jpg
Crisis at the peak
The world will be plunged into crisis long before it runs out of oil in as little as 10-15 years when production will likely peak, according to energy analyst Paul Roberts in the Los Angeles Times. Oil optimists think the world wont run out of reserves until at least mid-century, by which time alternative energy technologies will have been developed to replace it. But Roberts says at some point, however, production simply won't be able to match demandwe won't be out of oil ; a vast amount will still be flowing just not quickly enough to satisfy demand. When that happens, prices wont simply increase; they will fly, as a manic scramble for the remaining supply accelerates its depletion, and provokes energy wars and a recession so severe the Great Depression will look like a dress rehearsal, he writes. The worried oil companies know supply and demand are widening faster than forecast, and their mantra has been to get us back into the Middle East which nationalized them when OPEC was formed a message the Bush administration has taken to heart, without much success, notes Roberts. Article reproduced on www.supportingfacts.com. Sorry for any cross posting.
Re: Conference on the Special Relationship (UK)
I don't see why this conference is needed. The US tells the UK what to do. They do it. Period. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: k hanly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 7:20 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L] Conference on the Special Relationship (UK) [ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ] Call for a Conference on the Special Relationship Website: www.specialrelationship.net Subscribe to the discussion list by sending a blank message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You are invited to participate in a project to organise a two-day Conference on the Special Relationship. It will be a national conference with international dimension, with speakers from the US, the Middle East and elsewhere. It will take place in Sheffield in early 2005, and maybe also in Manchester and London. A book will be produced of the Conference papers. The main themes of the Conference will include: -the origins of the special relationship in post-WW2 Middle East, in particular the 1953 military coup in Iran and the 1956 Suez Crisis; -the economic relations between the US and the UK; -the $ vs.?, US vs. Europe -the special relationship goes to war - the invasion and military occupation of Iraq; -the Israel-US-UK triangle -what is imperialism? (This has been included as a theme since examination of the specific alliance between imperialist USA and UK needs to be informed by a working concept of imperialism in general) Please contact us via our website or discussion list for a full Conference Prospectus, in which these themes are broken down into individual elements. All who read this are invited to consider submitting a paper on any of these topics - and we welcome suggestions for new topics. The Conference Working Group invites and urges you to offer some of your time over the next twelve months to realising this project. We need YOUR help with many and varied tasks - from selecting articles for the website and considering proposed papers, to designing publicity, raising funds, translating important articles into English, organising the Conference itself. Please volunteer to help share these tasks, and you will also share in the overall design and direction of the event. *** What is the special relationship? The 1956 Suez crisis ended Britain's pretensions of being a stand-alone imperial power. Ever since, Britain has protected its vast interests in the Middle East and elsewhere by maintaining the closest of alliances with the USA. This special relationship is responsible for doz-ens of military coups and invasions, the deaths of millions of people, and the theft of trillions of dollars. Few phenomena are as important, yet suffer such incomprehension, as the special relation-ship. At the Labour Party Conference, Jeremy Corbyn asked with amazement why are we, a British Labour Government with a very large Parliamentary majority, so signed up to the ul-tra-right wing George Bush? A review of the 50-yearspecial relationship and of the Labour Party's rôle within it would show that nothing could be more natural. Did you know. Question: what is the name of biggest oil com-pany within the US? Answer: BP (British Petroleum), which has 40% of its employees in the USA. Question: the ruling families of which country own two of the three biggest oil companies in the world? Answer: Britain (BP and Shell; Exxon is the big-gest). BP has major interests from Colombia to Africa to central Asia. Along with other British banks and multinationals, it relies on US mili-tary power to protect its property and super-profits. Question: which country is 2nd only to the USA in the size of its empire of overseas wealth? Answer: .you've guessed it; Britain. In 2001, Britain's overseas direct investments totalled $902bn, 14.4% of the world total (compared to 21.1% owned by US imperialists, 7.9% owned by the French, 7.8% owned by Germans, and 4.6% owned by Japanese). * The motive for the Conference is to respond to the almost universal failure of the anti-war movement to comprehend why Britain has joined in the US-led war and occupation of Iraq. Blair is Bush's poodle sums up a widespread view, propounded by Steve Bell cartoons, Tony Benn, the SWP and many other influential voices critical of the Blair government's actions. It is a notion which only makes sense if we ignore the fact that Britain is itself an imperialist power, the home for two of the three largest oil companies in the world, and the owner of the second-largest stock of FDI after the USA (second to none in relation to its size). The Conference organisers (at
How can i unsubscribe
-Original Message- From: Marvin Gandall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 10:32:31 -0500 Subject: [PEN-L] Crisis at the peak The world will be plunged into crisis long before it runs out of oil in as little as 10-15 years when production will likely peak, according to energy analyst Paul Roberts in the Los Angeles Times. Oil optimists think the world wont run out of reserves until at least mid-century, by which time alternative energy technologies will have been developed to replace it. But Roberts says at some point, however, production simply won't be able to match demandwe won't be out of oil ; a vast amount will still be flowing just not quickly enough to satisfy demand. When that happens, prices wont simply increase; they will fly, as a manic scramble for the remaining supply accelerates its depletion, and provokes energy wars and a recession so severe the Great Depression will look like a dress rehearsal, he writes. The worried oil companies know supply and demand are widening faster than forecast, and their mantra has been to get us back into the Middle East which nationalized them when OPEC was formed a message the Bush administration has taken to heart, without much success, notes Roberts. Article reproduced on www.supportingfacts.com. Sorry for any cross posting.
