Kremlin tightens its control over Russias economy
Financial Times (UK) August 5, 2004 Kremlin tightens its control over Russias economy By CAROLA HOYOS and ARKADY OSTROVSKY On July 22, the day that Yukos, the oil company, warned of its imminent bankruptcy and its main production subsidiary was seized by bailiffs, Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, held a meeting with James Mulva, the chief executive of ConocoPhillips, and Vagit Alekperov, the Soviet-era oil boss who now heads Lukoil, Russia's flagship oil company. The president had some good news for Mr Mulva: the government had just signed a decree to sell its 7.6 per cent stake in Lukoil - a private company which represents the Russian state in major international ventures - and signalled that ConocoPhillips was welcome to bid for it. Mr Putin added that he would like to see a more active relationship between Russian and US companies in the energy sector. Investors and traders were confused: should they sell Russian energy stocks because the country's largest oil company was being made bankrupt in violation of shareholders' rights, or should they buy assets because foreign companies were moving in? Of all Russian companies, Yukos has been the most active in seeking foreign investors, while Lukoil has remained cautious about foreign equity partners. But with its seemingly contradictory actions, the government was, in fact, sending a clear message: we rule. Having gained almost total political power in the country, Mr Putin and his entourage are proceeding to take control over what Lenin called the commanding heights of the economy. This does not mean that Russia is about to start nationalising private business and property or that foreign investment will dry up. It does, however, mean that the Kremlin will decide who can and who cannot invest in Russia. It will increase the state's control over strategic parts of the economy at the expense of the oligarchs who accumulated their wealth through privatisations in the 1990s. Although Yukos was on Wednesday given more breathing space by the justice ministry, which allowed it to pay salaries and to continue operating, there is little doubt that the balance of power is shifting towards more state-oriented companies such as Lukoil. [] Alexander Radygin, an economist at the Institute for the Economy in Transition, --argued in a recent paper that, over the past four years of Mr Putin's presidency, Russia has been moving towards state capitalism where power belongs to the bureaucracy rather than to private business. The dominant trends of the past few years have been the growing expansion of property interests of the Russian state, an attempt to establish control over capital flows in the Russian economy and a desire to make business dependent on state institutions - despite decisions about deregulation, administrative reform and privatisation plans, Mr Radygin says. This trend is most visible in the oil and gas industry, which accounts for almost 20 per cent of gross domestic product, according to the World Bank. While the state, and people who identify themselves with it, are also strengthening their positions in banking, telecommunications and media, the attack on Yukos is crucial to both domestic and foreign investors because it shows the limitations of the market economy in Russia. Al Breach, chief economist at Brunswick UBS, the Russian arm of the the Swiss bank UBS, says: The Yukos affair demonstrates that property rights mean very little in Russia compared to politics. The ownership of assets is contingent on a political regime. If the regime changes so does the property structure. The investigation of Yukos's taxes was initially interpreted by investors as a by-product of a political brawl between Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Yukos's key shareholder and former chief executive, and the Kremlin. Following Mr Khodorkovsky's arrest, they continued to buy Yukos shares believing the company's integrity was not in doubt. Even when Yukos was presented with a back-tax claim of $3.4bn it was seen as an attempt to rid Mr Khodorkovsky of his wealth. Investors were reassured by Mr Putin's promise that his government would do all it could to avoid the company going bankrupt. But the justice ministry's actions over the past few weeks indicate that the campaign was not aimed at merely curbing Mr Khodorkovsky's political ambitions or ridding him of his wealth. Taking financial control of Yukos, one of Russia's most dynamic oil companies, was at least as powerful a goal. Mr Khodorkovsky, who is standing trial for fraud and tax evasion, has volunteered to give up his shares in Yukos to settle the tax debt. The company has offered the government its stake in Sibneft an oil company, which would have paid for most of the tax arrears. Both offers were ignored. Instead, bailiffs, who are part of the justice ministry seized Yuganskneftegas, Yukos's largest production subsidiary, valued at $30bn, and are preparing it for sale to settle the tax bill. Yevgeny
Looming natural gas shortages
What's that hissing sound? Worried about oil running out? Don't look now, but natural gas is next on the endangered hydrocarbons list. - - - - - - - - - - - - By Jeff Nachtigal, salon.com Aug. 10, 2004 | Oil prices hit an all-time high Monday, topping out at $44.97 a barrel. There are a bundle of immediate reasons -- sabotage and war in Iraq, the showdown between the Yukos Oil Co. and the Kremlin in Russia, political instability in Venezuela -- but there are also fundamental long-term forces pushing prices ever upward. Demand, particularly in countries such as India and China, is growing fast, but the supply is finite. Still, among consumers in the United States, there appears to be little panic. The coming oil peak -- that moment when worldwide production of oil reaches its high point -- is in the news, but Detroit keeps turning out SUVs, freeways are perpetually jammed, and prices at the pump -- so far -- have not inspired many of us to cut back. Our devil-may-care attitude about energy is fueled in large part by an economic principle of substitutability, in which we depend on new sources of energy to take the place of the old. But when the oil spigots finally run dry -- whether in a few years or a few decades -- the next hydrocarbon on the list (and possibly the last, depending on how you count coal) will be natural gas. But if we blow through natural gas in the same reckless manner as we have oil, we're in for a serious shock, argues Julian Darley in his new book, High Noon for Natural Gas. Darley is a self-described environmental philosopher who specializes in researching non-market and non-technology-based responses to global environmental degradation. The primary thrust of High Noon for Natural Gas is that, unless we unplug as much as we can from our energy-dependent ways, we're headed off a cliff, and the crash at the bottom won't be pretty. As with oil, gauging the peak of natural gas production is an inexact science. The best estimates suggest that oil production will hit its all-time high sometime between 2008 and 2035. But already, in 2002, the world discovered fewer reserves of untapped natural gas than it consumed that year -- a clear portent of eventual production declines. Still relatively plentiful, natural gas will for some time fill the gap left by dwindling oil reserves. But if we move merrily on to the next readily available energy source without dramatically changing our gluttonous energy consumption habits, we will only be prolonging the inevitable, Darley says, and will end up throwing ourselves into the carbon chasm. Darley blames the uncontrollable growth of economies and global overpopulation as the two biggest drivers of energy consumption. His solution is to simply stop using nonrenewable energy -- to essentially opt out of the current energy infrastructure. He understands that his suggestions for dealing with the coming energy crisis will not be popular with the vast majority of Western society, nor for those living in fast-growing developing nations. But those who are aware of the problem, he argues, must start the long process of building a new, low-energy infrastructure to replace the current high-energy one we have now. The majority seems to act only when the avalanche is upon the roof; it is quite likely that no prediction, however accurate it is, will be sufficient to shift mainstream policy making or opinion, Darley writes. Thus it is only those who think that we have already gone too far who will be willing to act, make the kinds of big changes required, and more than anything start building a new infrastructure while we can. There are other problems with natural gas aside from its likely future scarcity. For example, the path from underground gas deposit to kitchen range is growing more complex, and expensive, as demand increases. In the United States, nearly 70 percent of new buildings are heated with gas. Canada and Britain have similar numbers, and most of world is following suit and converting to natural gas heat. But most gas in the future will be used to produce electricity. Because electricity is so intrinsic to our cities and life itself, Darley says, anything that threatens the electricity supply is a direct threat to the lives of billions and billions of humans. So although natural gas may seem unrelated to the electricity user, problems with it are not. Electricity is generated by coal, nuclear power, hydropower or natural gas. Natural gas currently powers about 20 percent of the United States' electricity plants, but that rate is sharply rising because low cost has made gas the fuel of choice. In 2003, more than 300 new gas-fired power stations were built, and 90 percent of new electricity plants are powered by gas. Does it all make economic sense? In great part, the colossal rash of power station building has cost the United States precious time in trying to adjust to a landscape that will be seriously short of natural gas, Darley writes. Adding to the
Re: Looming natural gas shortages
Electricity is generated by coal, nuclear power, hydropower or natural gas. Natural gas currently powers about 20 percent of the United States' electricity plants, but that rate is sharply rising because low cost has made gas the fuel of choice. In 2003, more than 300 new gas-fired power stations were built, and 90 percent of new electricity plants are powered by gas. --- Where's the gas come from? Domestic? Imported? __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Corporate Democrats
