date:20040623

If you are worried about Washington invading Iran or Syria, though,you ought to watch Putin closely.--Yoshie---
In what sense do you mean? That Putin would give a signal of some sort?
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

Yeah, and they seem to go to pretty bizarre lengths to justify it too. For instance, they view I have heard of Chechnya expressed here implies that, just a few short years after the collapse of the atheistic Soviet Union, large numbers of ex-Soviets want to under Shariah law. 80% of the population of Dagestan views Brezhnev-era really existing socialism as the ideal form of social organization. They do not want to live under Shariah.

I have never seen so much pulling rabbits out of hats in a long time: "Chechnya never attacked Dagestan, wait, no, it did, but it was only after Russia attacked Chechnya, wait, no, that's not it either, it happened before, but the Dagestanis really liked it, wait, no (logical next step), the Dagestanis were against it, but they are Quislings, whatever I can come up with to justify my worldview."Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Doss quoted Anatol Lieven:Yet the bitterly anti-Western ideologyThese days, that sort of bitter ideology passes for anti-imperialismin some circles. If it had been the Red Army killing Chechen rebels,that would have been fine. But now Putin's Russia has gone over tothe dark side, so anyone against Putin is against imperialism. Dittothe broader radical Islamic movement. Ditto Milosevic. Oddly enough,these arguments are made in the name of Marxism, which reminds me ofthe Randy Newman lines: "If Marx were living today/he'd be rollingaround in his grave..."Doug
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

Re: Marxist Fianancial Advice

2004-06-23 Thread Daniel Davies

Shurely market prices have to react to buying and selling, or they wouldn't
be market prices.  The question is whether the buying and selling matches up
to anything in what Paul Davidson calls The Real World (a place which I
visited once, and didn't really like it).

For what it's worth, I'm currently trying to make a few quid out of the
market, and I can confirm that, even if you have a model which quite
accurately predicts the daily directional movements, it is the devil's own
job to actually execute the trades which make you money.  I have also in my
time sat next to someone carrying out the Royal Dutch/Shell arbitrage and
was able to add a third universal truth to my list of Things I Have Learned
During Ten Years in the City:

1.  Self-ironing shirts, don't
2.  Non-recurring charges, do.
3.  Riskless arbitrage, isn't.

cheers

dd

PS: I have two pieces of Marxist financial advice (note to regulators: no I
don't).  Depending on your own financial circumstances and risk appetite,
blah blah, I would:

1.  Find a life assurance company run by people you trust and chuck it all
into one of their long-dated policies.

or for the more adventurous

2.  Chuck it into the bonds of more or less politically palatable emerging
market countries.  Venezuela has a few series of quite high-yielding bonds
available, and buying them would both help Chavez to buy a little time to
fend off the hegemon, and offer the possibility of a nice capital gain when
and if he eventually fails and Vene becomes a US protectorate.  Sort of a
win-win situation, if you have a rather perverse definition of what
constitutes a win.

-Original Message-
From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Doug
Henwood
Sent: 23 June 2004 05:07
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Marxist Fianancial Advice


Sabri Oncu wrote:

Doug:

  Market prices are efficient in that they instantly
  react to buying and selling,

Rubbish! You know, my new PhD is in this, right?

I didn't. What's your argument?

Doug

Re: Putin

Chris Doss wrote:
I have never seen so much pulling rabbits out of hats in a long time:
Chechnya never attacked Dagestan, wait, no, it did, but it was only
after Russia attacked Chechnya, wait, no, that's not it either, it
happened before, but the Dagestanis really liked it, wait, no (logical
next step), the Dagestanis were against it, but they are Quislings,
whatever I can come up with to justify my worldview.
This must be a reference to my questioning of your claim that the second
Chechen war was caused by Chechen assault on Russian territorial
integrity. I had no idea you were referring to Chechen incursions into
Dagestan. Since these peoples of the Caucuses were never constituted as
a nation-state entity until they were conquered by the Russian empire in
the 1800s and preserved as such under Stalin's iron-fisted rule, you'll
have to excuse me for regarding Russian interventions here as as nothing
less than power-grabs to protect oil and other geopolitical interests.
In the 19th century there was a struggle against Russian imperialism led
by someone named Shamil, who was like the Mahdi in the Sudan or other
typical Islamic leaders fighting colonial oppression. Here's a bit of
background:
http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/bashiri/CentAsia/Shamil.html
Imam Shamil, (also spelled Shamyl, Schamil, or Schamyl) was born in
1797? in Gimry, Dagestan [now in Russia]. He was the leader of the
Dagestani and Chechen Muslim mountaineers whose fierce resistance
delayed Russia's conquest of the Caucasus for some 25 years.
The son of a free landlord, Shamil studied grammar, logic, rhetoric, and
Arabic, acquired prestige as a learned man and, in 1830, joined the
Muridis, a Sufi (Islamic mystical) brotherhood in the region. Under the
leadership of Ghazi Muhammad, the brotherhood had become involved in a
holy war against the Russians who, in 1813, had wrested the control of
Dagestan from the Persians. After Ghazi Muhammad is killed by the
Russians (1832) and his successor, Gamzat Bek, is assassinated by his
own followers (1834), Shamil is elected to serve as the third imam
(political-religious leader) of Dagestan and the leader of the so-called
Murid Wars.
In order to establish an independent state in Dagestan (1834), Shamil
reorganized and enlarged his Chechen and Dagestan forces and led them in
extensive raids against the Russian positions in the Caucasus region. In
response, in 1838, the Russians sent a fresh expedition against Shamil.
The expedition captured Ahulgo, the mountaineers' main stronghold, but
not Shamil who escaped. In fact, despite triumphant conquests of the
forts and towns of the region, neither that expedition nor subsequent
expeditions succeeded to defeat Shamil.
Eventually, in 1857, the Russians concluded that they must suppress Imam
Shamil once and for all; his reputation had spread not only among the
peoples of the Cacausus but throughout western Europe as well.
Dispatching large, well-equipped forces under generals N. I. Evdokimov
and A. I. Baryatinsky, the Russians surrounded Shamil from all sides.
Shamil fought back. The Russians, however, doubled their efforts making
the situation untenable not only for Shamil but for his followers and
supporters in the villages. The latter began to gradually give in.
Capitalizing on this situation then, the Russians stormed Shamil's
fortress at Vedeno (April 1859) with the hope of capturing him alive.
Shamil, however, was nowhere to be found. Recognizing the trap that the
Russians had prepared for them, he and several hundred of his adherents
had already withdrawn to Mount Gunib. Eventually, however, on August 25
(September 6, New Style), 1859, recognizing the futility of his
resistance in the face of overwhelming odds, Shamil surrounded to the
Russians himself and, indirectly, the independence and freedom of the
peoples of the Caucasus. He was taken to St. Petersburg.
From St. Petersburg, Shamil was exiled to Kaluga, south of Moscow. In
1870, with the Russian tsar's permission, he made a pilgrimage to Mecca.
Shamil died in March 1871, at Medina?, Saudi Arabia.
--
The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

Re: Putin

Chris Doss wrote:
Yeah, and they seem to go to pretty bizarre lengths to justify it too.
For instance, they view I have heard of Chechnya expressed here implies
that, just a few short years after the collapse of the atheistic Soviet
Union, large numbers of ex-Soviets want to under Shariah law. 80% of the
population of Dagestan views Brezhnev-era really existing socialism as
the ideal form of social organization. They do not want to live under
Shariah.
Oh yeah, one other thing. I regard Puerto Rico as a colony no matter how
many people favor its continued status as US territory. When the means
of communication, access to wealth/opportunity, the military are all in
the hands of the mother country, such polls tend to reflect the dominant
power. Until, of course, the oppression becomes so naked that the
subject people rise up as the Chechens did.
--
The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

Re: Putin

Dude, I think I know who Imam Shamil is. I referred to his failed attempt to impose Shariah in an earlier, apparently unread, post. He was a Dagestani Avar. Shamil Basayev is named after him. He lived out his last years in a sumptuous palace outside St. Petersburg on the tsar's money, after having been bribed to quit fighting. He died in what is now Saudi Arabia, after having been given permission to go there by the tsar.