Re: Conference on the Special Relationship (UK)
If this were true Blair would have torpedoed Kyoto. --pb I don't see why this conference is needed. The US tells the UK what to do. They do it. Period. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: k hanly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 7:20 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L] Conference on the Special Relationship (UK) [ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ] Call for a Conference on the Special Relationship Website: www.specialrelationship.net Subscribe to the discussion list by sending a blank message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You are invited to participate in a project to organise a two-day Conference on the Special Relationship. It will be a national conference with international dimension, with speakers from the US, the Middle East and elsewhere. It will take place in Sheffield in early 2005, and maybe also in Manchester and London. A book will be produced of the Conference papers. The main themes of the Conference will include: -the origins of the special relationship in post-WW2 Middle East, in particular the 1953 military coup in Iran and the 1956 Suez Crisis; -the economic relations between the US and the UK; -the $ vs.?, US vs. Europe -the special relationship goes to war - the invasion and military occupation of Iraq; -the Israel-US-UK triangle -what is imperialism? (This has been included as a theme since examination of the specific alliance between imperialist USA and UK needs to be informed by a working concept of imperialism in general) Please contact us via our website or discussion list for a full Conference Prospectus, in which these themes are broken down into individual elements. All who read this are invited to consider submitting a paper on any of these topics - and we welcome suggestions for new topics. The Conference Working Group invites and urges you to offer some of your time over the next twelve months to realising this project. We need YOUR help with many and varied tasks - from selecting articles for the website and considering proposed papers, to designing publicity, raising funds, translating important articles into English, organising the Conference itself. Please volunteer to help share these tasks, and you will also share in the overall design and direction of the event. *** What is the special relationship? The 1956 Suez crisis ended Britain's pretensions of being a stand-alone imperial power. Ever since, Britain has protected its vast interests in the Middle East and elsewhere by maintaining the closest of alliances with the USA. This special relationship is responsible for doz-ens of military coups and invasions, the deaths of millions of people, and the theft of trillions of dollars. Few phenomena are as important, yet suffer such incomprehension, as the special relation-ship. At the Labour Party Conference, Jeremy Corbyn asked with amazement why are we, a British Labour Government with a very large Parliamentary majority, so signed up to the ul-tra-right wing George Bush? A review of the 50-yearspecial relationship and of the Labour Party's rôle within it would show that nothing could be more natural. Did you know. Question: what is the name of biggest oil com-pany within the US? Answer: BP (British Petroleum), which has 40% of its employees in the USA. Question: the ruling families of which country own two of the three biggest oil companies in the world? Answer: Britain (BP and Shell; Exxon is the big-gest). BP has major interests from Colombia to Africa to central Asia. Along with other British banks and multinationals, it relies on US mili-tary power to protect its property and super-profits. Question: which country is 2nd only to the USA in the size of its empire of overseas wealth? Answer: .you've guessed it; Britain. In 2001, Britain's overseas direct investments totalled $902bn, 14.4% of the world total (compared to 21.1% owned by US imperialists, 7.9% owned by the French, 7.8% owned by Germans, and 4.6% owned by Japanese). * The motive for the Conference is to respond to the almost universal failure of the anti-war movement to comprehend why Britain has joined in the US-led war and occupation of Iraq. Blair is Bush's poodle sums up a widespread view, propounded by Steve Bell cartoons, Tony Benn, the SWP and many other influential voices critical of the Blair government's actions. It is a notion which only makes sense if we ignore the fact that Britain is itself an imperialist power, the home for two of the three largest oil companies in the world, and the owner of the second-largest stock of FDI after the USA (second to none in relation to its size). The Conference organisers (at the moment,
Re: Crisis at the peak
Here we are again, with a script out of Hollywood, for the end of the world as we know it-- actually being short of of original material (as if original material and Hollywood aren't an oxymoron), the script is a redo of our Australian friend's Road Warrior series where the precious juice has run out and all that are left are stripper wells defended by those hardy pioneer types. Things get worse of course, and next week I'm sure the LA Times will have us shovelling pig shit in Bartertown. The Hubbert Peak, like the Kondratieff long wave, has particular appeal to and for those who think something is going wrong but would rather not have Marx, or Marxists, explain it. Since we have been over this material before let me go right to the heart of the matter. Q: Proven reserves, geological limit or economic category? A: Economic Category. An proven reserve is a defined quantity of petroleum that can be extracted in a given time frame (usually no more than 20 years) with the current technology, at...drum roll, please... a sufficient level of PROFIT. You can look it up. When the bourgeoisie start biting their nails and whining about scarcity you can be absolutely certain that the real problem is oveproduction. Iraqi oil production has recently return to pre-war highs of app. 2.6 mill b/day with about 1.5 mill destined for export. In the countersense world of capital, the result has been to push spot prices past $37/barrel. This is NO DIFFERENT than the over- valuation of telecom stocks when and because the tremendous overproduction of fiber optic networks, switches, routers, etc. was leading to dramatic and drastic devalutaion. Another example of scarcity countersense is the whining about US utilities power generating capacity. Power companies are in the process of handing back assets to the banks at 50cents on the dollar to cover defaulted loans. This, after and because, of the overinvestment in power generating equipment, with app. 200,000 MW of gas fired generating equipment all dressed up with no place to go. Peaks? You want to see peaks? Look at the economy, this is it right as we head down into the second dip on the double dip. dms
Re: Conference on the Special Relationship (UK)
maybe the US elite didn't want him to? or they never thought of it? in any event, I was simply making a hyperbolic cynical remark spawned by a Monday-morning caffeine shortage. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Paul Baer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 9:25 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Conference on the Special Relationship (UK) If this were true Blair would have torpedoed Kyoto. --pb I don't see why this conference is needed. The US tells the UK what to do. They do it. Period. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: k hanly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 7:20 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L] Conference on the Special Relationship (UK) [ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ] Call for a Conference on the Special Relationship Website: www.specialrelationship.net Subscribe to the discussion list by sending a blank message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You are invited to participate in a project to organise a two-day Conference on the Special Relationship. It will be a national conference with international dimension, with speakers from the US, the Middle East and elsewhere. It will take place in Sheffield in early 2005, and maybe also in Manchester and London. A book will be produced of the Conference papers. The main themes of the Conference will include: -the origins of the special relationship in post-WW2 Middle East, in particular the 1953 military coup in Iran and the 1956 Suez Crisis; -the economic relations between the US and the UK; -the $ vs.?, US vs. Europe -the special relationship goes to war - the invasion and military occupation of Iraq; -the Israel-US-UK triangle -what is imperialism? (This has been included as a theme since examination of the specific alliance between imperialist USA and UK needs to be informed by a working concept of imperialism in general) Please contact us via our website or discussion list for a full Conference Prospectus, in which these themes are broken down into individual elements. All who read this are invited to consider submitting a paper on any of these topics - and we welcome suggestions for new topics. The Conference Working Group invites and urges you to offer some of your time over the next twelve months to realising this project. We need YOUR help with many and varied tasks - from selecting articles for the website and considering proposed papers, to designing publicity, raising funds, translating important articles into English, organising the Conference itself. Please volunteer to help share these tasks, and you will also share in the overall design and direction of the event. *** What is the special relationship? The 1956 Suez crisis ended Britain's pretensions of being a stand-alone imperial power. Ever since, Britain has protected its vast interests in the Middle East and elsewhere by maintaining the closest of alliances with the USA. This special relationship is responsible for doz-ens of military coups and invasions, the deaths of millions of people, and the theft of trillions of dollars. Few phenomena are as important, yet suffer such incomprehension, as the special relation-ship. At the Labour Party Conference, Jeremy Corbyn asked with amazement why are we, a British Labour Government with a very large Parliamentary majority, so signed up to the ul-tra-right wing George Bush? A review of the 50-yearspecial relationship and of the Labour Party's rôle within it would show that nothing could be more natural. Did you know. Question: what is the name of biggest oil com-pany within the US? Answer: BP (British Petroleum), which has 40% of its employees in the USA. Question: the ruling families of which country own two of the three biggest oil companies in the world? Answer: Britain (BP and Shell; Exxon is the big-gest). BP has major interests from Colombia to Africa to central Asia. Along with other British banks and multinationals, it relies on US mili-tary power to protect its property and super-profits. Question: which country is 2nd only to the USA in the size of its empire of overseas wealth? Answer: .you've guessed it; Britain. In 2001, Britain's overseas direct investments totalled $902bn, 14.4% of the world total (compared to 21.1% owned by US imperialists, 7.9% owned by the French, 7.8% owned by Germans, and 4.6% owned by Japanese).