One of the 200 business executives who came out for Kerry last week was Leo Hindery, a former CEO of Global Crossing and AT T Broadband. In todays Financial Times, Hindery identifies the major reasons why a small segment of the corporate sector - what the left has traditionally called the enlightened bourgeoisie prefers the Democrats to the Republicans. These Keynesian-minded corporate heads are concerned about slow job and income growth and its effect on mass purchasing power; want a national healthcare program to relieve employers of private health care costs; and are alarmed by runaway budget and trade deficits which threaten a financial crisis. Hindery, in effect, accuses members of the US business elite of placing their narrow personal and company interests ahead of their class interests, and the Bush administration of pandering to their selfish needs rather than acting in line with its broader responsibility as the executive committee of the ruling class. As Hindery puts it, we need a team who will, as Franklin Delano Roosevelt did, 'save capitalism from the capitalists'. In this instance, however, unlike the 30s, America is not experiencing a deep depression, there is no left wing political challenge from which capitalism needs rescuing, and his is a distinctly minority voice within elite circles. He and his 200 pro-Kerry colleagues are, however, a measure of growing US and international business anxiety about the direction of American economic and foreign policy. Marv Gandall - Bush's economy is for the elite few By Leo Hindery Financial Times August 10 2004 Within an hour of John Kerry's selection of John Edwards as his running mate, the US Chamber of Commerce said it was forced to abandon its position of neutrality because Mr Edwards was hostile to business. I could almost hear the laughter in corporate boardrooms across the country. To argue that the Chamber intended to be, or has ever been, politically neutral reminds me of the film Casablanca when Claude Rains expresses shock that gambling was taking place in Rick's Caf. The line revealed the dirty little secret of the US Chamber of Commerce. It is run by the wealthy chief executives of the nation's biggest companies. It is easy to see why enormously rich businessmen believe more personal income and lower taxes are good for them. But what is good for an individual chief executive's wallet does not translate into being good for business or for the nation's economy. What businesses and the economy need are full employment, or as full as possible, and strong consumer demand, generated by a combination of consumer confidence and fair compensation. The Bush-Cheney ticket is failing that test. They adopt anything-goes-for-big-business policies, continue to push for ever-lower tax rates for the wealthiest Americans, defend self-serving executive compensation packages and condone benign regulation of corrupt practices. The latest sign of how what is really good for ordinary citizens and the economy is being flipped on its head is George W. Bush's spin on sluggish job-growth numbers. Now, he contends, that bad is good. In response to the far lower than expected employment numbers for June, he said: Steady growth. That's important. We don't need boom-or-bust-type growth. But when the number of new jobs created this year fails to keep up with the growth in the adult population - a trend confirmed by last Friday's job numbers for July - a little more boom and a little less steady stagnation would certainly be helpful. Certainly the unemployed and businesses that need to sell products and services to people with incomes are getting weary of the disappointing growth. For the first time in more than seven decades, there are fewer jobs at this point in an election year than there were when the current president was inaugurated. A net 2.6m manufacturing jobs have been lost since 2001. And anyone whose job has been outsourced to other countries should appreciate Mr Kerry's call to end tax loopholes and benefits that provide an incentive for shipping jobs overseas and keeping the profits there. Compounding the problem, far too many of the jobs being created are low-wage positions with few benefits. Overall, wages for non-supervisory workers have failed to keep up with inflation over the past year. But jobs and wages are not all that matters. Instead of Mr Bush's big tax cuts for the top 2 per cent of Americans, the Kerry-Edwards ticket would reform healthcare. That would make health insurance more available and affordable for millions of Americans and cheaper for businesses. The other 98 per cent of Americans and the businesses whose healthcare costs would be lower should welcome the choice between better healthcare and tax cuts for the wealthy. The business community has also traditionally, and rightly, been concerned about massive government borrowing. But under the Bush administration, we have seen huge
Re: Corporate Democrats
Marvin Gandall wrote: Hindery, in effect, accuses members of the US business elite of placing their narrow personal and company interests ahead of their class interests, and the Bush administration of pandering to their selfish needs rather than acting in line with its broader responsibility as the executive committee of the ruling class. As Hindery puts it, we need a team who will, as Franklin Delano Roosevelt did, 'save capitalism from the capitalists'. This is a flawed analogy. Roosevelt only acted after protests erupted across the USA. He came into office as a fiscal hawk, just as Kerry will. If workers start organizing the kind of strikes that the Trotskyist-led Teamsters did in Minneapolis, then perhaps Kerry will lurch to the left. But then again, Nixon was far more ambitious in his support of environmentalism, affirmative action than any Democrat since. The lesson here is to remain militant in the streets, not to back a bourgeois politician. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Corporate Democrats
The lesson here is to remain militant in the streets, not to back a bourgeois politician. Ironically, this is, itself, a flawed analogy. Militant in the streets is lingo from an era of ascendant working class interests -- in particular, radical lingo from the 60s-70s. (Militancy, itself, is older than that, of course.) By trying to mechanically employ tactics of another era, one can do more damage than good. (Militant in the streets, today, in North America, usually reduces itself to theatre and marginalism.) At any rate -- We are all grown ups and can ally with whatever we wish at any strategic moment and not fear having to lose sight of the reason we gave a shit in the first place. Ken. -- For all these new and evolutionary facts, meanings, purposes, new poetic messages, new forms and expressions, are inevitable. -- Walt Whitman
Kerry versus Nader on the Mideast
The Cause of Israel is the Cause of America By SEN. JOHN KERRY My first trip to Israel made real for me all I'd believed about Israel. I was allowed to fly an air force jet from the Ovda Airbase. It was then that Israeli insecurity about narrow borders became very real to me. In a matter of minutes, I came close to violating the airspace of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. From that moment on, I felt as Israelis do: The promise of peace must be secure before the Promised Land is secure on a thin margin of land. Back on the ground on that first trip, I toured the country from Kibbutz Mizgav Am to Masada to the Golan. I stood in the very shelter in a kibbutz in the north where children were attacked and I looked at launching sites and impact zones for Katousha rockets. I was enthralled by Tel Aviv, moved by Jerusalem and inspired by by standing above Capernaum, looking out over the Sea of Galilee, where I read aloud the Sermon on The Mount. I met people of stunning commitment, who honestly and vigorously debated the issues as I watched and listened intently. I went as a friend by conviction; I returned a friend at the deepest personal level. full: http://www.counterpunch.org/kerry02172004.html === Nader Writes to the Anti-Defamation League on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Dear Mr. Foxman: How nice to hear your views. Years ago, fresh out of law school, I was reading your clear writings against bigotry and discrimination. Your charter has always been to advance civil liberties and free speech in our country by and for all ethnic and religious groups. These days all freedom-loving people have much work to do. As you know there is far more freedom in the media, in town squares and among citizens, soldiers, elected representatives and academicians in Israel to debate and discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than there is in the United States. Israelis of all backgrounds have made this point. Do you agree and if so, what is your explanation for such a difference? About half of the Israeli people over the years have disagreed with the present Israeli governments policies toward the Palestinian people. Included in this number is the broad and deep Israeli peace movement which mobilized about 120,000 people in a Tel Aviv square recently. Do you agree with their policies and strategy for a peaceful settlement between Israelis and Palestinians? Or do you agree with the House Resolution 460 in Congress signed by 407 members of the House to support the Prime Ministers proposal? See attachment re the omission of any reference to a viable Palestinian state generally considered by both Israelis and Palestinians, including those who have worked out accords together, to be a sine qua non for a settlement of this resolvable conflict a point supported by over two-thirds of Americans of the Jewish faith. Would such a reasonable resolution ever pass the Congress? For more information on the growing pro-peace movements among the American Jewish Community see: Ester Kaplan, The Jewish Divide on Israel, The Nation, June 24, 2004. full: http://votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php?cid=119 -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Corporate Democrats
The lesson here is to remain militant in the streets, not to back a bourgeois politician. Ironically, this is, itself, a flawed analogy. Militant in the streets is lingo from an era of ascendant working class interests -- in particular, radical lingo from the 60s-70s. (Militancy, itself, is older than that, of course.) By trying to mechanically employ tactics of another era, one can do more damage than good. (Militant in the streets, today, in North America, usually reduces itself to theatre and marginalism.) At any rate -- We are all grown ups and can ally with whatever we wish at any strategic moment and not fear having to lose sight of the reason we gave a shit in the first place. Ken. I've seen folks here and elsewhere contemptuously dismiss an independent electoral challenge to the Democratic Party from the left (Nader/Camejo and Greens who support them), an attempt to make voices for peace heard inside the Democratic Party (Kucinich and those who supported him), and now even protests (militant or theatrical) in the streets. I've yet hear them present what they believe to be worth doing, let alone see them actually doing it. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
What is the total wealth ?
Yea, a bridge the size and location of the Brooklyn Bridge seems like an inherently public use-value, especially for those who live and work in Manhattan and nearby Brooklyn. Big chunks of the total wealth would best be public, not private property. What proportion of the total wealth in the world is in less consumable forms ? Like hedge fund certificates or whatever is the sign of ownership in that ? Charles by Max B. Sawicky You consume a bridge -- make use of it, wear it out just a bit -- when you cross it. Or stand on it. Or jump off it. What proportion of total GDP is consumable ? How much is liquid ? What proportion is in plant , equipment and bridges ? Just full of questions. CB
Economics and law
by Kenneth Campbell CB: Another infamous case of this was the exploding Pinto of Ford. Thanks, CB. That was the 70s. May not apply to the original post I made, in the time frame... but same principle. Regardless... The notion that lives have worth based upon economic evaluation is hated amongst normal working North Americans. I think there is, in that, a chink in the armor that is worth a bit more than mere postings about the conditions in South America. It is not to diminish the rest of the world... more to recognize what is happening here. Here. Talk about your dialectical contradictions in the whole... Ken. ^^ Yes, the whole moral thing of placing monetary value on human life stares every law student in the face in torts class. You are probably aware that many juries ( composed largely on North American workers) have given such high awards often that the rightwing has been carrying out tort reform for a while, whereby caps are put on the amounts. A significant part of the leftwing bar in Michigan, National Lawyers Guilders, have had their practices substantially done away with by recent tort deform in Michigan. Left wing lawyers ( Maurice Sugar and others) played a big role in developing products liability law.