Look, I would like to think you mean well, but you don't know what you're talking about. You just don't.
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

Re: Putin

Chris Doss wrote:
Dude, I think I know who Imam Shamil is. I referred to his failed
attempt to impose Shariah in an earlier, apparently unread, post. He was
a Dagestani Avar. Shamil Basayev is named after him. He lived out his
last years in a sumptuous palace outside St. Petersburg on the tsar's
money, after having been bribed to quit fighting. He died in what is now
Saudi Arabia, after having been given permission to go there by the tsar.
I am not sure I gather your drift here. You seem to be okaying the
Czarist conquest of the Caucauses because they were fighting backward
religious practices or something like that? I had no idea that the
Russian Orthodox Church was a beacon of civilization and enlightenment.
--
The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

Re: Putin

Huh? Where did this bizarre non sequitor come from? Look, I see no point in continuing this inane discussion. Poka.Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Doss wrote: Dude, I think I know who Imam Shamil is. I referred to his failed attempt to impose Shariah in an earlier, apparently unread, post. He was a Dagestani Avar. Shamil Basayev is named after him. He lived out his last years in a sumptuous palace outside St. Petersburg on the tsar's money, after having been bribed to quit fighting. He died in what is now Saudi Arabia, after having been given permission to go there by the tsar.I am not sure I gather your drift here. You seem to be okaying theCzarist conquest of the Caucauses because they were fighting backwardreligious practices or something like that? I had no idea that theRussian Orthodox Church was a beacon of civilization and enlightenment.--The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

Re: Putin

2004-06-23 Thread s.artesian

I believe that, Mr. Proyect's statement, is a mischaracterization of Mr. Doss's.  
Clearly Chris Doss is pointing out that Shamil was not exactly a great emancipator 
struggling for the future of the downtrodden.

I wish there were a bit more concrete analysis presented, rather than assertions that 
oil and
geopolitical forces are at work.

It might involve some original investigation, there may not be a lexis-nexis 
connection, but if you
claim oil is at the source, then show us the critical economic condition, in terms of 
value, of oil.
It would be nice to see some presentation of the class issues involved here.

-Original Message-
From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Jun 23, 2004 9:53 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Putin

Chris Doss wrote:
 Dude, I think I know who Imam Shamil is. I referred to his failed
 attempt to impose Shariah in an earlier, apparently unread, post. He was
 a Dagestani Avar. Shamil Basayev is named after him. He lived out his
 last years in a sumptuous palace outside St. Petersburg on the tsar's
 money, after having been bribed to quit fighting. He died in what is now
 Saudi Arabia, after having been given permission to go there by the tsar.

I am not sure I gather your drift here. You seem to be okaying the
Czarist conquest of the Caucauses because they were fighting backward
religious practices or something like that? I had no idea that the
Russian Orthodox Church was a beacon of civilization and enlightenment.


--

The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

Re: Marxist Fianancial Advice

my advice is to follow the diversification strategy I sketched below -- unless you 
happen to have inside information (but watch the SEC!) or are able to deep research of 
the sort that the Sage of Omaha does. Any other way is to believe the hucksters who 
_claim_ to have special info. BTW, the stock market is basically unpredictable _even 
though_ it doesn't fit the efficient markets hypothesis. 
jd

-Original Message- 
From: Sabri Oncu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tue 6/22/2004 5:48 PM 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Cc: 
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Marxist Fianancial Advice



Jim:

 diversify, diversify, diversify. hold for long-term, not short.
 Hold more bonds (and fewer stocks) when old; reverse that when
 young.

This is what you are taught at ivy league business school finance classes if
they still adhere to the efficient market hypothesis of course.

I would say go and talk to Henry C. K. Liu to see if his fund is still
accepting contributions.

This is my financial advice.

Best,

Sabri

Re: presidential election

Yoshie writes: If the non-DP left ignore the presidential election while others are
paying attention, we simply help perpetuate the rhythm of US
politics: three years of protests, one year of electoral campaigns
for Democrats during which the gains made in the previous three years
are lost, and then back to protests again.

that's exactly what I'm arguing about: keep the anti-war (and other non-electoral) 
efforts going, whether there is an election or not. Break eht rhythm.

jd

Re: Putin

I think the "logic" goes like this -- there is oil there. And Muslims. And when oil, Muslims and war are in the same place, it must be about oil. And _only_ about oil. There cannot a priori be any other factors. And because all events on the world stage without exception can be reduced to the evil workings of imperialism, which, not content to merely be the _main_ source of evil on earth, is the _only_ one."s.artesian" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe that, Mr. Proyect's statement, is a mischaracterization of Mr. Doss's. Clearly Chris Doss is pointing out that Shamil was not exactly a great emancipator struggling for the future of the downtrodden.I wish there were a bit more concrete analysis presented, rather than assertions that oil andgeopolitical forces are at work.It might involve some original investigation, there may not be a lexis-nexis connection, but if youclaim oil is at the source, then show us the critical economic condition, in terms of value, of oil.It would be nice to see some presentation of the class issues involved here.-Original Message-From: Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Jun 23, 2004 9:53 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [PEN-L] PutinChris Doss wrote: Dude, I think I know who Imam Shamil is. I referred to his
failed attempt to impose Shariah in an earlier, apparently unread, post. He was a Dagestani Avar. Shamil Basayev is named after him. He lived out his last years in a sumptuous palace outside St. Petersburg on the tsar's money, after having been bribed to quit fighting. He died in what is now Saudi Arabia, after having been given permission to go there by the tsar.I am not sure I gather your drift here. You seem to be okaying theCzarist conquest of the Caucauses because they were fighting backwardreligious practices or something like that? I had no idea that theRussian Orthodox Church was a beacon of civilization and enlightenment.--The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

Re: Putin

s.artesian wrote:
Clearly Chris Doss is pointing out that Shamil was not exactly a great emancipator
Actually, the position of Marxists is quite clear on these sorts of 
matters. The revolutionary wing of the movement (Rosa Luxemberg, E. 
Belfort Bax) *always* backed the colonized against the colonizer even 
when the movement was led by figures such as Shamil, the Mahdi, et al. 
Here's Bax supporing the independence of Morocco despite the fact that 
it was ruled by somebody far worse than Shamil:

We call the attention of our readers to the fact which some of them may 
have overlooked that Morocco is at the present time the elect morsel of 
the capitalist harpies of Europe. All the powers are simultaneously 
negotiating treaties of commerce with the Moorish potentate, and it is 
rumoured that Germany has been pressing for permission for a syndicate 
of her capitalists to open up the country in approved fashion, though, 
it is, said, as yet without success.

The most, ominous sign of all however, is the appearance in the field of 
the capitalists right hand man; the professional philanthropist. For 
a long time past the press has presented us with periodical fragments of 
intelligence from Tangiers all tending to impress the virtuous British 
public with the terrible wickedness of the Moorish authorities; and 
above all inculcate a due sense of horror at the domestic slavery which 
exists there as in all Oriental civilisations.

full: http://www.marxists.org/archive/bax/1886/01/morocco.htm

--
The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

Re: Mark Jones Still Wrong


 I'd like to think that he is sitting up on some cloud
 somewhere getting a chuckle over how he still generates
 such controversy.

I'd better start sinning now, so I won't end up in the same place as Mark.
jd

Re: Putin

Shamil did not "rule" Chechnya and Dagestan. Nobody rules Chechnya and Dagestan. They are clan societies (except for the Russian minority and maybe the Mountain Jews -- who I'm sure just love Islamist fighters!). Dagestan doesn't even have a president.