Re: Crisis at the peak
I think that we have heard enough about whether or not we face the prospect of scarcity of petrochemicals. The important part of the article is a popular recognition of the threat. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Crisis at the peak
Michael Perelman wrote: I think that we have heard enough about whether or not we face the prospect of scarcity of petrochemicals. Translation: this is a topic that annoys certain volatile participants, so best steer clear of it.
Re: Fear of polarization
Devine, James wrote: The conservative US News and World Report is worried by data showing the worsening condition of US workers, and the growing prospect of class polarization threatening corporate America and the Republican party. did USNWR mention that much of that polarization took place during the Clinton era? A friend of mine who worked at USNWR during the '92 election said that owner Mort Zuckerman oversaw the political line of the mag. He wanted Bush to lose, and insisted that all the economic coverage had to be gloomy - reporters were given lists of sources to call who would provide the proper quotes. That must be happening again. Doug
Re: Question for you econ types out there
sorry forgot the links! http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_economy/ESA95_Exhaustiveness.pdf more statistical fun: Prostitution itself is not illegal within the UK. However, most of the activities associated with prostitution (e.g. soliciting) are illegal. Value added from prostitution would generally be income from self-employment (mixed income) in the household sector. However, this is also difficult to measure since prostitutes are not usually registered as businesses and it seems unlikely that good quality data could be collected from household surveys. [...] Imports and exports of prostitution services should in principle be picked up by the International Passenger Survey (although not as expenditure on prostitution) with the expenditure already recorded in the national accounts. Note that Doug would need to modify his position that you can carry out all the radical analysis you need by making use of modified bourgeois statistics in this case as the UK does not actually collect information on the size of the drugs, prostitution or illegal gambling markets; the only crime we incorporate in the figures is smuggling. Some South American countries do attempt to estimate the size of the cocaine trade on the basis that their capital a/c would make just no f'kng sense at all if they didn't. cheers dd also this one http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/34/2665863.pdf On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 06:10:25 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 16:00:23 +0300, Chris Doss wrote: Does anybody know how per capita income figures are usually calculated for countries like Russia, which have a large shadow economy in which workers are paid under the table and off the books? Thanks. Not actually as uncommon as you'd think; Spain and Italy have big off-the-books sectors. Basically, you estimate, estimate, estimate. Double-check with criminal authorities, carry out surveys, etc. Also cross-check with observable facts; ie, you know how many buildings are going up, you know how many brickies it takes, so you can guesstimate how many are employed in the building trade. Then you use an econometric model going forward, to scale up the ongoing inome numbers based on the last time you did a proper check. It's a bit of a black art but by no means the most difficult thing a national statistics agency does. Here's a bit piece by the UK Office of National Statistics. To be honest the final chapter is the funniest (sample text Under ESA95 the sale of illegal drugs should be treated in the same way as the sale of legal goods. They are imported or produced within the UK, sold through a chain of dealers (each adding their own margin), and eventually sold to a final consumer.). But there's some stuff on the issues you're looking for too. cheers dd Official income figures for Russia have always baffled me. How do you calculate them when underreporting of incomes is rampant in the private sector?
Re: Crisis at the peak
Another bullshit provocation from the Living Marxist. Doug Henwood wrote: Michael Perelman wrote: I think that we have heard enough about whether or not we face the prospect of scarcity of petrochemicals. Translation: this is a topic that annoys certain volatile participants, so best steer clear of it. . -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Crisis at the peak
Come on. Doug should not have started this and you should just let it pass. On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:19:00PM -0500, Louis Proyect wrote: Another bullshit provocation from the Living Marxist. Doug Henwood wrote: Michael Perelman wrote: I think that we have heard enough about whether or not we face the prospect of scarcity of petrochemicals. Translation: this is a topic that annoys certain volatile participants, so best steer clear of it. . -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Sean Wilentz, Nader and the early 1960s
After reading Princeton professor's Sean Wilentz ideological fatwa (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/07/magazine/07ESSAY.html) against Ralph Nader in yesterday's NY Times Magazine section (appropriately enough, facing a full-page ad for Grand Marnier), it dawned on me that Dissent Magazine has filled a vacuum once occupied by SDUSA. SDUSA was basically a repackaging of Max Shachtman's SP whose members served as ministers without portfolio for the Democratic Party rightwing. Many were gathered around the 1972 presidential campaign of Washington State Senator Henry Scoop Jackson, who was dubbed the Senator from Boeing for obvious reasons. In the 1980s many SDUSA figures lurched even further to the right and became Reaganites. Joshua Muravchik is typical. He started political life as a leader of YPSL, the SDUSA's youth group, but now writes for the National Review. In between he was associated with the Coalition for a Democratic Majority that was chaired by Jackson and whose politics anticipated the DLC. Now that the Democratic Party has become recast in the Scoop Jackson mold, it provides an opportunity for intellectuals like Wilentz to play the same role once played by people like Muravchik. Mostly this consists of lashing out at any initiatives to the left of the Democratic Party, including the Nader campaign and the antiwar movement. Although this is the first time that the NY Times Magazine has drawn on Wilentz's dubious talents, it has published fellow Dissent editor George Packer on several occasions, including a piece promoting the warmongering views of fellow Dissenters Paul Berman and Kanan Makiya. As a guest panelist on David Horowitz's FrontPage website, Wilentz had this exchange with the creepy redbaiter: Horowitz: What exactly does it mean that a North Korean-adoring Communist sect is running the peace movement? Does this matter? Wilentz: It means that, as ever, Communist sects are extremely diligent and clever at mobilizing large numbers people to march in demonstrations by exploiting those peoples' concerns and hiding their own politics. Clever? Diligent? One wonders why Wilentz did not describe the Communists as masters of deceit since that word would have captured his true intentions. When you read this sort of thing, it makes you want to take a long, hot shower with disinfectant soap. As tedious as Wilentz's attack on Nader is, it does raise some interesting questions about American history and electoral politics that are worth addressing. The purpose of his article is to review how new parties emerge. Except for the Republican Party, efforts such as the Bull Moose or Progressive Parties tend to disappear after their purpose is exhausted. Wilentz writes: But Nader will never be a Lincoln -- for we are not living in a latter-day equivalent of the 1850's. Although specific abuses cause considerable agitation among liberals and Democrats, the nation is not as