Re: Economics and law
Charles wrote: You are probably aware that many juries ( composed largely on North American workers) have given such high awards often that the rightwing has been carrying out tort reform for a while, whereby caps are put on the amounts. It was my understanding that many of these awards are severely reduced on the appellate level... which does not involved juries (hence people outside the law). There is a buffer there, too, no? (But you are right about the political agenda behind removing in the initial awards.) Left wing lawyers (Maurice Sugar and others) played a big role in developing products liability law. I do not currently know the development of product liability law. I would imagine it came out of the early 1900s in the US. If you have any more research, I would appreciate it. It would be helpful to put it in context. Ken. -- The future is something which everyone reaches at the rate of 60 minutes an hour, whatever he does, whoever he is. -- C.S. Lewis
Ed McMahon's $7.2m dog
Charles' response (Economics and Law thread) about the politics behind tort law -- especially law involving people against corporations -- reminded me of a WSJ editorial last fall. Read the opening item, below, and check out the commentary, below it, if you care about this kind of creation of urban legends... (the left does it, too, unfortunately). --- cut here --- Trial Lawyers, Inc. Wall Street Journal September 23, 2003 That's how the folks at the Manhattan Institute now refer to what may be America's only recession-proof industry: the plaintiffs' bar. We hope the moniker catches on. For decades trial attorneys have nurtured a public image as little Davids standing up with their slingshots to America's corporate Goliaths. But as a study to be released later this morning on Capitol Hill underscores -- Trial Lawyers, Inc.: A Report on the Lawsuit Industry in America 2003 (www.triallawyersinc.com) -- these litigators have become an industry unto themselves. By now, most every American has his own tale about some silly lawsuit run amok, from the post-tobacco obesity suits targeting McDonald's to the $7.2 million settlement former Tonight Show sidekick Ed McMahon won after suing over house mold he claimed had killed his dog. When the Manhattan Institute's researchers added it all up, the result was staggering: Not only have tort costs risen much faster than either inflation or GDP, the estimated $40 billion in revenues our tort warriors took in for 2001 was 50% more than Microsoft or Intel and double that of Coca-Cola. One good measure of their size is their political clout: In 2002 the trial lawyers' PAC ranked third in America -- and was the Democratic Party's most generous contributor. We're not saying that there's no role for trial attorneys in the American legal system, or that they don't occasionally secure justice for a wronged individual. But with the billions its firms rake in each year putting them squarely in the category of Big Business, shouldn't their self-serving claims be treated with the same skepticism routinely directed at, say, Halliburton or Philip Morris? -Original Message- [My commentary From: Sept 2003] That previous WSJ story about Ed McMahon's dog being worth $7.2m in tort damages sounded so outlandish, I wanted to find the case. After all, the WSJ (editorially at least) would easily fall in with that business-political group that wants to limit what lawyers can get their clients on tort. It's NOT beyond an editorial board (as distinct from a news reporter) to do creative urban legend-making. Sure enough, he didn't get $7.2m for the dog. The case was settled out of court for $7.2m. (Which is probably why I couldn't find the ruling in California Superior Court database.) Also: The dog was not the law suit. The dog was brought up in the case as a piece of evidence -- being like a canary in a coal mine, a first indicator. The dog dies, then wife gets sick, etc. (I include the second LA Times article in full below because it details the extent of the complaint -- which appears to claim the insurance company had taken possession of all the family's personal property.) Furthermore, the suit is really part of a larger, local controversy in California about toxic mold syndrome. McMahon wasn't the only one. Governor Grey Davis was in the fray (signs the 2001 Toxic Mold Disclosure Act). (For a thrilling read about mold and insurance coverage, see www.cavignac.com/pdfs/Cml0603.pdf.) By trying to reduce it to a dog lawsuit and tacking the words tort award $7.2m -- that is a partisan, editorial attempt to hurt Tort Warriors. WSJ was just reporting on (though gladly accepting) what they were told by The Manhattan Institute. The MI is a conservative think tank in NYC. It probably gets funding from the very business lobby group that wants to curb tort awards. MI prez Larry Mone sat on a May 29 panel with Edward H. Crane III (Cato Institute), Christopher DeMuth (American Enterprise Institute), and Edwin J. Feulner Jr. (Heritage Foundation). That is one heavy-duty line-up for far right big business-fueled institutions. Ken. -- Tolerance means to have the questions. Fanaticism means to have the answers. -- Elie Wiesel --- cut here --- Los Angeles Times: May 9, 2003. pg. B.1 Ed McMahon Settles Suit Over Mold for $7.2 Million Jean Guccione. Abstract (Article Summary) Ed McMahon and his wife, Pamela, sued American Equity Insurance Co. in April 2002 for breach of contract, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The couple and members of their household staff were sickened by toxic mold that spread through their six-bedroom, Mediterranean-style house after contractors failed to properly clean up water damage from a broken pipe, their lawsuit alleged. The pipe broke in ... --- cut here --- Ed McMahon Sues Over Mold in House Courts: Entertainer seeks $20 million from insurer, alleging he was sickened by substance after botched
Re: Corporate Democrats
Kenneth Campbell wrote: The lesson here is to remain militant in the streets, not to back a bourgeois politician. Ironically, this is, itself, a flawed analogy. Militant in the streets is lingo from an era of ascendant working class interests -- in particular, radical lingo from the 60s-70s. (Militancy, itself, is older than that, of course.) Why is this an either/or thing? Why can't we, whoever we are, do more than one thing? Why isn't it better to have a bourgeois politician in office who owes a few favors to people like us rather than someone who hates us with a passion? Doug
Re: Corporate Democrats
Doug wrote: Louis: The lesson here is to remain militant in the streets, not to back a bourgeois politician. Me: Ironically, this is, itself, a flawed analogy. Militant in the streets is lingo from an era of ascendant working class interests -- in particular, radical lingo from the 60s-70s. (Militancy, itself, is older than that, of course.) Doug: Why is this an either/or thing? Why can't we, whoever we are, do more than one thing? Why isn't it better to have a bourgeois politician in office who owes a few favors to people like us rather than someone who hates us with a passion? Wel... I do not think it is an either/or thing... I think I said the same thing as you, quoted above, in the last paragraph of that post of mine that you quote... Me: At any rate -- We are all grown ups and can ally with whatever we wish at any strategic moment and not fear having to lose sight of the reason we gave a shit in the first place. That cuts both ways, btw. Ken. -- If Jesus had been killed twenty years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses. -- Lenny Bruce
Re: Corporate Democrats
Kenneth Campbell wrote: Wel... I do not think it is an either/or thing... I think I said the same thing as you, quoted above, in the last paragraph of that post of mine that you quote... Sorry, I wasn't responding to you really, but to the person you quoted. Doug
Re: Economics and law
Actually I dont think that the Pinto Case was one of a straightforward cost-benefit analysis and didnt even include matters such as the cost of lawsuits per se except perhaps indirectly since it included the cost of human lives and of injuries. The human life values were themselves based upon government figures. - Original Message - From: Kenneth Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 11:05 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Economics and law Charles wrote: You are probably aware that many juries ( composed largely on North American workers) have given such high awards often that the rightwing has been carrying out tort reform for a while, whereby caps are put on the amounts. It was my understanding that many of these awards are severely reduced on the appellate level... which does not involved juries (hence people outside the law). There is a buffer there, too, no? (But you are right about the political agenda behind removing in the initial awards.) Left wing lawyers (Maurice Sugar and others) played a big role in developing products liability law. I do not currently know the development of product liability law. I would imagine it came out of the early 1900s in the US. If you have any more research, I would appreciate it. It would be helpful to put it in context. Ken. -- The future is something which everyone reaches at the rate of 60 minutes an hour, whatever he does, whoever he is. -- C.S. Lewis
Re: Corporate Democrats
At 12:18 PM -0400 8/10/04, Doug Henwood wrote: Why isn't it better to have a bourgeois politician in office who owes a few favors to people like us rather than someone who hates us with a passion? Expecting the Democratic Party elite to think that they owe working-class Democrats a few favors is like expecting fraudsters to think that they owe a few favors to their marks. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Economics and law
I meant to incude this passage in the last message. Actually even less costly improvements such as a bladder or a baffle in the gas tank would have prevented most of the deaths and injuries. But even the original calculation was not accurate as shown below. THere is nothing about legal costs either. Cheers, Ken Hanly http://www.fordpinto.com/blowup.htm The financial analysis that Ford conducted on the Pinto concluded that it was not cost-efficient to add an $11 per car cost in order to correct a flaw. Benefits derived from spending this amount of money were estimated to be $49.5 million. This estimate assumed that each death, which could be avoided, would be worth $200,000, that each major burn injury that could be avoided would be worth $67,000 and that an average repair cost of $700 per car involved in a rear end accident would be avoided. It further assumed that there would be 2,100 burned vehicles, 180 serious burn injuries, and 180 burn deaths in making this calculation. When the unit cost was spread out over the number of cars and light trucks which would be affected by the design change, at a cost of $11 per vehicle, the cost was calculated to be $137 million, much greater then the $49.5 million benefit. These figures, which describe the fatalities and injuries, are false. All independent experts estimate that for each person who dies by an auto fire, many more are left with charred hands, faces and limbs. This means that Fords 1:1 death to injury ratio is inaccurate and the costs for Fords settlements would have been much closer to the cost of implementing a solution to the problem. However, Fords cost-benefit analysis, which places a dollar value on human life, said it wasn't profitable to make any changes to the car. - Original Message - From: Kenneth Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 11:05 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Economics and law Charles wrote: You are probably aware that many juries ( composed largely on North American workers) have given such high awards often that the rightwing has been carrying out tort reform for a while, whereby caps are put on the amounts. It was my understanding that many of these awards are severely reduced on the appellate level... which does not involved juries (hence people outside the law). There is a buffer there, too, no? (But you are right about the political agenda behind removing in the initial awards.) Left wing lawyers (Maurice Sugar and others) played a big role in developing products liability law. I do not currently know the development of product liability law. I would imagine it came out of the early 1900s in the US. If you have any more research, I would appreciate it. It would be helpful to put it in context. Ken. -- The future is something which everyone reaches at the rate of 60 minutes an hour, whatever he does, whoever he is. -- C.S. Lewis
Re: Corporate Democrats
Yoshie wrote: I've seen folks here and elsewhere contemptuously dismiss an independent electoral challenge to the Democratic Party from the left (Nader/Camejo and Greens who support them), an attempt to make voices for peace heard inside the Democratic Party (Kucinich and those who supported him), and now even protests (militant or theatrical) in the streets. I've yet hear them present what they believe to be worth doing, let alone see them actually doing it. -- That's not entirely fair comment. My impression is that most of the criticisms on the list of the Nader/Camejo ticket haven't been contemptuous -- certainly not any more so than some of the opposing comments directed at them -- but, in any event, we can agree that this kind of tone from both quarters isn't constructive. I think the great majority of contributors to left-wing lists also support strikes and demonstrations, and many participate in them as the opportunity presents itself, although the general level of activity is almost certainly less than your own. This may reflect a sense, which I share, that there has to be evidence of mass sentiment for strikes and demonstrations, and this sentiment almost always surfaces in response to objective threats -- to economic security, in the form of a sharp deterioration in living and working conditions, or from fear of war and other threats to physical security. Unless and until such conditions are present, attempts to conjure up street protests through tireless propaganda by radical intellectuals often only appear frenetic and incomprehensible to those they're aimed at. I'm referring here not only to other progressive intellectuals, but also and perhaps especially to skilled workers, who have a good grasp of their own circumstances and how to deal with them, despite the patronizing way they are often dismissed as having false consciousness. In other words, where mass concern is evident, as it was, for example, in last year's leadup to the war in Iraq, people will turn out to demonstrate. But to imagine you can create strikes, demonstrations, and other forms of mass activity in the streets through the sheer power of ideas, where the conditions for those ideas to take root are largely absent, strikes me as -- well, idealism. I suspect most other people feel this way also, even if they haven't articulated it that way to themselves. I can't speak for others, but I've indicated previously that I think the most meaningful mass political activity which is currently taking place in the US is among rank-and-file Democrats and others you (contemptuously?) refer to as ABB'ers. The current election has the character of a referendum on US economic and foreign policy, which distinguishes it from the usual run-of-the-mill electoral entertainment in liberal democracies, and the unusual intensity of feeling between the Democratic and Republican ranks, and within the left, testifies to the importance attached to it. You may not accept this, but I would welcome it if anti-Bush hostility were expressed in a mass movement towards the more progressive Nader/Camejo ticket. But the objective conditions clearly don't exist for that, and your efforts to build support for such a movement through tireless propaganda do, alas, appear mostly frenetic and incomprehensible -- and antagonistic -- to the overwhelming majority of well-intentioned intellectuals and workers who have consciously determined that a repudiation of the economic and foreign policies of their government requires throwing out the Bush administration. I don't think you'll ever persuade them that goal can be realized by voting Green as opposed to Democratic. As Tariq Ali has noted, a Bush defeat will be interpreted as a repudiation of current US policies by the rest of the world, which is why we outside the States are also watching the election so closely. Finally, I don't think participation in this process is in contradiction to organizing parallel antiwar actions among antiwar Democrats and ABB'ers, as you suggest. It would, in fact, complement such efforts. On the other hand, your preoccupation with the Greens' electoral fortunes goes in the other direction. It is in contradiction to building bridges to, and mobilizing, this massive constituency for more radical action. I hope, respectfully, this helps answer your question about what some of think is worth doing, and not doing. Marv Gandall
Cobb or Nader?