Instead of drawing vague analogies to other situations and citing the sacred texts, why don't you discuss the actual situation in the North Caucasus? I mean discuss it yourself, not posting lexus-nexused (is that a word?) articles? I want to see some evidence that you understand the complexities of the North Caucasus situation.
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

Re: Putin

Chris Doss wrote:
Shamil did not rule Chechnya and Dagestan. Nobody rules Chechnya and
Dagestan. They are clan societies (except for the Russian minority and
maybe the Mountain Jews -- who I'm sure just love Islamist fighters!).
Dagestan doesn't even have a president.
What a joy! You finally sorted out your right-margin problems. Now I can
see what I am replying to.
You are right. Shamil never was able to create a nation-state. Neither
did the Kurds. Nor the Palestinians. Nor the various clan societies as
you put it in Africa. What happened is that the colonizers cobbled
together nation-states based on their own geopolitical and economic
imperatives. When the Bolsheviks came to power, they decided to renounce
this heritage. They guaranteed the right of secession to all such
peoples who had come under the sway of Czardom. Unfortunately with a few
short years, Stalin brought back Great Russian domination.
Instead of drawing vague analogies to other situations and citing the
sacred texts, why don't you discuss the actual situation in the North
Caucasus?
What sacred texts are you referring to? The writings of Lenin on
national self-determination? I guess I refer to them in order to
establish the principles upon which I rest. They are far more important
to me than the character of the Chechen leadership. By the same token, I
support the Iraqi resistance even if Fallujah is now run under shariah law.

--
The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

Re: Putin

I wish there were a bit more concrete analysis presented, rather than assertions that oil andgeopolitical forces are at work.---
Sure there are geopolitical forces at work. They are pretty easy to see when you simply look at the historical record. Let's recap the last 13 years of Chechen history:

1991 -- Dudayev, a nationalist of the sort that were in vogue in the USSR at that time, becomes president of Chechnya on a separatist agenda.

1991-1994 -- exodus of the Chechen intelligentsia and elite from the republic, and most of the non-Chechen population. Chechnya becomes the center of the Russian Mafia, mainly due to its lawless state.

1994-1996 -- Dudayev declares independence of Chechnya. Yeltsin reacts by invading the republic. Massive death and carnage as the republic gets the shit bombed out of it. Infrastructure destroyed. International mujaheedin move to Chechnya to help their muslim brothers. Dudayev killed by a missile. As presidential elections approach and, as the already-hated Yeltsin has to worry about defeating his rival Zyuganov, he cancels an extremely unpopular war by having Lebedev broker a peace agreement with military leader Aslan Maskhadov at the Dagestani town of Khasav-Yurt. Chechnya achieves de fact independence as Russia moves out its troops, police and even tax inspectors.

1996 -- Maskhadov elected president of Chechnya.

1996-1999 --- Chechnya deteriorates at great speed as various clans led by military commanders and their forces left over from the war begin to duke it out with one another. There are pitched battles between Maskhadov's forces and various Islamists, leaving many dead. The influence of the mujaheedin grows exponentially and foreign jihadis flock to Chechnya. Under pressure from them, Maskhadov introduces Shariah law in 1998. Hostage-taking becomes Chechnya's main source of income.

1999 --- Shamil Basayev and Khattab (some people say he was a Saudi, others a Jordan -- I think he was a bedouin from around the border with a little bit of Chechen blood in him) attack Dagestan twice with the aim of "liberating" so-called "Little Chechnya," conquering it, transforming it into an Islamic state, andthen attacking Ajerbaijan. (Chief Mufti of Chechnya Kadyrov, who had declared jihad on Russia in 1994, begs Maskhadov not to let them go, because it will be war between Muslims and because Russia will respond in force. Maskhadov says he cannot.) Dagestani police and civilians drive back Basayev and Khattab's men. Russia sends forces to the border and demands that Maskhadov hand over the people who had gone to Dagestan. Maskhadov either chooses not to or is too weak to do so. Federal forces enter the republic. Kadyrov changes sides.

That's what happened. It's not very complicated, though many of the major events only got reported in the US at the bottom of page 15 of the New York Times.
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.

Re: Putin

Shamil never wanted to create a nation state. The idea would never have entered his mind.

Still waiting for evidence of some knowledge about the North Caucasus. Instead, I get regurgitated Lenin.
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

Re: Putin

When the Bolsheviks came to power, they decided to renouncethis heritage. They guaranteed the right of secession to all suchpeoples who had come under the sway of Czardom.

Did they really?

EXCERPTS FROM SOVIET DOCUMENTS

A Report by the Commissioner of the Peoples Commissariat of Finance Who Visited Daghestan in April 1923

Special attention should be paid to attacks by Chechens. When we spent a night at the railroad station in Chir-Yurt, the neighbouring station Khasavyurt was attacked, two train attendants were killed, a road repairman was wounded, and a cargo train was plundered. Such attacks are a well-nigh daily occurrence.

I am enclosing reports by the Avar and Andi executive committees in which they request the permission to form their own anti-Chechen units and demand Chechnyas disarmament. The sentiments, which I noted in conversations with rural dwellers, were clearly hostile. If Chechen banditry is not put an end to in the immediate future, one cannot exclude that some districts would spontaneously rise against Chechnya.

Reports by the Intelligence Department Of the Staff of the North Caucasus Military District, 1924 and 1925

There are notable continuous conflicts between the populations of Chechnya and Daghestan resultant from plunders and abduction of women for ransom. On November 29, 1924, there was a collision between the communities of the village of Khimoy of the Shatoy District and the village of Gako of the Andi District.

Another conflict took place in March 1925 when Chechens neutralized a Daghestani border checkpoint in the vicinity of the village of Biychi, following which the local population intended to stage armed attacks on the neighbouring Chechen villages. Lastly, the staff of the North Caucasus Military District reports an armed conflict on July 12 of the same year, for reason of a dispute over a pasture located in between the border communities of the villages of Gogotl and Andi, the Daghestani Republic, and the village of Benoy. Two Chechens were killed and six wounded; on the Daghestani side, one was killed and one wounded. Chechens stole 165 heads of cattle from the people of Gogotl.

MANUAL ON THE DISARMING OF THE POPULATION OF THE CHECHEN AUTONOMOUS REGION

August 4, 1925

The operation of the disarming of the Chechen Autonomous Region shall be wholly the responsibility of military commanders of all ranks of army units allocated for the purpose and bodies of the Joint State Political Department, or OGPU, who will be acting through their representatives in situA village to be disarmed shall be encircled by an army unit in order to preclude any communication between its dwellers and the neighbouring parts After the village is fully encircled, representatives of the Chechen Central Executive Committee, or CEC, OGPU and the military command shall gather a general meeting and present the demand of surrendering arms. No more than two hours shall be given for the surrender of arms. The village dwellers shall be advised for responsibility for failure to surrender arms. In case the village population refuses to surrender arms, the units command shall, as a means of frightening, open artillery fire for ten minutes, with
shells either bursting high in the air or aiming to do little harm, following which they shall, together with representatives of OGPU and CEC, demand that arms be surrendered within a shorter period of time.

After the announced time period is over, an operational OGPU group shall start an all-out search and shall arrest bandit elementsIn case arms are surrendered before the end of the term, the all out search shall not be conducted, but illicit and bandit elements shall be seized.

Depending on the situation, artillery fire may be opened several times, but fire to kill shall be opened only in case of resistance to the troops.

After all the above listed means are exhausted, the operation shall be deemed as concluded even in cases of non-surrender of arms and fruitless search. In exceptional cases, when the troops encounter malicious active or passive resistance, the influential people of the village may be arrested, but this measure shall be a means of last resort, and shall be resorted to with maximum tactfulness.

REPORT ON AN OPERATION

1925

The operation in the valley began on August 25, when Korols group surrounded the village of Achkhoy. They gathered a meeting of the village population to offer the people to surrender arms within two hours. Since no arms were surrendered at the announced time, 15 shrapnel shells were fired at the village, of which ten were intended to kill. After two Chechen women were wounded, the population began surrendering arms. An operational OGPU group began a parallel search. As a result, they seized 228 rifles and 32 revolvers, following which the regiment built a camp 2 versts North of the village. At night, the regiment was fired at. The fire stopped after machineguns opened fire. The disarmament

Re: Putin

Chris Doss wrote:
Shamil never wanted to create a nation state. The idea would never have
entered his mind.
I suppose you're right. That thought probably never entered the mind of
the Mahdi as well. Or Shaka Zulu. Or Sitting Bull. Or the Boxers. Or the
leaders of the Sepoy rebellion. That does not mean that one should back
the British or American or Russian colonizers.
--
The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

Re: Putin

Once again drawing vague analogies. I don't see why you don't just admit the obvious -- you don't know the area. I think it's obvious to everybody on the list that you don't know the area.