riven over corporate power, Nader's diffusely projected target, as it once was over slavery. Actually, the nation was not exactly riven over slavery. It was instead riven over whether it should be allowed in the western territories. Lincoln was only prompted to abolish slavery when the exigencies of the Civil War required it. In fact, it was direct action by the slaves that took the form of a mass exodus to the North and service to the Union Army either as soldiers or laborers that led to their emancipation. It is not surprising that a committed Democratic Party ideologist would exaggerate the commitment of the Republicans to the abolitionist cause. Moreover, within a dozen years following the war, the Republicans were content to sell out the black population of the South as worries about general labor unrest mounted. Furthermore, even though there is as not mass consciousness about corporate power as one would like, it is obvious that the American people are its victims just as much as black people were victims of the plantation system in the 1800s. Although abolitionists got even less of a hearing in the 1830s than the Greens get today, there is little doubt that the issues they raised were genuine. Wilentz seems to subscribe to a popularity contest understanding of politics. If less than 5 percent of the population thinks that corporations are exploiting workers mercilessly, polluting the planet and producing unsafe products, then why bother to run independent election campaigns against the two parties that are virtually defined by the word corporation? Wilentz thinks that liberal Democrats are saying the same things about corporate greed and domination as Nader. One wonders which candidates he would be speaking about. I doubt that given his subservience to the centrist wing of the party, he could be talking about somebody like Dennis Kuchinich. Since Wilentz has stated publicly that President Clinton led the way in salvaging American liberalism, particularly the Democratic liberal spirit of the early 1960s, it is entirely possible
Re: Crisis at the peak
I have been on this mailing list now for 3 years at least. In that entire time, I have not once directed a comment at Henwood. I am even careful to refrain from attacking those that he identifies with like Michael Hardt. If I criticize the Nation Magazine, I don't do so with the attention of hurting Henwood's tender feelings. Since this is the number one voice of the left in the USA, I would be remiss not to answer its attacks on the section of the left I identify with. Over the past couple of weeks, Henwood has now directed 3 snide comments in my direction. I shouldn't have to put up with this crap. Why don't you ask him to unsub himself for a couple of weeks like you asked me to? Michael Perelman wrote: Come on. Doug should not have started this and you should just let it pass. On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:19:00PM -0500, Louis Proyect wrote: Another bullshit provocation from the Living Marxist. Doug Henwood wrote: Michael Perelman wrote: I think that we have heard enough about whether or not we face the prospect of scarcity of petrochemicals. Translation: this is a topic that annoys certain volatile participants, so best steer clear of it. . -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu . -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Crisis at the peak
I have been on this mailing list, on and off, for about 15 years, long before I knew Louis and Doug. I respect both of them. They offer us a lot of good commentary and analysis. And they point us to interesting things to read and think about. I have had drinks with both of them. Louis had let me use his apartment on several occasions,;even before we met, he let me do this. Doug has had me on his radio show a couple of times, for which I am grateful. Having said this, I don't know why Doug has to keep making snide comments aimed at Louis on pen-l, knowing that they will be provocative. After all, he has his own list, and he can attack Louis and anyone else he cares to to his heart's content. Similarly Louis can do the same to Doug on his list. Doug has a kind of passive-aggressive way of attacking Louis (with plausible deniability).And generally heseems to get away with it. Louis always seems to get publicly chastised by the moderator while Doug almost never does, unless it is by way of the moderator chastising Louis. BTW, Louis has aimed some sharp barbs my way in the past. Michael Yates - Original Message - From: Louis Proyect To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 10:31 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Crisis at the peak I have been on this mailing list now for 3 years at least. In thatentire time, I have not once directed a comment at Henwood. I am evencareful to refrain from attacking those that he identifies with likeMichael Hardt. If I criticize the Nation Magazine, I don't do so withthe attention of hurting Henwood's tender feelings. Since this is thenumber one voice of the left in the USA, I would be remiss not to answerits attacks on the section of the left I identify with. Over the pastcouple of weeks, Henwood has now directed 3 snide comments in mydirection. I shouldn't have to put up with this crap. Why don't you askhim to unsub himself for a couple of weeks like you asked me to?Michael Perelman wrote: Come on. Doug should not have started this and you should just let it pass. On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:19:00PM -0500, Louis Proyect wrote:Another bullshit provocation from the Living Marxist.Doug Henwood wrote:Michael Perelman wrote:I think that we have heard enough about whether or not we face theprospect of scarcity of petrochemicals.Translation: this is a topic that annoys certain volatileparticipants, so best steer clear of it..--The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu .--The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Crisis at the peak
Re Michael's comment: How can you reach your conclusion about what is important if you terminate the actual analysis of the issue. It is exactly not about perception or what people feel, it is about the basis for this scarcity theorizing and its real political impact-- like get ready for declining living standards which we will blame on the evil Sultans, Chavezistas, the ungrateful Mexicans, and those pesky Ecuadoreans who have dropped their 38% national partnership demand for their fields too late for us to be interested in the bidding? Re the other comments: Can't we all just get along? dms
Re: Crisis at the peak
Just exactly how old are you guys? Quit whining. You'll wake the baby. dms
Re: Crisis at the peak
Well, I think the future of oil is a pretty important topic for a bunch of political economists to discuss, but Michael shut it off because it gets LNP and DMS into a pissing match. That's too bad, like some Gresham's law of discourse. Doug
Re: Crisis at the peak
Excuse me, I never get into pissing matches. It's all about the quality of the analysis provided. All other issues are handled offlist. I do absolutely think that t humor, criticism, sarcastic remarks are not out of place here, and that we shouldn't be so ridiculously thin-skinned about those when they come our way, and start crying no-fair. It reminds me of nothing so much as of a child crying out to his/her mother Mommy, he hit me. But that certainly is not my decision, nor the issue at hand. I think the oil issue is critically important as it is the central issue used to displace the decline of living standards, wage rates, etc. onto a natural condition, thus making austerity an asocial inevitability instead of an instrument of class domination. Am I the only one old enough to remember these same depletion arguments, and capital shortage arguments regarding oil and the oil industry after OPEC 1 in 1973? If M. King Hubbert were alive he might remember it since he predicted the peak of international oil production taking place in the mid 1980s. Anyway that's my 5th post. I have used up my ration for the day. A bientot, dms
oil crises.