Counterpunch, August 10, 2004 Crossroads for the California Green Party Will It Be Nader or Cobb? By TODD CHRETIEN In the next couple days, the California Green Party will decide whether or not to hold a state-wide convention to consider putting Nader/Camejo on the ballot. What will the party do? Abraham Lincoln once said, If I can save the union by freeing none of the slaves, I will do it. If I can save the union by freeing some of the slaves, I will do it. And if I must saved the union by freeing all of the slaves, I will do it. In other words, he was confused and he waffled at the beginning of the war. He wasn't sure what to do. As the war dragged on in 1861 and 1862, with the danger of Britain intervening on the side of the South looming over him, Lincoln decided that the only way to win the war was to rally the North to the cause of emancipation and to arm the slaves to fight for their own freedom. Lincoln did not bind his hands over issues of process. He determined that the cause of justice outweighed the inertia of the constitution and took his stand on the side of action. Today, the Green Party of California, as well as that of Vermont, is engaged in a very sharp debate, and it is not about process. It is about the political direction of the party. One group supports David Cobb's nomination and defends the central pillar of his campaign, the smart state strategy. Another group argues that Cobb's nomination was the result of a rigged convention process that defied the will of the majority Greens by choosing Cobb over Nader/Camejo in order to grant backdoor support to John Kerry. Perhaps this would have remained an academic debate about internal Green Party process, but two new facts have re-opened it. First, although it was in motion before the Milwaukee convention, the campaign by the Democratic Party to disenfranchise millions of voters who support Nader/Camejo by employing Florida tactics to keep Nader off the ballot has developed into the most serious attack on democratic elections in the United States since the end of Jim Crow. Second, it has come to light in the past 48 hours that the California state Green Party, according to its own election code, can hold a state nominating convention in order to place a candidate on the ballot. These two facts give California Greens the motive and the opportunity to nominate Nader/Camejo for the California ballot, according to the rules and precedents of previous elections. Most Greens, especially in California, are only just becoming aware of the debate over the Milwaukee convention. The case laid out by Forrest Hill and Carol Miller in their essay Rigged Convention, Divided Party, explaining why the Milwaukee vote was undemocratic will be carefully studied by California Greens. Leading Green Dean Myerson has replied in a lengthy rebuttal to some Green Party lists. However, even some who believe that the rules used in Milwaukee were unfair, but that they could only be reformed next year at the next national convention, are now open to considering changing the California nomination to Nader/Camejo. To begin with, the California Greens can hold a state-wide nominating convention, as the party did in 1992, 1996 and 2000. Holding the state-wide nominating convention will be the best way available at this time to understand the will of the more than 160,000 California rank and file Green Party members in California. The California Green Party has been given a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to dramatically raise its profile. Far from being a burden, holding a highly publicized nominating convention (in the days before the lunatic circus called the RNC) will act as a megaphone for the youth and the disenfranchised to hear what the party has to say about the need for an alternative to the two pro-war parties. The convention would take place just as campuses across California are opening session and could be the launching pad for an aggressive recruitment drive to win thousands of young people to the party. Besides the war radicalizing students, Gov. Schwarzenegger and the Democratic majority in Sacramento are ramming through catastrophic cuts to public education, which led to huge walk-outs and protests of state and community college students last spring. These students are alienated from mainstream politics and they are not enthusiastic about Kerry's Bush-lite program. full: http://www.counterpunch.org/chretien08102004.html -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Fidel Castro horrified by China
Castro Turns 78 Rolling Back Capitalism in Cuba Tue Aug 10, 2004 12:16 AM ET By Anthony Boadle HAVANA (Reuters) - Cuban President Fidel Castro turns 78 on Friday striving to roll back creeping capitalism in the socialist society he built from a guerrilla revolution in 1959. The world's longest-serving Communist leader has belied forecasts of his demise since the collapse of the Soviet Union deprived the Caribbean island of billions of dollars in subsidies and plunged its 11 million people into economic hardship. Fidel, like his country, has continued to defy the odds, said Canadian historian and Cuba expert John Kirk, a professor at Dalhousie University in Halifax. Still remarkably lucid at 78, despite slowing down noticeably, he clearly remains determined to stay around and protect the revolutionary legacy of Cuba, Kirk said. Ten summers ago, angered by shortages and long power cuts, Cubans took to the streets, smashed shop windows and looted central Havana stores in an unprecedented outburst of unrest. Castro, dressed in his trademark green uniform, showed up in a military jeep to quell the riots with his charismatic presence. Cubans, who had been shouting against the government minutes before, began chanting Viva Fidel. Castro released simmering social pressures by letting tens of thousands of Cubans take to sea in flimsy rafts bound for the United States. Also in response to the economic crisis, from 1993 he reluctantly allowed limited private enterprise and legalized the U.S. dollar to ease economic hardship, while opening up Cuba to tourism and foreign investment. A decade later, Cuba's one-party Communist government is retrenching and reasserting state control over the economy. It has cut back permits for private traders and small businesses and has begun strengthening its hold over state corporations, especially in tourism, the island's main source of hard currency. There, military officers have moved into key posts. Foreign investment has slowed to a trickle, and discouraged investors complain they don't feel welcome anymore as officials move to reverse market-oriented reforms. HORRIFIED BY CHINA Western observers said Castro was shocked by the rapid move to capitalism and growing social differences he witnessed in China last year. There is no coincidence that a lot of this has happened since he visited China. Many people say he was horrified with what he saw, said a European ambassador. He is the sort of man who does not want to see his legacy diluted in his lifetime, the diplomat said, adding that Castro was probably unaware of the extent of social decay in Cuba. Cuba's free education, health care and social safety net are seen as a model by many poor developing countries. Its literacy and infant mortality rates are on a par with rich nations. Castro's critics say that comes at the expense of freedom. Most Cubans are forced to scrape a living together, cope with bad housing and poor public services. Furthermore, they cannot leave Cuba at will and dissent is stamped out, the critics say. Facing growing discontent over economic difficulties, Castro last year ordered the arrest of 75 dissidents who were sentenced to jail terms of up to 28 years for conspiring with Washington. Repression of a budding opposition movement and the execution by firing-squad of three men who tried to hijack a ferry to leave Cuba brought international outrage that led to a diplomatic freeze with the European Union that deepened Havana's isolation. Increased efforts by the Bush administration to oust the Cuban leader and prepare for a transition to democracy have only served to goad him to dig his heels in, said Kirk. With the economy in better shape than a decade ago, Cuba's conservatives no longer feel the need to make concessions by opening up the economy, and retrenchment will continue, he said. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Corporate Democrats
At 12:52 PM -0400 8/10/04, Marvin Gandall wrote: But to imagine you can create strikes, demonstrations, and other forms of mass activity in the streets through the sheer power of ideas, where the conditions for those ideas to take root are largely absent, strikes me as -- well, idealism. You are setting up a straw man. No one has suggested here that we can organize a mass action even when and where there is no desire for such an action on the part of people. My posting was in response to the remark that militant demonstrations in the streets are tactics of another era and that protests that are more theatrical than militant are merely marginal. At 12:52 PM -0400 8/10/04, Marvin Gandall wrote: I can't speak for others, but I've indicated previously that I think the most meaningful mass political activity which is currently taking place in the US is among rank-and-file Democrats and others you (contemptuously?) refer to as ABB'ers. The current election has the character of a referendum on US economic and foreign policy, which distinguishes it from the usual run-of-the-mill electoral entertainment in liberal democracies, and the unusual intensity of feeling between the Democratic and Republican ranks, and within the left, testifies to the importance attached to it. A minority of workers, intellectuals, and capitalists probably think that [t]he current election has the character of a referendum on US economic and foreign policy, but that doesn't make it effectively so in practice. At 12:52 PM -0400 8/10/04, Marvin Gandall wrote: But the objective conditions clearly don't exist for that, and your efforts to build support for such a movement through tireless propaganda do, alas, appear mostly frenetic and incomprehensible -- and antagonistic -- to the overwhelming majority of well-intentioned intellectuals and workers who have consciously determined that a repudiation of the economic and foreign policies of their government requires throwing out the Bush administration. I don't think you'll ever persuade them that goal can be realized by voting Green as opposed to Democratic. I don't believe that Nader/Camejo this year will be able to persuade the well-intentioned intellectuals and workers who are committed to voting for Kerry or Bush to do otherwise, nor do I think that persuading them to change their mind in time for the November election is the task of this year. It will be politically significant, however, if all who have said that they support Nader/Camejo -- to say nothing of all who have said that they consider voting for Nader/Camejo -- will actually be able to vote for them, and I intend my remarks for this sector of the working-class population -- roughly 2-7% of the voting-age population, even if we count only those who have actually expressed support in the polls, which is to say, approximately 4.4 to 15.4 million people. At 12:52 PM -0400 8/10/04, Marvin Gandall wrote: Finally, I don't think participation in this process is in contradiction to organizing parallel antiwar actions among antiwar Democrats and ABB'ers, as you suggest. It would, in fact, complement such efforts. All indications are that those who want to elect Kerry at all costs have made conscious efforts to silence voices against the occupations, keeping Nader/Camejo off the ballots, toning down the DNC protests, etc. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Corporate Democrats
Yoshie wrote: My posting was in response to the remark that militant demonstrations in the streets are tactics of another era and that protests that are more theatrical than militant are merely marginal. Shame on the person who wrote that horrible thing you respond to... Ken. -- Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power. -- Benito Mussolini
Re: Looming natural gas shortages