Look, I have not been continuing this conversation for your benefit, but for the other people on this list who might be interested in learning something. If anybody out there wants to discuss the situation, you can contact me offlist, because I am tried of wasting my time. I have things to do and beer to drink.Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Doss wrote: Shamil never wanted to create a nation state. The idea would never have entered his mind.I suppose you're right. That thought probably never entered the mind ofthe Mahdi as well. Or Shaka Zulu. Or Sitting Bull. Or the Boxers. Or theleaders of the Sepoy rebellion. That does not mean that one should backthe British or American or Russian colonizers.--The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

Re: Putin

Chris Doss wrote:
When the Bolsheviks came to power, they decided to renounce
this heritage. They guaranteed the right of secession to all such
peoples who had come under the sway of Czardom.
Did they really?
Of course they did. This does not mean that there was resistance from
within the Bolshevik leadership. By 1921, there were *already* signs of
the Thermidor that would become full-blown in a couple of years after
Stalin had seized power. This would introduce what Lenin refers to below
as a tide of chauvinistic Great-Russian riffraff.
THE QUESTION OF NATIONALITIES OR AUTONOMISATION
by V.I. Lenin
December 31, 1922
I suppose I have been very remiss with respect to the workers of Russia
for not having intervened enegetically and decisivley enough in the
notorious question of autonomisation, which, it appears, is officially
called the question of the Soviet socialist republics.
When this question arose last summer, I was ill; and then in autumn I
relied too much on my recovery and on theOctober and December plenary
meetings giving me an opportunity of intervening in this question.
However, I did not manage to attend the October Plenary Meeting (when
this question came up) or the one in December, and so the question
passed me by almost completely.
I have only had time for a talk with Comrade Dzerzhinsky, who came form
the Caucasus and told me how this matter stood in Georgia. I have also
managed to exchange a few words with Comrade Zinoview and express my
apprehensions on this matter. From what I was told by Comrade
Dzerzhinksy, who was at the head of the commission sent by the C.C. to
investigate the Georgian incident, I could only draw the greatest
apprehensions. If matters had come to such a pass that Orjonikidze could
go to the extreme of applying physical violence, as Comrade Dzerzhinsky
informed me, we can imagine what a mess we have got ourselves into.
Obviously the whole business of autonomisation was radically wrong and
badly timed.
It is said that a united apparatus was needed. Where did that asurance
come from? Did it not come from that same Russian apparatus which, as I
pointed out in one of the preceding sections of my diary, we took over
from tsarism and slightly anointed with Soviet oil?
There is no doubt that that measure should have been delayed somewhat
until we could say that we vouched for our apparatus as our own. Butr
now, we must, in all consicence, admit the contrary; the apparatus we
call ours is, in fact, still quite alien to us; it is a bourgeois and
tasrist hotch-potch and there has been no posibility of getting rid of
it in the course of the past five years without the help of other
countries and because we have been busy most of the time with military
engagements and the fight against famine.
It is quite natural that in such circumstances the freedom to secede
from the union: by which we justify ourselves will be a mere scrap of
paper, unable to defend the non-Russians from the onslaught of that
really Russian man, the Great-Russian chauvinist, in substance a rascal
and a tyrant, such as the typical Russian bureaucrat is. There is no
doubt that the infintesimal percentage of Soviet and sovietised workers
will drown in that tide of chauvinistic Great-Russian riffraff like a
fly in milk.
full: http://www.ex.ac.uk/Projects/meia/Lenin/Archive/19221231a.htm

--
The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

Re: Putin

Presumably, judging by the short time it took you to respond to this, you didn't read 
what I sent. I'm not surprised.

I'm outta here. Poka.

Re: Mark Jones Still Wrong

Devine, James wrote:
  I'd like to think that he is sitting up on some cloud
 somewhere getting a chuckle over how he still generates
 such controversy.
I'd better start sinning now, so I won't end up in the same place as Mark.
I'm already doomed, since I cheered on the slaughter of Afghan babies.
Doug

Re: Putin

2004-06-23 Thread s.artesian

Oh, Mr. Proyect, you again shift the isssues around to justify a previous 
mis-characterization. You
mis-construed Mr. Doss's earlier and accused him of having a soft-spot for Russian 
Orthodox
Christianity after he, correctly as far as I have been able to verify, related the 
rather unsavory
history of this supposed nationalist.

Those Marxists who may or may not endorse a particular national liberation struggle 
are not: 1. made
Marxists or non-Marxists by their endorsement  2. relieved from correctly 
characterizing the leaders
of such a struggle  3.released from providing the linkage, economic, material, class, 
between that
particular struggle and the prospects for revolution.


From what I have been able to find, the Bolsheviks did not consider Chechnyans as a 
national minority
with a right of succession.  If you have other specific information, please provide it.

And just as certainly, Stalin brutally displaced the bulk of the Chechnyan people.

But arguments by analogy are inherently weak-- entertaining, but weak.  Analogy refers 
to function,
not cause or source.  And source is everything to Marxists.



-Original Message-
From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Jun 23, 2004 10:14 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Putin

s.artesian wrote:
 Clearly Chris Doss is pointing out that Shamil was not exactly a great emancipator

Re: Marxist Fianancial Advice

Devine, James wrote:
BTW, the stock market is basically unpredictable _even though_ it
doesn't fit the efficient markets hypothesis.
Again, I must turn into a pedant and ask just what you mean by that.
There are several forms of the EMH. Quoting myself from Wall Street,
characterizing Eugene Fama's review:
Fama distinguished among three varieties of the EMH: the weak,
semi-strong, and strong forms. The weak form asserts that the past
course of security prices says nothing about their future
meanderings. The semi-strong form asserts that security prices
adjust almost instantaneously to significant news (profits
announcements, dividend changes, etc.). And the strong form asserts
that there is no such thing as a hidden cadre of smart money
investors who enjoy privileged access to information that isn't
reflected in public market prices.
This isn't entirely nonsense, is it? Would you argue that stock
prices don't adjust almost instantaneously to fresh news? Would you
argue that there isn't a strong element of randomness in prices? If
you say the market is basically unpredictable, then you're
subscribing to at least part of the EMH.
The anomalies that have been identified over the years - that low P/E
stocks outperform high P/E ones, for example - imply that stocks are,
at least to some degree, predictable. The same with Shiller's work on
overreaction, which implies that speculators who bet against extremes
of mob psychology (which is essentially the strategy of both Keynes
and Soros) are part of a smart money cadre that aren't trading on the
basis of nonpublic information, but on an unpopular analysis.
You could say that the market efficiently reflets the often
nonsensical consensus of investors, which is something EMH types
wouldn't agree with. Even some dissidents have a problem with
irrationality. The first time I met Joseph Stiglitz was late in the
dot.com mania. I was very curious to hear his analysis of that
lunacy. But his info theory still holds that investors are rational,
just not all equally informed. So he wondered aloud, Why do people
buy those stocks?
Doug

Re: Putin

2004-06-23 Thread Michael Perelman

I am disgusted that people could not be courteous while I am unable to watch over the
list!  Naturally, we have seen an increase in the unsubs.

Can't people understand that nobobdy has ever been converted over an e-mail list.
Repetition, insults, and jibs only make people get turned off.

I repeat that Chris knows more -- maybe different information -- than we do.  I would
have hoped that we could learn from him, respectfully point out where we differ and
leave it at that.

This is by no means a simple question to be answered by simple downloads.
 --
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu

EMH

[was: RE: [PEN-L] Marxist Fianancial Advice]
 
I wrote:
BTW, the stock market is basically unpredictable _even though_ it
doesn't fit the efficient markets hypothesis.