FWIW, I have a very simple Marxian-flavored theory of energy crises that alas I haven't filled out or illustrated with lotza data. (I'm not an energy expert. The theory is part of my Marxian-style crisis theory.) But it helps get us beyond natural scarcity/overproduction dichotomies. Here, talk about oil rather than energy in general. The idea is that capitalism is a system that tends to over-accumulate capital, where over-accumulation means going beyond the (hypothetical) optimal rate of accumulation that allows steady capitalist growth at the highest possible profit rate given objective conditions (such as the state of class relations). In the context of energy crises, accumulation goes too far to preserve the (hypothetical) oil price that preserves systemic stability. (That this price is unknown is part of the problem. Elites in favor of stabilizing the system seek to find it. Then they have to figure how to achieve it politically. Maybe this contributed to the BushMasters' attempt to take over the Oil World via Iraq.) Accumulation pulls up demand for energy and thus oil prices, as in the 1970s. This is not due to OPEC, etc., except to the extent that OPEC and the like take advantage of high demand conditions to try to grab a bigger chunk of the scarcity rents. This is not due to long-term natural scarcity of oil as much as due to the short-term inability to expand the quantity of oil supplied, given existing wells, pipelines, etc. and the short-term inability to conserve on oil use. (In jargon, both supply and demand are inelastic.) All else constant, an oil crisis hurts the profits of manufacturing and similar industries, which are largely based in the richest capitalist countries. The division between oil-producing and oil-using countries encourages the main reactions to the crisis. This crisis doesn't simply encourage longer-term exploration of new oil fields and a move toward greater conservation (as in neoclassical stories). It also encourages recession and other attacks on the working class in order to restore profitability. The problem with the latter is that it prevents full adjustment of the oil market, i.e. adjustment of supply and demand. The defense of old wasteful ways of using oil -- as personified by the Bush administration -- also prevents demand-side adjustment (conservation). In the period after an oil crisis, the various reactions combine to create over-production of oil, of the sort that encouraged the oil un-crisis of 1986 (rapid fall in the real price of energy). This is encouraged by the coming on-line of oil that was discovered and/or exploited starting during the crisis period. (There's a bit of a corn/hogs cycle here.) As noted, low oil prices discourage conservation (as with the renaissance of gas-guzzling cars in the US). It also encourages the high-cost producers of oil to seek ways of restoring their fortunes (e.g, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait). It also encourages the eventual recovery of accumulation, which sends the system into another energy crisis. BTW, I don't believe in a long-term oil crisis as a result of natural limits. Instead, the natural limit comes from the pollution associated with the use of oil and other hydrocarbons. Capitalism has a strong tendency to encourage the dumping of costs on the environment and the avoidance of conservation. This is encouraged by the cyclical crisis theory sketched above. Jim Devine
Re: oil crises.
Guess what? I miscounted. Only used 4, so I have one more, you lucky stiffs.. From JD: Accumulation pulls up demand for energy and thus oil prices, as in the 1970s. This is not due to OPEC, etc., except to the extent that OPEC and the like take advantage of high demand conditions to try to grab a bigger chunk of the scarcity rents. This is not due to long-term natural scarcity of oil as much as due to the short-term inability to expand the quantity of oil supplied, given existing wells, pipelines, etc. and the short-term inability to conserve on oil use. (In jargon, both supply and demand are inelastic.) ___ DMS: But this is not what actually took place in 1973, 1979, 1990, 1999. In 1973 the price rise engineered after the Yom Kippur war also occurred after the absolute expansion of the productive apparatus with the subsequent decline in the rate of return on investment in the oil industry. There was no shortage of extractable supplies. On the contrary, it was exactly the development of the means of extraction, depressing the rate of return, that created the basis for the price rise. Similarly in 1979, the price rise followed hard upon a period of growth of fixed assets, and the price rise triggered the drastic, draconian, liquidation of those assets, across the board in oil, steel, etc. The price jump in 1999 comes directly after the price collapse brought forth by increased production and the drop in production costs below the historic low of 1949. The jump likewise occurs after the rate of return in the oil industry returned to low single digits. If OPEC didn't exist, the US would have invented it. OPEC did exist and the US still invented it, 3 times. ___ JD: All else constant, an oil crisis hurts the profits of manufacturing and similar industries, which are largely based in the richest capitalist countries. The division between oil-producing and oil-using countries encourages the main reactions to the crisis. ___ DMS: Oil prices rearrange profits and price increases have strengthened the US at the expense of Japan and Europe. In addition, significant portions of developing country debt are secured with oil revenues. Citibank hit some big skids when oil prices declined after 1986 (but not for that reason alone, the lost decade in Latin America had finally taken a little toll on the bankers who destroyed the decade to begin with). ___ JD This crisis doesn't simply encourage longer-term exploration of new oil fields and a move toward greater conservation (as in neoclassical stories). It also encourages recession and other attacks on the working class in order to restore profitability. The problem with the latter is that it prevents full adjustment of the oil market, i.e. adjustment of supply and demand. The defense of old wasteful ways of using oil -- as personified by the Bush administration -- also prevents demand-side adjustment (conservation). ___ DMS: Actually, conservation had occurred. The amount of energy, the amount of oil required for each dollar of GDP had declined by approximately 30% from the 1973 mark (I think, don't have my notes with me right now). The proportion of IMPORTED oil used in that total energy reduction INCREASED dramatically. ___ JD In the period after an oil crisis, the various reactions combine to create over-production of oil, of the sort that encouraged the oil un-crisis of 1986 (rapid fall in the real price of energy). This is encouraged by the coming on-line of oil that was discovered and/or exploited starting during the crisis period. (There's a bit of a corn/hogs cycle here.) As noted, low oil prices discourage conservation (as with the renaissance of gas-guzzling cars in the US). It also encourages the high-cost producers of oil to seek ways of restoring their fortunes (e.g, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait). It also encourages the eventual recovery of accumulation, which sends the system into another energy crisis. ___ DMS: But Iraq is not a high cost producer of oil, having a cost of production approximately equal to Saudi Arabia, the low-cost producer. Iraq's costs are well below Russia's, offshore deep and shallow water, North Sea, Brunei, etc.Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was based primarily on Kuwait's refusal to abide by its quota, and other actions taken regarding transportation that damaged Iraqi revenues. _ BTW, I don't believe in a long-term oil crisis as a result of natural limits. Instead, the natural limit comes from the pollution associated with the use of oil and other hydrocarbons. Capitalism has a strong tendency to encourage the dumping of costs on the environment and the avoidance of conservation. This is encouraged by the cyclical crisis theory sketched above. Jim Devine
Contracts in Iraq?