Louis Proyect writes: Darley touches briefly on alternative sources of energy, such as hydrogen, solar and wind, but discounts them as full-scale replacements for oil and gas because their implementation is too expensive. Nonsense. Darley seems not to realize that hydrogen, which must be produced, is not a source but a storage medium for solar energy (of which wind is itself a natural storage medium). Much worse, by saying that harnessing solar energy by means of wind turbines or photovoltaic panels is too expensive, he denies that there exist today huge quantities of unused or misused resources that could be put to work right away--at little or no sacrifice of socially necessary consumption--to provide for all increases in electricity production while reducing steadily the proportion of electric power derived from fossile fuel and nuclear sources. And this doesn't even begin to hint at the cost reductions to be counted on from economies of mass production and from the scientific/technological progress always produced by a very rapidly expanding new sphere of production. If solar energy is too expensive for private capitalists today that is merely one (more) illustration that the capitalist mode of production has become a heavy fetter on the growth of the social forces of production. The solution is not rustication, it is economic planning in preparation for the socialist transition to communism. Shane Mage Thunderbolt steers all things...It consents and does not consent to be called Zeus. Herakleitos of Ephesos
Re: Continuing China fever
Peter Olney of the Institute for Labor and Employment in CA has written on the need for organized labor in the U.S. to hone its domestic sights on what the FT reporter termed the global hub-and-spoke network (which) is designed to link hundreds of towns and cities with an overnight communications infrastructure that keeps the world's just-in-time supply chain taut. As Michael noted, state Dems saved the ILE from Gov. Arnolds budget knife. Seth Sandronsky Date:Mon, 9 Aug 2004 12:23:22 -0400 From:Marvin Gandall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Continuing China fever Today's Financial Times offers more dramatic evidence of how China has become the new beacon for Western-based multinationals. It describes the fierce struggle for dominance being waged over control of the lucrative China-US air cargo trade by FedEx, UPS, and European carriers like DHL --somewhat reminiscent of earlier competition over the sea trade lanes. The air cargo battle is being waged at both ends - in China, for customers and distribution hubs, and in the US, for landing rights. The article is another illustration of how from iconic multinationals such as General Motors, General Electric and Goldman Sachs, to specialists such as Home Depot or Avon, almost every significant chief executive has Chinese expansion plans at the top of his or her to-do list...lately the level of interest has begun to feel more like an obsession. The looming cloud on the horizon, of course, is the potential collapse of the US dollar, on which this booming export trade depends. But the parallel rapid development of the Chinese domestic market lends support to the view that if the 19th century belonged to Britain and the 20th century to the US, the 21st may well belong to China. Marv Gandall --- Midnight in Memphis, new dawn in China By Dan Roberts Financial Times August 9 2004 High over the Pacific Ocean, flight FX 24 from Shanghai to Memphis is one of the most closely monitored aircraft entering US airspace. Every night the Federal Express cargo jet is packed with 77 tonnes of digital cameras, mobile phones and other high-value electronics that make it the company's single largest source of revenue and a significant contributor to America's ballooning trade deficit. Until recently the top priority route for FedEx was its daily flight from Tokyo, which carries express packages from all over Asia. But as with most big US companies, FedEx's attention is increasingly focused on one market: China. Corporate America's interest in the world's most populous nation is nothing new - China's dramatic economic boom has aroused growing curiosity from US boardrooms for several years. But lately the level of interest has begun to feel more like an obsession. During Wall Street's last round of quarterly earnings announcements, few large companies got very far into their conference calls with analysts before the subject of China came up. From iconic multinationals such as General Motors, General Electric and Goldman Sachs, to specialists such as Home Depot or Avon, almost every significant chief executive has Chinese expansion plans at the top of his or her to-do list. As domestic US growth shows signs of slowing and Europe's recovery remains relatively subdued, business leaders in the world's largest economy are determined not to miss China's potential contribution to the bottom line. Rising profits from China play an essential part in many analysts' financial modelling for this year and next. There are plenty of potential problems. Many smaller companies still view China predominantly as a threat. European and Japanese multinationals are queueing to claim their share of the prize. And it is not yet clear how far Beijing may be prepared to welcome foreign competition for Chinese companies in some sectors. One way to take the pulse of corporate America's love affair with all things Chinese is to watch the elaborate mating game being played out by companies such as FedEx. Express cargo aircraft are the clipper ships of the modern age, carrying 2 per cent of international trade measured by volume but 50 per cent measured by value. In the early hours of a sticky Tennessee night more than 80 of these aircraft an hour descend into FedEx's global hub at Memphis, making it the busiest cargo airport in the world. A military-style command and control centre ensures that, no matter how bad the thunderstorms get over the Midwest, the valuable flights from Asia are always the last to be diverted or cancelled. But the express logistics industry is about more than just ferrying cargo back and forth. A global hub-and-spoke network is designed to link hundreds of towns and cities with an overnight communications infrastructure that keeps the world's just-in-time supply chain taut. In developed markets such as the US, the ability to guarantee overnight shipment of parts and finished goods has allowed companies to reduce average inventory levels by a fifth over the
Re: Economics and law
I meant I do think that it is a straightforward case of cb analysis...sorry.. By the way a Pinto built in Canada and tested by the govt in Arizona passed a crash test. Seems that the later models were built a bit differently in Canada with a baffle that cost about a buck that made a lot of difference in crash impact. Cheers, Ken Hanly Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: ken hanly [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 11:46 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Economics and law Actually I dont think that the Pinto Case was one of a straightforward cost-benefit analysis and didnt even include matters such as the cost of lawsuits per se except perhaps indirectly since it included the cost of human lives and of injuries. The human life values were themselves based upon government figures.
Re: Whither the Fed?
Jim wrote: I would guess that the Fed -- led by Dubya's close friend Alan, who visits the White House more than weekly -- is going to surprise the financial markets by standing pat on August 10th. (I'll be out of the country, so I won't be able to stop them.) The Fed raised the rate today. How committed are they to this course of action in the next 12-18 months? -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Greens For Nader Update: Rigged Convention Divides Green Party (Sign and Forward This)
At 1:07 PM -0400 8/9/04, Michael Hoover wrote: nader people might be of greater help to polity in general (of course, this is electoral campaign which, by definition, has narrow focus) by highlighting unequal/unjust ballot access procedures, state by state rules are clear violation of 14th admendment equal protection... The best way to highlight unequal/unjust ballot access procedures is to actually run a campaign that runs afoul of them -- then, there is a practical struggle. Who cares if ballot access procedures are unequal and unjust if there is no candidate other than the Democratic and Republican ones to begin with? At 1:07 PM -0400 8/9/04, Michael Hoover wrote: carcasses of 'minor' parties across u.s. political landscape Minor parties -- the Liberal Party, the Free Soil Party, etc. -- are destined to die, but they are among the important political arenas through which people network, gain experience, and accumulate knowledge, and I'm interested in what individuals who are trained in struggles that cannot immediately achieve their goals learn and what they will do with what they have learned. We need to keep learning from major failures and minor successes until we encounter objective conditions that may allow us to make use of our experience and knowledge. At 1:07 PM -0400 8/9/04, Michael Hoover wrote: reform party line is absolutely irrevelevant in states where party has ballot status save two - florida and michigan (drum roll please - so-called 'battlegrounds') It would be ironic if Cobb/LaMarche are on the Green Party ballots in one-party states and Nader/Camejo are on the ballots in battleground states. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Economics and law
by Kenneth Campbell Charles wrote: You are probably aware that many juries ( composed largely on North American workers) have given such high awards often that the rightwing has been carrying out tort reform for a while, whereby caps are put on the amounts. It was my understanding that many of these awards are severely reduced on the appellate level... which does not involved juries (hence people outside the law). ^^ CB: Yes, appeals court judges, and in Michigan the legislature, led by insurance companies , using the trial lawyers (not the victims obviously) as the marketing target, changed the statutes to cap awards. There is a buffer there, too, no? ^^ CB: Sorry, the appeals courts are a buffer , you mean ? ^ (But you are right about the political agenda behind removing in the initial awards.) Left wing lawyers (Maurice Sugar and others) played a big role in developing products liability law. I do not currently know the development of product liability law. I would imagine it came out of the early 1900s in the US. If you have any more research, I would appreciate it. It would be helpful to put it in context. ^ CB: Yes, early 1900's exactly, with the rise of the automobile, as I was taught in law school. I don't have any specific research myself. However, products liability is a standard category in tort law, so if you put the term in search engine , there would be tons of stuff.
Economics and law
by ken hanly Actually I dont think that the Pinto Case was one of a straightforward cost-benefit analysis and didn't even include matters such as the cost of lawsuits per se except perhaps indirectly since it included the cost of human lives and of injuries. The human life values were themselves based upon government figures. ^ CB: Maybe I wasn't entirely clear on what Kenneth Campbell's original point was. In the Pinto case, not only was a human life given a dollar value, but it was determined (maybe even erroneously from the second post you sent) that because the cost of paying for a dead person's life in tort was less than making a standard modification of the Pinto, that they would let the people die , because the cost of paying for it was less ! That seems to have something to do with what he was getting at. I think they had to use approximate jury awards for wrongful death, as that would be what they would be paying out in lieu of making the change in the tank.
Fidel Castro horrified by China
by Louis Proyect -clip- He is the sort of man who does not want to see his legacy diluted in his lifetime, the diplomat said, adding that Castro was probably unaware of the extent of social decay in Cuba. ^^ CB: Social decay in Cuba or China ?
Re: Economics and law
Regarding the Pinto, cost/benefit analysis, etc., what exactly is the issue? I mean, we know with certainty that a certain number of people are going to die each year from auto accidents. We also know that if we reduced the speed limit to 5 m.p.h. required all passengers to wear helmets, required safety designs used for race cars, etc., the deaths would all be eliminated. But we don't, because the costs of doing so would be astronomical, and most people seem prepared to assume certain risks in consideration for conveniences and benefits. So is the problem the concept of cost/benefit analysis, the improper implementation of cost/benefit analysis, or disagreement about what are costs and benefits? If you reject cost/benefit analysis, how could you ever decide whether any marginal rule should be accepted or rejected? Why does this issue have anything to do with capitalism/socialism -- would not these issues have to be addressed no matter how the society is organized? David Shemano
Re: Fidel Castro horrified by China
My guess is that this is a reference to prostitution in Cuba. Charles Brown wrote: by Louis Proyect -clip- He is the sort of man who does not want to see his legacy diluted in his lifetime, the diplomat said, adding that Castro was probably unaware of the extent of social decay in Cuba. ^^ CB: Social decay in Cuba or China ? . -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Whither the Fed?