Doug writes:
Again, I must turn into a pedant and ask just what you mean by that.
There are several forms of the EMH. Quoting myself from Wall Street,
characterizing Eugene Fama's review:

Fama distinguished among three varieties of the EMH: the weak,
semi-strong, and strong forms. The weak form asserts that the past
course of security prices says nothing about their future
meanderings. The semi-strong form asserts that security prices
adjust almost instantaneously to significant news (profits
announcements, dividend changes, etc.). And the strong form asserts
that there is no such thing as a hidden cadre of smart money
investors who enjoy privileged access to information that isn't
reflected in public market prices.

This isn't entirely nonsense, is it? 
 
No, since I meant only the strong form. 
 
Would you argue that stock
prices don't adjust almost instantaneously to fresh news? 
 
yes, though a lot of the news is about what other stock-speculators are doing (or 
fake news). Thus, the news can tell one to go with the herd, joining a bubble or a 
panic. 
 
Would you
argue that there isn't a strong element of randomness in prices? 
 
No. Didn't I say something about the stock market is basically unpredictable above?
 
If
you say the market is basically unpredictable, then you're
subscribing to at least part of the EMH.

Yes: but see Steve Keen's discussion in his DEBUNKING ECONOMICS. 

The anomalies that have been identified over the years - that low P/E
stocks outperform high P/E ones, for example - imply that stocks are,
at least to some degree, predictable. 

the SM is predictable in the sense that pen-l is predictable. 

The same with Shiller's work on
overreaction, which implies that speculators who bet against extremes
of mob psychology (which is essentially the strategy of both Keynes
and Soros) are part of a smart money cadre that aren't trading on the
basis of nonpublic information, but on an unpopular analysis.

right. I do think, however, that Warren Buffett trades on expensive-to-get 
information. Insiders trade on nonpublic information (and it pays off until they get 
caught).

You could say that the market efficiently reflets the often
nonsensical consensus of investors, which is something EMH types
wouldn't agree with. Even some dissidents have a problem with
irrationality. The first time I met Joseph Stiglitz was late in the
dot.com mania. I was very curious to hear his analysis of that
lunacy. But his info theory still holds that investors are rational,
just not all equally informed. So he wondered aloud, Why do people
buy those stocks?

I think the problem with these models is that they don't treat what other speculators 
are doing as part of the information set that speculators use. But I am not an expert 
on this subject. 

jd

Re: EMH

Devine, James wrote:
 The anomalies that have been identified over the years - that low P/E
stocks outperform high P/E ones, for example - imply that stocks are,
at least to some degree, predictable.
the SM is predictable in the sense that pen-l is predictable.
My god, if the stock market were that predictable, I'd have set up my
own hedge fund *years* ago.
Doug

Re: Putin

2004-06-23 Thread Waistline2





In a message dated 6/23/2004 11:28:54 AM Central Standard 
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Those 
  Marxists who may or may not endorse a particular "national liberation" 
  struggle are not: 1. made Marxists or non-Marxists by their endorsement 
  2. relieved from correctly characterizing the "leaders" of such a 
  struggle 3.released from providing the linkage, economic, material, 
  class, between that particular struggle and the prospects for 
  revolution.


Comment

I would add to this the need to ascertain class forces and by 
this what is meant is the material composition of the population: one part 
industrial workers, service workers, peasants or small family farmers, medium 
and large size property holders. 

Then there is a need to examine the real economic context of 
the world market in the time frame one is dealing with. The national question in 
Russia was most certainly reconfigured by the 1920s and somewhat different from 
the "national question" in 1850. What is different is the economic basis of its 
resolution. The national question from say 1920 to the victory of the liberation 
forces in Vietnam represents in my thinking another historical juncture. 


In my way of thinking we are no longer taking about a land 
question as such in today''s world - post industrial society. 

I would be oh so delighted to have an opportunity to know what 
and how Chechnya Marxists - communist, see the current situation since the 
collapse of Soviet power and the victory of the counter revolution and private 
property relations. 

The October Revolution was a juncture in political history and 
put an end to the old national movements as class less movement for liberation. 
The emergence of the political polarity called Soviet Power meant winning the 
economically backwards areas over to political alignment against bourgeois 
imperialism on the basis of the antagonism that was Soviet Power and World 
Imperialism. 

One no longer simply spoke of national movements but rather 
national colonial movement as the result of the re-division of the world by 
great imperial powers as the material result of the First Imperial World War. 
The Second World Imperialist war saw the sweeping away of the last vestiges of 
feudal social relations as concrete forms of the political 
superstructurerelations throughout Europe - more than less, and this 
underlying economic logic governs the Marxist approach to the national colonial 
question. 

How the Marxist approach to the national and national colonial 
question was applied by the Soviet State does not mean we should not think 
things out in the context of today. 

The question is not support for Putin or against Putin or 
support of the Russian State or opposition to the Russian State in respects to 
the Chechnyans. At least for me. 

On the one hand I unconditionally demand the withdrawal of US 
troops everywhere on earth as an abstract principle and as practical policy on 
June 23, 2004. On the other hand I have had enough of the Jesse Jackson Sr.s of 
the world - who express and represent a class and class fragment and their 
strivings. 

Don't get things twisted . . . Big Jesse was more than less 
cool in a certain historical period. Damn near 40 years after 
theassassinationof Dr. King and dramatic changes in the composition 
of the world means at least trying to look at economic logic and political 
relations based on our own time frame and not Leninism. 

As a communist worker and Marxist I have nothing for Big 
Jesse. In my practical life I am always compelled to compromise with how people 
understand their urgent problems. 

To compare the plight of the Palestinians in 2004 with that of 
the Chechens in 1850s denies the profound twist and turns of history. Is 
Chechnya comparable to Iraq today? Iraq was never an autonomous region of the 
British State of the state of the American Union. 

Of course not. And all of history proves this. 

Is Chechnya comparable to the struggle of the Palestinian 
against Israeli fascism? 

Of course not. And all of history proves this. 

Does this means one supports Putin or the Russian State for 
that matter? 

Of course not. 

In 2004 I am very comfortable with the demand and view 
advocating Soviet Power in the former states that constituted the USSR. This is 
general enough as a political equation and specific enough as an indication of 
ideological commitment to be on the correct side of the historical progression - 
as I understand it. 

The idea that the people of Chechnya in their relations with 
the state of Russia is similar to that of the people of Iraq to the US invaders 
is monstrous. The idea that the people of Chechnya in their relations with the 
state of Russia is similar to that of the people of"Palestine" to the 
Israeli fascists is monstrous. 

I call abstract concepts of self determination the lingering 
ideological outlook of the student movement and its concepts of participatory 
democracy. 

Where is

Re: EMH

but you don't know _when_ the flame-war or long obscure discussion or predictions of 
instant doom will happen. In the SM, it's the timing that's crucial. 
jd 

-Original Message- 
From: PEN-L list on behalf of Doug Henwood 
Sent: Wed 6/23/2004 10:50 AM 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Cc: 
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] EMH

Devine, James wrote:

  The anomalies that have been identified over the years - that low P/E
stocks outperform high P/E ones, for example - imply that stocks are,
at least to some degree, predictable.

the SM is predictable in the sense that pen-l is predictable.

My god, if the stock market were that predictable, I'd have set up my
own hedge fund *years* ago.

Doug

To Be Young, Cosmopolitan, and Muslim

2004-06-23 Thread Yoshie

To Be Young, Cosmopolitan, and Muslim:
http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/06/to-be-young-cosmopolitan-and-muslim.html

Re: Marxist Fianancial Advice

2004-06-23 Thread Peter Dorman

I did a brief review of this lit for a paper I wrote recently.  Some
comments:
1. If market efficiency has any substantive relationship to real
factors (as revealed ex post), unpredictability of price movements is
necessary but not sufficient for efficiency.
2. The only defensible claim about financial markets is that they are
unpredictable in the their first moment (directionality).  Schiller et
al., as well as common sense, suggest that the higher moments
(overshooting) are predictable.  This is just another way of saying that
an informed observer (like Doug) can tell you when the market is over-
or undervalued (with better than 50% probability) but not when to get
out or in.
3. If people make consistent errors of judgment (there is lots of
evidence that they do), today's price could always be the best estimator
of tomorrow's and yet the market would be inefficient according to some
objective standard.  In other words, both today's price and tomorrow's
can be irrational.
None of this is very profound, but sometimes the semantics of this topic
obscures the more-or-less simple underlying concepts.
Peter
Doug Henwood wrote:
Devine, James wrote:
BTW, the stock market is basically unpredictable _even though_ it
doesn't fit the efficient markets hypothesis.