If you, or your clients, are involved in post-war Iraq contracts, please contact us to discuss your requirements and receive sample GIS data. http://www.goleaddog.com/iraq_data.htm *** Just thought you might like to see a sample. Cheers, Mike B) = Beers fall into two broad categories: Those that are produced by top-fermenting yeasts (ales) and those that are made with bottom-fermenting yeasts (lagers). http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com
Re: oil crises.
(a civil conversation) From me: Accumulation pulls up demand for energy and thus oil prices, as in the 1970s. This is not due to OPEC, etc., except to the extent that OPEC and the like take advantage of high demand conditions to try to grab a bigger chunk of the scarcity rents. This is not due to long-term natural scarcity of oil as much as due to the short-term inability to expand the quantity of oil supplied, given existing wells, pipelines, etc. and the short-term inability to conserve on oil use. (In jargon, both supply and demand are inelastic.) ___ DMS: But this is not what actually took place in 1973, 1979, 1990, 1999. In 1973 the price rise engineered after the Yom Kippur war also occurred after the absolute expansion of the productive apparatus with the subsequent decline in the rate of return on investment in the oil industry. There was no shortage of extractable supplies. On the contrary, it was exactly the development of the means of extraction, depressing the rate of return, that created the basis for the price rise. Similarly in 1979, the price rise followed hard upon a period of growth of fixed assets, and the price rise triggered the drastic, draconian, liquidation of those assets, across the board in oil, steel, etc. The price jump in 1999 comes directly after the price collapse brought forth by increased production and the drop in production costs below the historic low of 1949. The jump likewise occurs after the rate of return in the oil industry returned to low single digits. If OPEC didn't exist, the US would have invented it. OPEC did exist and the US still invented it, 3 times. ___ I don't know enough about the emprical data to agree or disagree. On the abstract level, however, it is quite possible that over-investment in oil would lead to over-production and cartelization. me: All else constant, an oil crisis hurts the profits of manufacturing and similar industries, which are largely based in the richest capitalist countries. The division between oil-producing and oil-using countries encourages the main reactions to the crisis. ___ DMS: Oil prices rearrange profits and price increases have strengthened the US at the expense of Japan and Europe. In addition, significant portions of developing country debt are secured with oil revenues. Citibank hit some big skids when oil prices declined after 1986 (but not for that reason alone, the lost decade in Latin America had finally taken a little toll on the bankers who destroyed the decade to begin with). ___ this seems a different topic. me: This crisis doesn't simply encourage longer-term exploration of new oil fields and a move toward greater conservation (as in neoclassical stories). It also encourages recession and other attacks on the working class in order to restore profitability. The problem with the latter is that it prevents full adjustment of the oil market, i.e. adjustment of supply and demand. The defense of old wasteful ways of using oil -- as personified by the Bush administration -- also prevents demand-side adjustment (conservation). ___ DMS: Actually, conservation had occurred. The amount of energy, the amount of oil required for each dollar of GDP had declined by approximately 30% from the 1973 mark (I think, don't have my notes with me right now). The proportion of IMPORTED oil used in that total energy reduction INCREASED dramatically. I agree that conservation occurred. (I once had a fruitless discussion with Mark Jones on this matter.) The problem is that not enough occurred. The US, for example, could emulate Europe and impose bigger taxes on oil. But that hasn't happened. me: In the period after an oil crisis, the various reactions combine to create over-production of oil, of the sort that encouraged the oil un-crisis of 1986 (rapid fall in the real price of energy). This is encouraged by the coming on-line of oil that was discovered and/or exploited starting during the crisis period. (There's a bit of a corn/hogs cycle here.) As noted, low oil prices discourage conservation (as with the renaissance of gas-guzzling cars in the US). It also encourages the high-cost producers of oil to seek ways of restoring their fortunes (e.g, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait). It also encourages the eventual recovery of accumulation, which sends the system into another energy crisis. ___ DMS: But Iraq is not a high cost producer of oil, having a cost of production approximately equal to Saudi Arabia, the low-cost producer. I have heard otherwise from other sources. Iraq's costs are well below Russia's, offshore deep and shallow water, North Sea, Brunei, etc.Iraq's
Re: oil crises
Devine: How do you define the price of oil? Cyrus Bina is the only one so far to have attempted to explain the 1970's oil crisis using the standard interpretation of Marx's theory of rent. Do you agree with Bina that cost conditions in the US, the highest cost region in the international oil, determine the the world price of oil?