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: The Fed raised the rate today. How committed are they to this course of action in the next 12-18 months? All depends on the data that comes out over the next 12-18 months. They don't have any preconceived strategy; it's strictly a seat of the pants operation. Doug
Re: Economics and law
David, the problem with the Pinto is that the government does not adequately regulate safety -- not even to the extent of making relevant information available -- so the regulation is left to the lawsuits -- a very inefficient way of doing things. A few bucks for a protective gasket would not have meant that much. In hindsight it was stupid, but very costly for a number of innocent people. Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David B. Shemano Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 12:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Economics and law Regarding the Pinto, cost/benefit analysis, etc., what exactly is the issue? I mean, we know with certainty that a certain number of people are going to die each year from auto accidents. We also know that if we reduced the speed limit to 5 m.p.h. required all passengers to wear helmets, required safety designs used for race cars, etc., the deaths would all be eliminated. But we don't, because the costs of doing so would be astronomical, and most people seem prepared to assume certain risks in consideration for conveniences and benefits. So is the problem the concept of cost/benefit analysis, the improper implementation of cost/benefit analysis, or disagreement about what are costs and benefits? If you reject cost/benefit analysis, how could you ever decide whether any marginal rule should be accepted or rejected? Why does this issue have anything to do with capitalism/socialism -- would not these issues have to be addressed no matter how the society is organized? David Shemano
Economics and law
I think the thing with the Pinto is that Ford concluded that it would cost them less to pay for wrongful death suits than to put something in the Pintos that would stop them from exploding in rear end collisions. I suppose this is the issue in dispute, but the greater cost of the part to prevent the explosions doesn't seem astronomical to me. So, the problem is a difference of opinion in the value figures we should put in the cost/benefit slots, sort of . Myself, I think the benefit of reducing the speed limit substantially ( maybe not to 5 miles per hour), and more safety features of the type you mention would be worth it in the lives and injuries saved, and the cost would not be astronomical given what would be saved. In other words, the value of a human life _is_ astronomical, well, relative to the conveniences that are had by being able to go 75 instead of 40. I think you are right that the problem wouldn't just go away with socialism. There might , in general, in socialism be more focus on some safety issues when the decision would not depend upon how the safer engineering impacted an individual corporation's bottomline. I can see a socialism more readily developing its transportation system with all the safety features you suggest, and not experiencing them economically as astronomical. If there was safety focus comprehensively and for a long time, it might be very practical to do it better safety wise. Charles ^^ by David B. Shemano Regarding the Pinto, cost/benefit analysis, etc., what exactly is the issue? I mean, we know with certainty that a certain number of people are going to die each year from auto accidents. We also know that if we reduced the speed limit to 5 m.p.h. required all passengers to wear helmets, required safety designs used for race cars, etc., the deaths would all be eliminated. But we don't, because the costs of doing so would be astronomical, and most people seem prepared to assume certain risks in consideration for conveniences and benefits. So is the problem the concept of cost/benefit analysis, the improper implementation of cost/benefit analysis, or disagreement about what are costs and benefits? If you reject cost/benefit analysis, how could you ever decide whether any marginal rule should be accepted or rejected? Why does this issue have anything to do with capitalism/socialism -- would not these issues have to be addressed no matter how the society is organized? David Shemano
Re: Economics and law
CHARLES BROWN WROTE: ...Myself, I think the benefit of reducing the speed limit substantially ( maybe not to 5 miles per hour), and more safety features of the type you mention would be worth it in the lives and injuries saved... The French have reduced highway deaths by more than 25% over the past year simply by enforcing existing speed limits (widespread use of computer camera/radar automatic ticketing for speeding-- with very substantial fines) Shane Mage Thunderbolt steers all things...It consents and does not consent to be called Zeus. Herakleitos of Ephesos
Re: Economics and law
" David, the problem with the Pinto is that the government does notadequately regulate safety -- not even to the extent of making relevantinformation available -- so the regulation is left to the lawsuits -- avery inefficient way of doing things. Doesn't Richard Epstein (the Chicago LE extremist who argues that we shoukd destroy the administarive/welfare state withTakings Clause of the Constitution)argue, in Simple Rules For A Complex World, that regulation by lawsuits is the most efficient form of regulation? I can't recall how the argument goes though. I don't know about auto safety, but the govt definitely goes overboard in safety regulations of other things -- drugs, for example. The FDA won't allwo lots drugs that have been proven OK are are widely available in other industrualized countries. I wonder why that is.Maybe taht raises the cost of drugs, thus providing larger profits for Big Pharma. That's pretty vulgar Maexist of me, of course. I think it depends on the area. A few bucks for a protective gasket would not have meant that much. Inhindsight it was stupid, but very costly for a number of innocentpeople. Actually the Pinto case raises a very deep and extremely hard issue. What exactly whas it that Ford did that seems to terribly wrong? I don't dispute the idea that Ford did something bad, but what was it? As David says, we know as sure as God made little green apples that every design decision an automaker makes will cost lives. Even if the decision is to build every car to be a tank. Each individual choice may be small in terms of the cost, but of course if cars are made maximally safe they will be tanks,and very expensive.Which no one wants.What we don't know, unless we study it beforehand, is how many lives each decision will cost. Was wrong of Ford to calculate the cost in lives beforehand? Is ignorance better? Well, Ford also calculated the cost in term of money, gave money values to the wrongful death and negligence lawsuits that might expected to occur as the result of making the decision, decided that it was worth it in terms of profitspaying that cost and letting the additional people die. That seems cold-blooded, it was the basis of the criminal prosecution that failed. But we also know that any design decision means deaths, lawsuits, effects on profits. Is it bad or wrong to think about those things in making the design decisions? Or to think about them too clearly on the basis of quantified estimates?It should rather be done vaguely, by guesses? I am actually rather at a loss how to approach this one. As a socialist I am sort of inclined to say that in capitalism the problem is not that we get accurate information about the costs, including in lives, of our choices, but that the nature of the system is that considerations of profit tend to dominate the process. But even a socialist society would have to accept that its design decisions would lead to deaths. Safety is not free, and we are not willing or able to pay an infinite price for it. jks Michael PerelmanEconomics DepartmentCalifornia State UniversityChico, CA95929-Original Message-From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David B.ShemanoSent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 12:55 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Economics and lawRegarding the Pinto, cost/benefit analysis, etc., what exactly is theissue? I mean, we know with certainty that a certain number of peopleare going to die each year from auto accidents. We also know that if wereduced the speed limit to 5 m.p.h. required all passengers to wearhelmets, required safety designs used for race cars, etc., the deathswould all be eliminated. But we don't, because the costs of doing sowould be astronomical, and most people seem prepared to assume certainrisks in consideration for conveniences and benefits. So is the problemthe concept of cost/benefit analysis, the improper implementation ofcost/benefit analysis, or disagreement about what are costs andbenefits? If you reject cost/benefit analysis, how could you everdecide whether any marginal rule should be accepted or rejected? Whydoes this issue have anything to do with capitalism/socialism -- wouldnot these issues have to be addressed no matter how the society isorganized?David Shemano Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
Re: Fidel Castro horrified by China
HORRIFIED BY CHINA Western observers said Castro was shocked by the rapid move to capitalism and growing social differences he witnessed in China last year. "There is no coincidence that a lot of this has happened since he visited China. Many people say he was horrified with what he saw," said a European ambassador. Comment Someone said that Castro said something . . . and with my dumb ass I thought this thread might be about something that FidelCastro (the paramount leader) had stated . . . instead of someone saying that Castro said something . . . about China. From my standpoint the conversation concerning China gets loud because of the lack of concrete economic and political data. Then ideology parades as insight. Last December insurance giant China Life completed the largest initial public offering in the world, raising US$3.46 billion, after raising allotments and pricing shares at the high end of estimates. In terms of the "capitalism or socialism" debate around China . . . and I am of the opinion that China has the largest socialist economy on earth in real time . . . and yes . . . the bourgeois property relations also exists in China . . . hard economic data and economic logic and insight is hard to come by. Dig China Life . . . an insurance company . . . that drew billions of dollars to it in an environment where interest payments from banks can be as small as 1/100 of 1 percent . . . annually. If China's non agricultural workforce is between 350 and 400 million . . . with roughly 100 million in the NON STATE SECTOR . . . then the question becomes what is the economic meaning of state sector and non state sector in China? Let's forget about the 800 million in agriculture . . . who under the best conditions of industrial socialism ... can only alienate their products on the basis of exchange . . . no matter what the form of property in land. What is the non state sector in respects to say China Life? Check out the following excerpt about China Life . . . and then ponder the question is China socialism or capitalism? Excerpt . . . begins here. China Life, like most companies China opens to overseas investors, is state-owned. It's been sliced and diced to create a Frankenstein offering of selected viable parts in order to pass muster with regulators and tempt investors. Bolted on to the top of this monster as its brain is the State Council of the People's Republic of China. The State Council has many constituencies to satisfy, and foreign investors will never climb very high on its list. That's because no foreign investor can threaten the Communist Party's monopoly on power the way domestic rivals or mass unrest might. Foreigners also get limited respect since investors keep falling over themselves to get a piece of the Chinese dream, as they have for the past century and a half. If the Chinese leadership had a good deal to offer, ask yourself, why would they offer it to you and the rest of the overseas investing public? That view may seem outdated, looking at the China that Deng invented and Zhu Rongji revved into the world's fastest-growing nation for a decade. But two other incidents last week, providing background music for flipping your China Life shares, indicate that the political leadership remains intimately involved with the economy in pursuit of its own interests. China's leading car maker, Shanghai Automobile Industrial Corp (SAIC), wants to buy South Korea's Ssangyong Motor, that nation's fourth-largest surviving car company with a dominant position in sport-utility vehicles. But China National Blue Star Group, a chemical company that provides some supplies to the auto industry, likes what it's seen of China's booming car market enough to make its own bid for Ssangyong. This high-stakes acquisition contest didn't play out in the offices of Ssangyong's bankers or lawyers, but in a Beijing meeting of China's National Development and Reform Commission, a body that reports directly to the State Council. As with any good political decision, both companies apparently left the meeting thinking they'd won the nod to bid for Ssangyong. In a wise saying that anyone tempted to think of China as just another economy ought to frame and hang on the wall, a Blue Star spokesman declared: "The Chinese government treats all companies equally - SAIC is state-owned and we are state-owned. This is a market economy, not a planned system." One with distinctly Chinese characteristics, though. This dispute between Chinese suitors will more likely result in heartaches for Ssangyong's sellers rather than a higher price. Whoever winds up with Ssangyong, the new Chinese State owners probably will continue to play by rules that suit themselves. (State-controlled companies, such as Singapore Telecom, buying assets overseas raise a host of competitive and even security questions to be examined in a future column. That Europe has the most experience with such situations is reason enough
Re: Economics and law
my understanding of the whole thing is that the popular revulsion to Ford in the Pinto case was basically Kantian; they didn't consider the people's deaths as a "cost" in themselves, but only in as much as some proportion of the deaths would probably give rise to lawsuits which would affect Ford's profits. This is of course a class-tilted way of looking at the costs; presumably there was an implicit assumption that since the Pinto was a cheap car, most of the deaths would be of poor people who'd be less likely to sue. But I think that the really revolting thing which caught the popular imagination was the idea that the only way that Ford looked at deaths of its customers was as a potential legal liability to Ford. dd Actually the Pinto case raises a very deep and extremely hard issue. What exactly whas it that Ford did that seems to terribly wrong? I don't dispute the idea that Ford did something bad, but what was it?