Again, I must turn into a pedant and ask just what you mean by that.
There are several forms of the EMH. Quoting myself from Wall Street,
characterizing Eugene Fama's review:
Fama distinguished among three varieties of the EMH: the weak,
semi-strong, and strong forms. The weak form asserts that the past
course of security prices says nothing about their future
meanderings. The semi-strong form asserts that security prices
adjust almost instantaneously to significant news (profits
announcements, dividend changes, etc.). And the strong form asserts
that there is no such thing as a hidden cadre of smart money
investors who enjoy privileged access to information that isn't
reflected in public market prices.

This isn't entirely nonsense, is it? Would you argue that stock
prices don't adjust almost instantaneously to fresh news? Would you
argue that there isn't a strong element of randomness in prices? If
you say the market is basically unpredictable, then you're
subscribing to at least part of the EMH.
The anomalies that have been identified over the years - that low P/E
stocks outperform high P/E ones, for example - imply that stocks are,
at least to some degree, predictable. The same with Shiller's work on
overreaction, which implies that speculators who bet against extremes
of mob psychology (which is essentially the strategy of both Keynes
and Soros) are part of a smart money cadre that aren't trading on the
basis of nonpublic information, but on an unpopular analysis.
You could say that the market efficiently reflets the often
nonsensical consensus of investors, which is something EMH types
wouldn't agree with. Even some dissidents have a problem with
irrationality. The first time I met Joseph Stiglitz was late in the
dot.com mania. I was very curious to hear his analysis of that
lunacy. But his info theory still holds that investors are rational,
just not all equally informed. So he wondered aloud, Why do people
buy those stocks?
Doug

a new kind of welfare pimp

[Jurriaan B. pointed this article out to me]

Corporate Welfare For Welfare Corporations - welfare reform in Wisconsin

Dollar  Sense,  Jan, 2001  by Karyn Rotker

Sandra (not her real name) is a Milwaukee woman in her early thirties
who suffers from three separate mental health conditions. Two of her
children are disabled; several are in foster care. Last July, one of the
children in her custody got sick and lost his day-care slot. Without
child care, Sandra couldn't show up for the work assignment her welfare
agency sent her to. Because she didn't immediately turn in paperwork
proving she had a good reason for her absence, the agency slashed her
meager monthly check in half.

In the same month that Sandra's child lost day care, an independent
state audit revealed that Maximus, a for-profit corporation, had misused
public funds. Maximus, which receives millions of tax dollars to run
welfare programs in Milwaukee, couldn't document nearly three-quarters
of the expenditures the auditors reviewed. Officials at the Wisconsin
Department of Workforce Development (DWD), the state agency that
oversees welfare programs and sets the rules that women like Sandra are
forced to follow, explained away the record-keeping lapse:
Responsibility for monitoring Maximus' spending, they said, had been
hazily defined.

Welcome to welfare reform in Wisconsin, the nations leader in running
experiments on recipients of public assistance. For poor families --
mostly single mothers and their children -- the last 14 years have
brought benefit cuts and behavior control. But welfare reform has been a
bonanza for bureaucrats and private contractors, who get the public
money once reserved for needy families -- though with far less
monitoring than those families receive.

A BOON FOR BUREAUCRACY

In 1986, about 100,000 Wisconsin families were receiving Aid to Families
with Dependent Children (AFDC). In keeping with the state's tradition of
clean and efficient government, Wisconsin boasted the lowest AFDC
administrative costs in the nation, $3.46 per recipient per month. A
mother and two children -- the most common family size -- got about $500
a month. It wasn't much, but it kept a roof over their heads. And AFDC
benefits increased slightly each year.

Then Tommy Thompson came along. In November 1986, Thompson, the
Republican minority leader of the Wisconsin Assembly, was elected
governor. (He is now in his fourth term.) Almost immediately, he cut
monthly AFDC benefits, which remained frozen at 1987 levels for the next
ten years. Also in 1987, he became the first governor to exploit the
availability of federal waivers, which permitted states to override
specific AFDC requirements with experiments of their own. Through the
waiver system, Wisconsin was able to impose more stringent criteria on
AFDC recipients than federal law allowed. Among its initiatives, the
state adopted new methods of modifying AFDC recipients' personal
behavior; moved ever-increasing numbers of families into job search,
training, or unpaid work experience; and set time limits for receipt
of AFDC benefits. By the mid-1990s, Wisconsin was operating more welfare
experiments than any other state.

Under Thompson, Wisconsin's welfare bureaucracy flourished. For example,
Learnfare, a program that penalized AFDC families whose children
missed school, cost more to run than the state saved in reduced
benefits. By 1994, the number of households receiving AFDC had fallen by
more than 20% from 1986 levels. During that same period, administrative
costs per recipient soared by more than 600%, reaching $21.01 per month.

In 1993, Wisconsin became the first state to call for substituting AFDC
with a state-created program, and in mid-1995, Thompson unveiled
Wisconsin Works (W-2) as his replacement plan. W-2 required virtually
every AFDC household to work off its grant. Following the largest
welfare-rights demonstrations in 30 years, some of W-2's harshest
provisions were ameliorated; for example, recipients could count up to
12 hours of education and training toward their 40-hour work week. But
the cornerstones of W-2 -- mandatory workfare for families with children
more than 12 weeks old, and lifetime limits on assistance -- remained.
In mid-1996, the state requested federal approval to implement the
program. Soon after, Congress passed the welfare reform act, which not
only replaced AFDC with block grants to the states, but also imposed
restrictions at the national level -- such as time limits -- that
Thompson and other governors had previously proposed. Once President
Clinton signed the legislation in August, Wisconsin no longer needed
federal permission to adopt W-2.

In September 1997, Wisconsin began operating W-2, and the privatization
process began. AFDC rules had required state or local government
agencies to be involved in running the program. Under W-2, those rules
were gone. Counties did get to bid first on W-2 contracts -- but only if
they'd already pushed a sufficient

Re: Marxist Fianancial Advice

2004-06-23 Thread Daniel Davies

Peter has it right.  Fama's 3 kinds of market efficiency are basically
statistical definitions; they're different strengths of assertions about
unpredictability.  This is a necessary condition for efficiency (viz the
title of Samuelson's paper on the subject Properly Anticipated Prices
Fluctuate Randomly) but not sufficient.  The more hazy idea behind
efficient markets theory is that stock market prices are in some way the
best forecast of discounted value of future cash flows.  This is
particularly problematic as it is not at all obvious (to me anyway) that the
best forecast is identical with the most accurate one in any relevant
sense; it seems to me that there's no basis for the assumption that someone
making estimates of future cashflows would judge forecasting systems using a
mean-squared error criterion, or even an unbiased loss function.

There is in fact a decent Hayekian argument to be made that it's a gross
misunderstanding of the nature of markets as information processing entities
to assume that you can read information out of the prices and treat it as
information (in particular, I think that Hayek's critique of planning rules
this out).  The prices on the stock ticker are epiphenomena of the process
which markets exist to carry out; the provision of liquidity to rentiers.

dd

-Original Message-
From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Peter
Dorman
Sent: 23 June 2004 20:13
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Marxist Fianancial Advice


I did a brief review of this lit for a paper I wrote recently.  Some
comments:

1. If market efficiency has any substantive relationship to real
factors (as revealed ex post), unpredictability of price movements is
necessary but not sufficient for efficiency.

2. The only defensible claim about financial markets is that they are
unpredictable in the their first moment (directionality).  Schiller et
al., as well as common sense, suggest that the higher moments
(overshooting) are predictable.  This is just another way of saying that
an informed observer (like Doug) can tell you when the market is over-
or undervalued (with better than 50% probability) but not when to get
out or in.