Capitalism versus socialism
Rebelión, March 1, 2004 Capitalism versus socialism: The great debate revisited James Petras http://www.rebelion.org/petras/english/040304capitalism.htm The debate between socialism and capitalism is far from over. In fact the battle of ideas is intensifying. International agencies, including the United Nations, the International Labor Organization (ILO), the Food and Agricultural Organization, the World Health Organization and reports from NGO's, UNESCO and independent experts and regional and national economic experts provide hard evidence to discuss the merits of capitalism and socialism. Comparisons between countries and regions before and after the advent of capitalism in Eastern Europe, Russia and Central Europe as well as a comparison of Cuba and the ex-communist countries provide us with an adequate basis to draw some definitive conclusions. Fifteen years of transition to capitalism is more than adequate time to judge the performance and impact of capitalist politicians, privatizations, free market policies and other restoration measures on the economy, society and general welfare of the population. Economic Performance: Growth, Employment and Poverty Under communism the economic decisions and property were national and publicly owned. Over the past 15 years of the transition to capitalism almost all basic industries, energy, mining, communications, infrastructure and wholesale trade industries have been taken over by European and US multi-national corporations and by mafia billionaires or they have been shut down. This has led to massive unemployment and temporary employment, relative stagnation, vast out-migration and the de-capitalization of the economy via illegal transfers, money laundering and pillage of resources. In Poland, the former Gdansk Shipyard, point of origin of the Solidarity Trade Union, is closed and now a museum piece. Over 20% of the labor force is officially unemployed (Financial Times, Feb. 21/22, 2004) and has been for the better part of the decade. Another 30% is employed in marginal, low paid jobs (prostitution, contraband, drugs, flea markets, street venders and the underground economy). In Bulgaria, Rumania, Latvia, and East Germany similar or worse conditions prevail: The average real per capita growth over the past 15 years is far below the preceding 15 years under communism (especially if we include the benefits of health care, education, subsidized housing and pensions). Moreover economic inequalities have grown geometrically with 1% of the top income bracket controlling 80% of private assets and more than 50% of income while poverty levels exceed 50% or even higher. In the former USSR, especially south-central Asian republics like Armenia, Georgia, and Uzbekistan, living standards have fallen by 80%, almost one fourth of the population has out-migrated or become destitute and industries, public treasuries and energy sources have been pillaged. The scientific, health and educational systems have been all but destroyed. In Armenia, the number of scientific researchers declined from 20,000 in 1990 to 5,000 in 1995, and continues on a downward slide (National Geographic, March 2004). From being a center of Soviet high technology, Armenia today is a country run by criminal gangs in which most people live without central heat and electricity. In Russia the pillage was even worse and the economic decline was if anything more severe. By the mid 1990's, over 50% of the population (and even more outside of Moscow and St. Peterburg - formerly Leningrad) lived in poverty, homelessness increased and universal comprehensive health and education services collapsed. Never in peace-time modern history has a country fallen so quickly and profoundly as is the case of capitalist Russia. The economy was privatized - that is, it was taken over by Russian gangsters led by the eight billionaire oligarchs who shipped over $200 billion dollars out of the country, mainly to banks in New York, Tel Aviv, London and Switzerland. Murder and terror was the chosen weapon of economic competitiveness as every sector of the economy and science was decimated and most highly trained world class scientists were starved of resources, basic facilities and income. The principal beneficiaries were former Soviet bureaucrats, mafia bosses, US and Israeli banks, European land speculators, US empire-builders, militarists and multinational corporations. Presidents Bush (father) and Clinton provided the political and economic backing to the Gorbachov and Yeltsin regimes which oversaw the pillage of Russia, aided and abetted by the European Union and Israel. The result of massive pillage, unemployment and the subsequent poverty and desperation was a huge increase in suicide, psychological disorders, alcoholism, drug addiction and diseases rarely seen in Soviet times. Life expectancy among Russian males fell from 64 years in the last year of
Re: oil crises.
- Original Message - From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 8:14 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] oil crises. (a civil conversation) DMS: But Iraq is not a high cost producer of oil, having a cost of production approximately equal to Saudi Arabia, the low-cost producer. JD: I have heard otherwise from other sources. From the US Energy Information Agency http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html Iraq's oil development and production costs are amongst the lowest in the world (perhaps $3-$5 billion for each million barrels per day), making it a highly attractive oil prospect. However, only 17 of 80 discovered fields have been developed, while few deep wells have been drilled compared to Iraq's neighbors. Overall, only about 2,300 wells reportedly have been drilled in Iraq (of which about 1,600 are actually producing oil), compared to around 1 million wells in Texas for instance. In addition, Iraq generally has not had access to the latest, state-of-the-art oil industry technology (i.e., 3D seismic, directional or deep drilling, gas injection), sufficient spare parts, and investment in general throughout most of the 1990s. Instead, Iraq reportedly utilized sub-standard engineering techniques (i.e., overpumping, water injection/flooding), obsolete technology, and systems in various states of decay (i.e., corroded well casings) in order to sustain production. In the long run, reversal of all these practices and utilization of the most modern techniques, combined with development of both discovered fields as well as new ones, could result in Iraq's oil output increasing by several million barrels per day
Re: oil crises.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the argument that higher prices are the result of overaccumulation. What happens to supply/demand idea? This is not a rhetorical I don't understand. Please explain, Thanks, Joanna dmschanoes wrote: - Original Message - From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 8:14 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] oil crises. (a civil conversation) DMS: But Iraq is not a high cost producer of oil, having a cost of production approximately equal to Saudi Arabia, the low-cost producer. JD: I have heard otherwise from other sources. From the US Energy Information Agency http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html Iraq's oil development and production costs are amongst the lowest in the world (perhaps $3-$5 billion for each million barrels per day), making it a highly attractive oil prospect. However, only 17 of 80 discovered fields have been developed, while few deep wells have been drilled compared to Iraq's neighbors. Overall, only about 2,300 wells reportedly have been drilled in Iraq (of which about 1,600 are actually producing oil), compared to around 1 million wells in Texas for instance. In addition, Iraq generally has not had access to the latest, state-of-the-art oil industry technology (i.e., 3D seismic, directional or deep drilling, gas injection), sufficient spare parts, and investment in general throughout most of the 1990s. Instead, Iraq reportedly utilized sub-standard engineering techniques (i.e., overpumping, water injection/flooding), obsolete technology, and systems in various states of decay (i.e., corroded well casings) in order to sustain production. In the long run, reversal of all these practices and utilization of the most modern techniques, combined with development of both discovered fields as well as new ones, could result in Iraq's oil output increasing by several million barrels per day
Re: oil crises
Aldo Balardini asks me several questions: How do you define the price of oil? the same way most people do. Cyrus Bina is the only one so far to have attempted to explain the 1970's oil crisis using the standard interpretation of Marx's theory of rent. I was thinking of his analysis (though I haven't read it in awhile), since Marx's rent theory suggests that the price of oil is determined partly by demand (unlike, say, in manufacturing). Do you agree with Bina that cost conditions in the US, the highest cost region in the international oil, determine the the world price of oil? it depends on demand. If demand is sufficiently low, cost conditions in the US are irrelevant. If it's high, then we might see a higher-cost producer as determining. Jim D.