Re: Economics and law
David, the problem with the Pinto is that the government does not adequately regulate safety -- not even to the extent of making relevant information available -- so the regulation is left to the lawsuits -- a very inefficient way of doing things. A few bucks for a protective gasket would not have meant that much. In hindsight it was stupid, but very costly for a number of innocent people. Comment Ralph Nader was propelled to fame based on the issue of auto safety and "Unsafe At Any Speed" . . . at the time a furious attack on General Motors and the Corvair. Corvair's would turn over on your ass quicker than a Ford Navigator . . . and there is no such thing as a magic tire that can keep you on the road . . . traveling over 30 miles an hour making sharp turns. We would state . . . growing up in auto (Detroit) as a lifestyle . . . that Ford meant . . . Found On The Road Daily . . . FORD. And "Found On The Road Dead . . . Ford." Chrysler's . . . Plymouth, had those whining starters that would not start when it rained and for 20 years refused to nickel plate the yoke on the transmission shaft so that the whole damn car would lurch forward when you shifted gears or was passing from 30 to 50 miles an hour. Everyone in the corporation knew this and the unofficial official word was that it cost to much to correct problems. The Japanese auto producers and litigation took the auto magnates back to school. They are pathetic and degenerate. And Pinto's were blowing mutherfuckers up like traveling bombs. Was it not the placement of the gas tank? General Motor's and Ford made a decision that the economic cost of not putting out these ill conceived vehicles was greater than the human cost and said to hell with how many people are maimed and murdered. This attitude revolutionized litigation. Documents were produced in the Pinto cases citing internal memo's from Ford pointing out that it would be cheaper to not correct defects . . . move the gas tank . . . than to correct them. I vaguely remember the trials. This period ushered in the "huge settlements" as a dis incentive to companies taking the "cost effective road" versus human lives. Auto safety is tricky from the standpoint of modern communism because what is at stake is not the safety of automobiles as an abstraction . . . driving 70 versus 40 . . . but the whole concept and material reality of individual transportation as a primary mode of travel. I personally love driving between 70 and 90 (on the interstate) . . . in a sturdy small car and between 80 and 110 miles per hour in a "wide track." I accelerate half way into turn on the interstate and the centrical forces works for you every single time. Inertia and shit holds you into the turn. But then I freaking love vehicles and driving in a way that is perhaps not normal. I left out of Houston Texas early Sunday morning at about 5:00 am and was in Detroit Monday at 7:00 PM and did all the driving and had stopped at a motel and slept for about six hours. Yep . . . and when younger really knew had to drive and had the physical stamina. Back in the early 1970s . . . me and the comrades did a run from Detroit to Atlanta in 10 and a half hours and we were pushing 90- 110 in a 1973 Pontiac Catalina. Even with our form of individual transportation . . and I favor mass transit as the primary mode of transporting human beings . . . and any one of age should be able to rent a car . . . it is the technological capability of the infrastructure that makes individual transportation excessively unsafe. For instance . . . the auto companies are not going to pay for an enhanced interstate infrastructure where private vehicles are automatically piloted along at 70 - 90 miles an hour. Who said that private vehicles have to have rubber tires? Electrical vehicles lost out in the market during the turn of the last century. What we call the private mode of transportation evolved from a mechanical military vehicle invented back in the later 1700's . . . and became the centerpiece of industrial bourgeois development during the turn of the last century. Communism solves the problem of safety in transportation by posing the question very differently. The issue of auto safety is not really an issue of the automobile as a private mode of transportation . . . but rather the safety issue dealing with the movement of masses of people. The idea that socialism cannot solve the question of safety is not really looking at the question at its root . . . which is posed as a private mode of transportation as the primary form of people moving versus mass transportation. Don't most vehicle accident take place within 25 miles of a person's residence? Isn't a basic question . . . where were these people going and why? Dig out the stats and see where the people were going. I don't know . . . I think we are still posing the question within the bounds of the bourgeoisie and bourgeois ideology and economics. Aren't
Re: Economics and law
Michael Perelman writes: David, the problem with the Pinto is that the government does not adequately regulate safety -- not even to the extent of making relevant information available -- so the regulation is left to the lawsuits -- a very inefficient way of doing things. A few bucks for a protective gasket would not have meant that much. In hindsight it was stupid, but very costly for a number of innocent people. I don't have a strong opinion on whether regulation should be done by legislation or litigation -- it seems like a peripheral issue. The fundamental issue is how the rule maker (whether bureaucrat, judge or jury) should determine whether the specific regulation/conduct is good/bad, and I don't see any rational alternative to cost/benefit analysis, because cost/benefit analysis is simply another way of saying there are competing values and tradeoffs in every decision that have to be addressed. For instance, safety is not an absolute value that takes precedence overy everything else. That is evidenced by how people actually live their lives, and that fact must be taken into consideration when determining appropriate rules. I realize that many people react instinctively to a doctrine that assumes deaths, places a monetary value on human life, but instinctive distate is not a very compelling objection. David Shemano
Re: Economics and law
Charles Brown writes: Myself, I think the benefit of reducing the speed limit substantially ( maybe not to 5 miles per hour), and more safety features of the type you mention would be worth it in the lives and injuries saved, and the cost would not be astronomical given what would be saved. In other words, the value of a human life _is_ astronomical, well, relative to the conveniences that are had by being able to go 75 instead of 40. Why is your personal opinion relevant? I mean, I am sure I can find somebody (Melvin P.?) who apparently highly values going 100. Therefore, your opinion is cancelled out. Now what do we do? I think you are right that the problem wouldn't just go away with socialism. There might , in general, in socialism be more focus on some safety issues when the decision would not depend upon how the safer engineering impacted an individual corporation's bottomline. I can see a socialism more readily developing its transportation system with all the safety features you suggest, and not experiencing them economically as astronomical. If there was safety focus comprehensively and for a long time, it might be very practical to do it better safety wise. Why do you assume such facts for a socialist society? We have 75 years of experience with socialist inspired economies. Did they place a higher value on safety compared to comparable capitalist societies? Were they able to implement safety concerns more economically than comparable capitalist societies? It seems to me that safety increases in value as a society becomes wealthier, and the value is not correlated to the economic system itself. David Shemano
ABK Comrades!