3. If people make consistent errors of judgment (there is lots of
evidence that they do), today's price could always be the best estimator
of tomorrow's and yet the market would be inefficient according to some
objective standard.  In other words, both today's price and tomorrow's
can be irrational.

None of this is very profound, but sometimes the semantics of this topic
obscures the more-or-less simple underlying concepts.

Peter

Doug Henwood wrote:

 Devine, James wrote:

 BTW, the stock market is basically unpredictable _even though_ it
 doesn't fit the efficient markets hypothesis.


 Again, I must turn into a pedant and ask just what you mean by that.
 There are several forms of the EMH. Quoting myself from Wall Street,
 characterizing Eugene Fama's review:

 Fama distinguished among three varieties of the EMH: the weak,
 semi-strong, and strong forms. The weak form asserts that the past
 course of security prices says nothing about their future
 meanderings. The semi-strong form asserts that security prices
 adjust almost instantaneously to significant news (profits
 announcements, dividend changes, etc.). And the strong form asserts
 that there is no such thing as a hidden cadre of smart money
 investors who enjoy privileged access to information that isn't
 reflected in public market prices.


 This isn't entirely nonsense, is it? Would you argue that stock
 prices don't adjust almost instantaneously to fresh news? Would you
 argue that there isn't a strong element of randomness in prices? If
 you say the market is basically unpredictable, then you're
 subscribing to at least part of the EMH.

 The anomalies that have been identified over the years - that low P/E
 stocks outperform high P/E ones, for example - imply that stocks are,
 at least to some degree, predictable. The same with Shiller's work on
 overreaction, which implies that speculators who bet against extremes
 of mob psychology (which is essentially the strategy of both Keynes
 and Soros) are part of a smart money cadre that aren't trading on the
 basis of nonpublic information, but on an unpopular analysis.

 You could say that the market efficiently reflets the often
 nonsensical consensus of investors, which is something EMH types
 wouldn't agree with. Even some dissidents have a problem with
 irrationality. The first time I met Joseph Stiglitz was late in the
 dot.com mania. I was very curious to hear his analysis of that
 lunacy. But his info theory still holds that investors are rational,
 just not all equally informed. So he wondered aloud, Why do people
 buy those stocks?

 Doug

Re: Marxist Fianancial Advice

Daniel Davies wrote:
The more hazy idea behind
efficient markets theory is that stock market prices are in some way the
best forecast of discounted value of future cash flows.
Yup. It's been ages since I read this stuff, but some of the more
honest economists conceded there was a joint hypothesis problem
with EM theory - the speed with which prices reflected the thinking
of market participants, and the quality of that thinking itself, two
separate issues that often get conflated into a best available
wisdom argument. Greenspan loved to cite the wisdom of the markets
as a way of avoiding the word bubble in the late 1990s.
Doug

torture? it's un-American!

Afghan detainees routinely tortured and humiliated by US troops

Duncan Campbell and Suzanne Goldenberg
Wednesday June 23, 2004
The Guardian

Detainees held in Afghanistan by American troops have been routinely
tortured and humiliated as part of the interrogation process, in the
same way as those in Iraq, a Guardian investigation has found.

Five detainees have died in custody, three of them in suspicious
circumstances, and survivors have told stories of beatings, strippings,
hoodings and sleep deprivation.

The nature of the alleged abuse indicates that what happened at Abu
Ghraib prison in Iraq was part of a pattern of interrogation that has
been common practice since the US invasion of Afghanistan.

Yesterday, in an attempt to stem charges that senior officials in the
Bush admin-istration condoned the use of torture in the war on terror,
the White House released hundreds of pages of documents outlining its
internal deliberations on interrogation.

The memos, which originated at the Pentagon, the White House and the
justice department and date from January 2002 to April last year, were
intended to show that the president and his aides insisted that
detainees at Guantanamo Bay should be treated humanely.

But one such memo leaked earlier this month said that Mr Bush had the
legal authority to allow torture, giving new impetus to a campaign by
human rights organisations and Democrats.

Senator Patrick Leahy, the Democratic member of the Senate subcommittee
on foreign operations, told the Guardian that prisoners in Afghanistan
were subjected to cruel and degrading treatment, and some died from
it.

These abuses were part of a wider pattern stemming from a White House
attitude that 'anything goes' in the war against terrorism, even if it
crosses the line of illegality.

Syed Nabi Siddiqi, a former police officer, said he was beaten and
stripped. They took off my uniform. I showed them my identity card from
the government... Then they asked me which of those animals - they made
the noise of goats, sheep, dogs, cows - have you had sexual activities
with?

A second detainee, Noor Aghah, said he was forced to drink bottles and
bottles of water during his interrogation.

Another prisoner, Wazir Muhammad, was held for nearly two years, firstly
in Afghanistan and then at Guantanamo Bay.

At the end of my time in Guantanamo, I had to sign a paper saying I had
been captured in battle, which was not true, he said. I was stopped
when I was in my taxi with four passengers. But they told me I would
have to spend the rest of my life in Guantanamo if I did not sign it, so
I did.

Parts of an inquiry by Brigadier General Chuck Jacoby into allegations
of abuse in custody are to be made public next month by the head of the
US forces in Afghanistan, Lieutenant General David Barno.

Gen Barno said: I will tell you without hesitation that intelligence
procedures have got to be done in accordance with the appropriate
standards _ all our forces will treat every detainee here with dignity
and respect.

The network of US detention centres around Afghanistan has largely
avoided scrutiny, yet, according to the coalition forces last week, more
than 2,000 people have been detained there since the war.

In some ways the abuses in Afghanistan are more troubling than those in
Iraq, said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch. While it is true that
abuses in Afghanistan often lacked the sexually abusive content of the
abuses in Iraq, they were in many ways worse.

Detainees were severely beaten, exposed to cold and deprived of sleep
and water. Five are known to have died [two of natural causes].

[there's a longer G2 cover story in the GUARDIAN on-line]


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

consumption vs. income

I was thinking about Doug's question about US consumer spending and so
decided to look at recent data. I constructed a simple graph of the
ratio of personal consumption expenditure to personal disposable income
(along with the 6th order polynomial trend line). (it's attached.) It's
interesting to find that this ratio fell from 1959 to 1980 or so,
roughly from 91% to 87%. It then rose dramatically (to my eye), to above
94% in the first three quarters of 2003. 

some observations. 

1. given the trend since 1980, it's unlikely that consumer spending will
suddenly snap back to normal saving. But it might do so for other
reasons, i.e., excessive debt compared to income and assets, threatening
personal bankruptcies. (Since much of the credit comes (indirectly) from
the outside the US, the falling dollar also sticks a spanner in these
works.) 

2. I think it was Mike Davis who wrote about US overconsumption during
the 1980s. This trend has continued. It's based on credit creation and
on exaggerated asset prices (first the stock market, then housing). (Of
course, at the bottom of the income distribution, increasing
indebtedness has no connection to asset values; instead, it's a matter
of desperation.)

3. I can see why so many pundits emphasize Ronald Reagan's optimism.
The whole consumption boom has been based on optimism, the willingness
to get into debt and to value assets too much. 

4. Neoliberalism is legitimated in the midst of the aggressor homeland
because we in the US can consume like crazy even though a lot of
neoliberal austerity has been instigated. We can delay personal problems
to the future. 


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


Title: Pers. Consumption Expenditure/Disposable Income














Pers. Consumption Expenditure/Disposable Income

hegemony humbled

2004-06-23 Thread Chris Burford

US backs down in its attempts to win Security Council endorsement of
exemption of its forces from possible redress in International
Criminal Court after strong warning by Secretary General.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/23/us.war.crimes.court.ap/index.html

Compare to how this adminstration was purging UN officials it did not
like four years ago.


U.S. offers deal if N. Korea halts nuclear program

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/06/23/nkorea.talks/index.html

US has been forced to respond to the audacious demand of North Korea
for a treaty guaranteeing its security, launched just as US was
preparing to invade Iraq.

This is a superpower that has been humiliated into recognising the
limits of its powers, not least its inability to fight more than one
war at once effectively.