Argentina v IMF: another round of the game of chicken
Argentina and IMF in duel over $3.1bn loan Larry Elliott and Charlotte Denny Tuesday March 9, 2004 The Guardian Argentina was last night on a collision course with the International Monetary Fund after the heavily indebted Latin American country signalled it was preparing to default on a $3.1bn (£1.7bn) payment to the Washington-based lender. In the biggest trial of strength between the fund and a debtor country in the fifty-year history of the global lender, the crisis will come to a head today when Buenos Aires must decide whether to pay the fund. The dispute is not really over the $3.1bn - the fund promised last October to rollover its outstanding loans to the country, so Argentina does not have to make any net repayments this year to Washington. Argentina also owes $90bn to banks and private investors in Europe and North America. It has made no payments on these debts since December 2001, and the fund is insisting the country negotiates a fair deal with its private creditors before extending its credit line. I don't think Argentina is going to pay us without there being a commitment from us and the board will not give it that, an IMF source told Reuters last week. So, Argentina has a choice: to pay us and take their chances or continue playing hardball. Latin America's second largest economy is only just recovering from a slump caused by following the fund's advice throughout the 1990s, but is now being pressed by its private sector creditors to start making repayments on its enormous debt. So seriously is Buenos Aires taking these threats that President Nestor Kirchner cancelled a trip to Europe earlier this year on his official jet, Tango One, afraid it could be seized as collateral by aggrieved bondholders. Mr Kirchner is taking a huge gamble. His stance is winning applause from Argentina's hardpressed population, but the confrontation with the fund could end in the country becoming a financial pariah. Argentina has been living in a false honeymoon, paying no interest, but the creditors are banging on the door, said Professor Marcus Miller of Warwick University. Mr Kirchner and economy minister Roberto Lavagna have offered creditors 25¢ in the dollar. Any more, they argue, would force them to cut spending on schools and hospitals. The creditors are demanding 65¢ in the dollar and say Argentina can afford to pay them, now the country is enjoying healthy growth. Discussions between the two sides have been deep frozen for months, but the departure last week of the IMF's managing director Horst Köhler is likely to bring the crisis to a head. Standing in as acting chief is Anne Krueger, the fund's deputy director, who is likely to take an uncompromising line over how much Argentina can afford to pay. Ms Krueger's tough love stance is receiving backing from some of the fund's leading shareholders, the rich countries of the West. The issue has already split the group of seven industrialised countries: in a rare revolt against the rest of the G7, Britain, Italy and Japan all abstained from rolling over Argentina's lending programme last January. There are three possible ways out of the current impasse: either Argentina capitulates and offers creditors a better deal; the fund backs down and continues its lending programme despite Buenos Aires's intransigence or a compromise is agreed. Prof Miller says the impasse could be resolved without harming Argentina's recovery. Buenos Aires should float new bonds with returns linked to the performance of its economy to repay its creditors. If the economy grows strongly over the next few years, creditors will get a slice of the action without starving other parts of the economy. Argentina likes the idea of growth linked bonds but Mr Kirchner has ratcheted up the rhetoric so it will be difficult give creditors a break. For the fund, however, Argentina's defiance raises the ultimate spectre: a domino effect of defaulters that could bankrupt it.
Fw: Fidel watches The Sopranos
[From the New York Post's Page Six gossip column...hmmm, how reliable is this, you NYers? *lol*] SOPRANOS sweetie Jamie-Lynn DiScala says it took a brave man to ask her out before she married her manager, A.J. DiScala, last July. I dated one celebrity during the third season and he didn't treat me very well, Jamie-Lynn tells FHM. Tony Sirico knew who I was dating and he honestly wanted to find this guy and kill him. DiScala -who has the title role in the upcoming USA movie Going Down: The Rise and Fall of Heidi Fleiss - also reveals that Fidel Castro is a Sopranos fan. He requested it on DVD, she said. http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:VTn1NB_hYvIJ:www.nypost.com/gossip/pagesix_u.htm
Economic terrorism
For the first time Sunday I heard a British government minister refer to economic terrorism in connection with Al Qaeda. This was David Blunkett Home Secretary saying, as I caught it, the more they can destabilise our economy and the world economy the better it will be for their intent A somewhat unguarded statement fortunately for them not broadcast in every subsequent news bulletin. This was in the context of a joint intitiative with the USA to stage a mock terrorist attack simultaneously on both sides of the Atlantic. It is consistent with the fact that the mock exercise held in the UK last year was at the Bank underground station. It is also consistent with the news that the French rail system has recently been held to ransom by threats to the whole system. It is consistent with the little publicised fact that the British government eventually decided it had to negotiate with the IRA after the IRA blew up the Baltic Exchange. Why the Baltic Exchange? Not clearly for the usual purposes of terrorism which is for its supposed political excitatory role. No, the Baltic Exchange was featured on an Open University sociology course available to IRA prisoners in long term detention, as a crucial link in the re-insurance processes of finance capital. Baltic Exchange plus threats to attack key road and rail junctions. So terrorism and the counterploys to terrorism are rapidly evolving. The WT Centre had a dual role, as one of the prominent symbols of US power, and as a key economic target. But even more key for economic rather than for political terrorism would be a communications hub. From a socialist point of view both are reactionary are ultimately strengthen the hold of the ruling class over the mass of the people. A lot may depend on whether the terrorists give up their essential use of political terrorism. If they switch systematically to economic terrorism, that implies they are far sighted enough to aim at specific goals as a result of the terrorist war. Ideologically in their own terms they may feel tht is reformist, and they cannot ask for such sacrifices for reformist goals. To the extent the terrorism becomes economic, within the ruling strata it becomes cheaper for finance capitalism to negotiate. The multi-lateralist imperialists will win out over the unilateralists. Finance capitalism in general over the sectional interest of a minor player like Cheney and his neo-conservative chums. Bush is that little bit more on the defensive. Chris Burford
Re: Capitalism versus socialism
Under communism the economic decisions and property were national and publicly owned. Over the past 15 years of the transition to capitalism almost all basic industries, energy, mining, communications, infrastructure and wholesale trade industries have been taken over by European and US multi-national corporations and by mafia billionaires or they have been shut down. --- Uh, something like 40% of the Russian economy is state-owned. Gazprom is state-owned. Almost none of the Russian economy has been sold off to foreigners.