Imperialism is still in command but in the face of opposition from
people over the world, unilateralist imperialism has had to cede key
ground to multi-lateralist imperialism. Blair has inched ahead of
Rumsfeld. In the process towards world government the rule of law,
however imperfectly, is being imposed on the incomparably powerful
superstate. This is a tipping point that has tipped. The weakening of
US dominance may now gather pace a little.

Chris Burford

Re: Marxist Fianancial Advice

2004-06-23 Thread Daniel Davies

In which context, I was just reminded by a conversation with my missus that
the Eddie Murphy/Dan Ackroyd film Trading Places turns on a particular
point about commodity futures which, IMO, gives the absolute lie to any
claims of market efficiency beyond Fama's purely statistical efficiency
concept.

That point (which is, incredibly, very well established and true) is that
40% of the entire volatility of the NYMEX contract in September Frozen
Concentrated Orange Juice occurs in the single day on which the Department
of Agriculture releases its forecasts for orange production.  I just can't
for the life of me see how this factoid is at all consistent with the FCOJ
futures market having any information advantage over the US government.

dd

-Original Message-
From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Doug
Henwood
Sent: 23 June 2004 21:24
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Marxist Fianancial Advice


Daniel Davies wrote:

The more hazy idea behind
efficient markets theory is that stock market prices are in some way the
best forecast of discounted value of future cash flows.

Yup. It's been ages since I read this stuff, but some of the more
honest economists conceded there was a joint hypothesis problem
with EM theory - the speed with which prices reflected the thinking
of market participants, and the quality of that thinking itself, two
separate issues that often get conflated into a best available
wisdom argument. Greenspan loved to cite the wisdom of the markets
as a way of avoiding the word bubble in the late 1990s.

Doug

Re: Marxist Fianancial Advice

2004-06-23 Thread Sabri Oncu

Daniel:

 Shurely market prices have to react to buying and 
 selling, or they wouldn't be market prices. 

Reacting to buying and selling is one thing, reacting to buying and selling
_instantly_ is another. Of course market prices react to buying and selling.
But not necessarily instantly. If you agree with this, then markets are not
efficient even in the sense Doug defined. 

One typical example you would find in many a papers is the Royal Dutch/Shell
phenomenon. Here is what Thaler says about it:



Consider the example of the Royal Dutch/ Shell Group, as documented in
Rosenthal and Young (1990) and Froot and Dabora (1999). Royal Dutch
Petroleum and Shell Transport are independently incorporated in,
respectively, the Netherlands
and England. The current company emerged from a 1907 alliance between Royal
Dutch and Shell Transport in which the two companies agreed to merge their
interests on a 60/40 basis. Royal Dutch trades primarily in the United
States and the Netherlands and is part of the SP 500 Index; Shell trades
primarily in London and is part of the Financial
Times Stock Exchange Index. According to any rational model, the shares of
these two components (after adjusting for foreign exchange) should trade in
a 60-40 ratio. They do not; the actual price ratio has deviated from the
expected one by more than 35 percent. Simple explanations, such as taxes and
transaction costs, cannot explain the disparity.



The rest is here:

http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/richard.thaler/research/end.pdf

Now, what is the market price of Royal Dutch/Shell? 

The Royal Dutch price or the Shell price?

There are many other and well documented examples of persistent price
anomalies that go against Doug's definition. Look at ebay auctions for
example. As is well documented, most people who participate in those
auctions can buy the thing they bought at ebay from some other online shop
at a much lower price. Doing a google search is almost costless so search
costs argument does not work here to explain this observation. 

What are the market price of the things these people buy at ebay?

The price they paid there or the alternative lower price they could have
determined almost instantly and paid on some other online shop?

Also, if you were a Japanese employee in the late 80s and followed Jim's
advice, you would not have done so well, as can be seen from here:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=^N225t=my

Of course, one can argue that this is not diversification enough but how
many of you have a Mongolian stock in your portfolio, not that I know
whether there is any Mongolian stock traded somewhere in the world?

Also, what is _the_ market? 

That is, what does beating or failing to beat the market mean?

Like, Gross have beaten the Lehman Bond Index, which was his benchmark,
quite nicely for many a years. 

Was he beating the market?

Lastly, what happens if, although you beat the market nicely, the market
tanks so badly that you still lose money?

Sabri

Re: Mark Jones Still Among the living (was titled Wrong)

2004-06-23 Thread Sabri Oncu

Jim and Doug:

 I'd better start sinning now, so I won't end up in 
 the same place as Mark.

 I'm already doomed, since I cheered on the slaughter 
 of Afghan babies.

 Doug

My friends,

What is wrong with ending up in the same place with Mark? Whether you like
it or not, this is what is going to happen, so be prepared to fight! Maybe
you will not like this either but sooner or later I will join you there too,
if I do not go first.

Here is one poem I love, by Yahya Kemal Beyatli, and I do not know how best
to translate it. It is full at the end of this message in Turkish. I will
translate a few parts:

Silent Ship

When the day to pull the anchor from time comes,
A ship that goes to the unknown departs from this harbor.

It sails silently as if it has no pasengers,
And neither hands nor handkerchiefs are waived in this departure. 

.

All of those who left must be happy with where they are,
Since so many years have past, yet none of them came back from their trip.

Or something like this.

Best,

Sabri



Sessiz gemi

Yahya Kemal Beyatli 

Artik demir almak gunu gelmisse zamandan, 
Mechule giden bir gemi kalkar bu limandan. 

Hic yolcusu yokmus gibi sessizce alir yol; 
Sallanmaz o kalkista ne mendil ne de bir kol. 

Rihtimda kalanlar bu seyahatten elemli, 
Gunlerce siyah ufka bakar gozleri nemli. 

Bicare gonuller. Ne giden son gemidir bu. 
Hicranli hayatin ne de son matemidir bu. 

Dunyada sevilmis ve seven nafile bekler; 
Bilmez ki,giden sevgililer donmeyecekler. 

Bir cok gidenin her biri memnun ki yerinden. 
Bir cok seneler gecti; donen yok seferinden

Re: Mark Jones Still Among the living (was titled Wrong)

I was joking. I believe that when I die, I won't go anywhere.  I'll be kaput. 
jd 

-Original Message- 
From: PEN-L list on behalf of Sabri Oncu 
Sent: Wed 6/23/2004 5:42 PM 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Cc: 
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Mark Jones Still Among the living (was titled Wrong)

Jim and Doug:

 I'd better start sinning now, so I won't end up in
 the same place as Mark.

 I'm already doomed, since I cheered on the slaughter
 of Afghan babies.

 Doug

My friends,

What is wrong with ending up in the same place with Mark? Whether you like
it or not, this is what is going to happen, so be prepared to fight! Maybe
you will not like this either but sooner or later I will join you there too,
if I do not go first.

Here is one poem I love, by Yahya Kemal Beyatli, and I do not know how best
to translate it. It is full at the end of this message in Turkish. I will
translate a few parts:

Silent Ship

When the day to pull the anchor from time comes,
A ship that goes to the unknown departs from this harbor.

It sails silently as if it has no pasengers,
And neither hands nor handkerchiefs are waived in this departure.

.

All of those who left must be happy with where they are,
Since so many years have past, yet none of them came back from their trip.

Or something like this.

Best,

Sabri

Sessiz gemi

Yahya Kemal Beyatli

Artik demir almak gunu gelmisse zamandan,
Mechule giden bir gemi kalkar bu limandan.

Hic yolcusu yokmus gibi sessizce alir yol;
Sallanmaz o kalkista ne mendil ne de bir kol.

Rihtimda kalanlar bu seyahatten elemli,
Gunlerce siyah ufka bakar gozleri nemli.

Bicare gonuller. Ne giden son gemidir bu.
Hicranli hayatin ne de son matemidir bu.

Dunyada sevilmis ve seven nafile bekler;
Bilmez ki,giden sevgililer donmeyecekler.

Bir cok gidenin her biri memnun ki yerinden.
Bir cok seneler gecti; donen yok seferinden

Re: Marxist Fianancial Advice