maybe post header should have read: anybody but kerry and cobb, in any event, no need to limit oneself to left petit-bourgeois deviationism of nader, choose between several real-live socialists (commies even), and yes folks, personal choice party vp candidate is *behind green door* marilyn chambers, myself, i'd vote for leonard peltier if pf party were on florida ballot... michael hoover AMERICAN PARTY: Diane Templin (California) Presidential Nominee Al Moore (Virginia) Vice Presidential Nominee CONCERNS OF PEOPLE (PROHIBITION) PARTY: Gene Amondson (Alaska) Presidential Nominee Leroy Pletten (Michigan) Vice Presidential Nominee CONSTITUTION PARTY: Michael Peroutka (Maryland) Presidential Nominee Chuck Baldwin (Florida) Vice Presidential Nominee GREEN PARTY: David Cobb (California) Presidential Nominee Pat LaMarche (Maine) Vice Presidential Nominee LIBERTARIAN PARTY: Michael Badnarik (Texas) Presidential Nominee Richard Campagna (Iowa) Vice Presidential Nominee PEACE FREEDOM PARTY: Leonard Peltier (Kansas) Presidential Nominee Janice Jordan (California) Vice Presidential Nominee PERSONAL CHOICE PARTY: Charles Jay (Indiana) Presidential Nominee Marilyn Chambers Taylor (California) Vice Presidential Nominee PROHIBITION PARTY: Earl F. Dodge (Colorado) Presidential Nominee Howard Lydick (Texas) Vice Presidential Nominee REFORM PARTY / INDEPENDENT: Ralph Nader (I-Connecticut) Presidential Nominee Peter M. Camejo (Green-California) Vice Presidential Nominee SOCIALIST PARTY USA: Walt Brown (Oregon) Presidential Nominee Mary Alice Herbert (Vermont) Vice Presidential Nominee SOCIALIST EQUALITY PARTY: Bill Van Auken (New York) Presidential Nominee Jim Lawrence (Ohio) Vice Presidential Nominee SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY: Róger Calero (New York) Presidential Nominee Arrin Hawkins (New York) Vice Presidential Nominee WORKERS WORLD PARTY: John Parker (California) Presidential Nominee Teresa Gutierrez (New York) Vice Presidential Nominee INDEPENDENTS WRITE-INS: A.J. Albritton (American Republican Party-Mississippi) * Sterling Allan (Providential Party-Utah) * Stanford Andy Andress (I-Colorado) * Joe Bellis (America's Party-Kansas) * Kenneth M. Bonnell (I-Mississippi) * Harry Braun (I-Arizona) * Fred Cook (I-Georgia) * Eric J. Davis (Michigan) * Robert DiGiulio (Children's Party-Vermont) * Bob Dorn (Washington) * Lonnie D. Frank (I-California) * John Galt Jr. (I-Pensylvania) * Jack Grimes (United Fascist Union-Pennsylvania) * Michael Halpin (I-New York) * Larry D. Hines (I-Texas) * Georgia Hough (I-Georgia) * Keith Judd (I-Massachusetts) * Darren E. Karr (Party X-Oregon) * Samuel Keegan (I-Rhode Island) * Joseph Martyniuk Jr. (I-Illinois) * David Mevis (I-Mississippi) * Muadin (E-Democratic Party-Massachusetts) * Jeffrey Peters (We The People Party-New Hampshire) Andrew M. Rotramel (I-Texas) * Joseph Average Joe Schriner (I-Ohio) * Dennis P. Slatton (United America Party-North Carolina) * Dan Snow (I-Texas) * Brian B. Springfield (I-Virginia) * Lawrence Rey Topham (I-Utah) * Lemuel Tucker (I-Michigan) * Da Vid (Light Party-California) * Tom Wells (Family Values Party-Florida) * A.J. Wildman (I-Virginia) * -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
nader goes southwest
Title: nader goes southwest Nader Presidential Campaign Announces Southwest Airlines as its Unofficial Campaign Airline Based on several years of experience with an upstart airline from Texas, the Nader Presidential campaign announces Southwest Airlines as its unofficial campaign airline. "George W. Bush has his Air Force One to under-reimburse for campaign trips. John Kerry has his leased Boeing 757 to tour the country. But we have Southwest Airlines and its entire fleet of aircraft at our disposal," declared independent Presidential candidate, Ralph Nader. "Frugal tickets, pleasant, responsive people, with humor and a desire to say yes, and very interesting passengers to converse with combined, for us, to make this selection," he added. All passengers fly coach on Southwest, as befits a Presidential campaign for the people. No one at Southwest Airlines was contacted about this announcement. Nader had a good word for Southwest Airlines founder, Herb Kelleher. "Mr. Kelleher has demonstrated that the lowest paid chief executive, now chairman of the Board, of any major domestic airline, has produced better service, lower fares, and more profits, in dollars, than the top largest three airlines combined over the past three years. This record comes because he cares about his employees and passengers far more than the kind of compensation packages, contingent stock options, and golden parachutes demanded by his counterparts," said Nader. "'Pay less, get more' is the reverse of so many big corporate CEOs in recent years, who paid themselves more and gave less, if they did not collapse their company (Enron, WorldCom, etc.) outright," Nader declared. In return, the Nader campaign asks nothing more than the ear of management for any signs of airline deterioration that should be reversed. Oh, one more request - keep the roasted peanuts coming. Pretzels just don't do it. http://www.votenader.com/media_press/index.php?cid=146
Re: Economics and law
Charles wrote: I think you are right that the problem wouldn't just go away with socialism. There might , in general, in socialism be more focus on some safety issues when the decision would not depend upon how the safer engineering impacted an individual corporation's bottomline. I can see a socialism more readily developing its transportation system with all the safety features you suggest, and not experiencing them economically as astronomical. If there was safety focus comprehensively and for a long time, it might be very practical to do it better safety wise. David Shemano wrote: Why do you assume such facts for a socialist society? Note that Charles uses his language with purpose. There do not seem to be a lot of wasted words. There is the statement and for a long time in that last sentence -- and it means something. Consider it. We have 75 years of experience with socialist inspired economies. socialist inspired economies ... Grin. What the hell is that? I think George Carlin once did a routine about truth in advertising. He gave several examples of what the statements really meant on the label... One I recall was chocolatey goodness... As Carlin noted, that means, 'No fucking chocolate.' Ken. -- Wounded but they keep on climbing Sleep by the side of the road. -- Tom Waits
The Libertarian Party
[lbo-talk] Re: lbo-talk Digest, Vol 8, Issue 83 Tommy Kelly tkelly15450 at charter.net, Tue Aug 10 17:28:55 PDT 2004 snip What happens to the 2004 numbers if you add Libertarian Party's candidate Michael Badnarik? blockquoteDemocratic strategists have long fretted that Ralph Nader could draw votes from their presidential candidate. But a new survey suggests that President Bush faces a potential threat of his own from a more obscure spoiler: Michael Badnarik. In the survey, conducted in three Midwest battleground states, some voters who said they would choose Bush over Sen. John F. Kerry in a two-candidate race also said they would pick Badnarik, the Libertarian Party nominee for president, if he were added to the ballot. The survey was conducted in Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin by the University of Minnesota's Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. It will be made public today. The numbers for Badnarik were small: He drew 1% to 1.5% of the vote in a four-way race with Bush, Democratic candidate Kerry and Nader, an independent. But analysts said the results suggested that the small-government Libertarians could attract enough conservatives disaffected with Bush's leadership to swing a tight race, just as Nader attracted discontented liberals in 2000. This shows us that there is a small, but potentially very significant, number of upper-Midwesterners who are interested in voting for the Libertarian Party, and that they appear to be hailing from the wings of the Republican Party, said Lawrence Jacobs, a Humphrey Institute political scientist, who directed the poll. The survey suggested that the Libertarian had potential to steal support from Bush where it could hurt most: among much-coveted independents. In Wisconsin, the survey showed that 8% of independents would back Badnarik. That cut Bush's performance among independent voters in the state from about 50% to 43%. Those voters, without even knowing the candidate, are so upset with Bush they are willing to say, 'I'm going to vote for a Libertarian,' Jacobs said. The telephone survey, conducted June 21 to July 12, had a margin of error of 4 percentage points. It included 589 registered voters in Minnesota, 575 in Wisconsin and 614 in Iowa. Of those states, Badnarik has secured a place on the ballot only in Wisconsin. But ballot access is so easy in Minnesota and Iowa that the Libertarians are all but certain of success there, Richard Winger, editor of Ballot Access News, said. Since there have been Libertarians, there has never been a presidential election where the Libertarians were not on the ballot in those two states, he said. Nader has drawn far more attention than Badnarik, 49, a computer programmer from Austin, Texas. In the Humphrey Institute poll, Nader drew as much as 5% of the vote in a four-way race, and he appeared to draw more support from Kerry than Badnarik took from Bush. But it is unclear how many state ballots will include Nader. Badnarik is already on the ballot in 30 states, Winger said, and the Libertarian Party says its candidate has made the ballot in all 50 states for the last three elections. The impact of third-party candidates has received renewed attention since 2000, when Nader ran as the Green Party candidate and won thousands of votes that many analysts thought would have gone to Democrat Al Gore, likely putting Gore in the White House. Republicans sought to discount a threat from Badnarik, noting that, even in the Humphrey survey, Bush won support from 90% of Republicans. Vin Weber, a former Republican congressman from Minnesota who is advising the Bush campaign, said the impact of the Libertarians would be so minimal that it fit more in the category of what the weather was like on election day. I have not been involved in a single discussion yet where the impact of the Libertarian Party has been raised as a significant risk factor, Weber said. (Peter Wallsten, Libertarian Badnarik May Cost Bush Support, Poll Finds, emLos Angeles Times/em, a href=http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/whitehouse/la-na-poll21jul21,1,4355572.story?coll=la-news-politics-white_house;July 21, 2004/a)/blockquote The Republicans don't appear to be too upset with Badnarik, leaving him alone, unlike the Democrats who have used everything from lawsuits to slanders to keep Nader off the ballots. Probably the Republicans are counting on Badnarik's obscurity, just as the Democrats do not fear David Cobb on the Green Party ballots and candidates of socialist sects, both of whom are completely unknown to nearly 100% of voters. Voters who would consider voting for the Libertarian Party candidate must be affluent white men who are socially liberal, fiscally conservative, and very strongly opposed to the occupation of Iraq. They can't be a large group, but they aren't non-existent. Badnarik, as a matter of fact, sounds pretty eloquent and clear-sighted on foreign policy, including on the matter of Israel and Palestinians, and I'd think
Re: ABK Comrades!
At 9:20 PM -0400 8/10/04, Michael Hoover wrote: maybe post header should have read: anybody but kerry and cobb, in any event, no need to limit oneself to left petit-bourgeois deviationism of nader, choose between several real-live socialists (commies even) Only Nader/Camejo represented a potential to threaten the Democratic Party's hegemony over the left side of the political spectrum by taking 2-7% of the votes, according to the polls http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/08/nader-2004-nader-2000.html -- hence the Democrats' well-organized attacks on Nader/Camejo. Among the parties that you listed, only the Libertarian Party, whose core supporters are well-to-do, will have its candidate on the ballots in all 50 states: blockquoteDemocratic strategists have long fretted that Ralph Nader could draw votes from their presidential candidate. But a new survey suggests that President Bush faces a potential threat of his own from a more obscure spoiler: Michael Badnarik. In the survey, conducted in three Midwest battleground states, some voters who said they would choose Bush over Sen. John F. Kerry in a two-candidate race also said they would pick Badnarik, the Libertarian Party nominee for president, if he were added to the ballot. The survey was conducted in Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin by the University of Minnesota's Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. It will be made public today. The numbers for Badnarik were small: He drew 1% to 1.5% of the vote in a four-way race with Bush, Democratic candidate Kerry and Nader, an independent. But analysts said the results suggested that the small-government Libertarians could attract enough conservatives disaffected with Bush's leadership to swing a tight race, just as Nader attracted discontented liberals in 2000. This shows us that there is a small, but potentially very significant, number of upper-Midwesterners who are interested in voting for the Libertarian Party, and that they appear to be hailing from the wings of the Republican Party, said Lawrence Jacobs, a Humphrey Institute political scientist, who directed the poll. The survey suggested that the Libertarian had potential to steal support from Bush where it could hurt most: among much-coveted independents. In Wisconsin, the survey showed that 8% of independents would back Badnarik. That cut Bush's performance among independent voters in the state from about 50% to 43%. Those voters, without even knowing the candidate, are so upset with Bush they are willing to say, 'I'm going to vote for a Libertarian,' Jacobs said. The telephone survey, conducted June 21 to July 12, had a margin of error of 4 percentage points. It included 589 registered voters in Minnesota, 575 in Wisconsin and 614 in Iowa. Of those states, Badnarik has secured a place on the ballot only in Wisconsin. But ballot access is so easy in Minnesota and Iowa that the Libertarians are all but certain of success there, Richard Winger, editor of Ballot Access News, said. Since there have been Libertarians, there has never been a presidential election where the Libertarians were not on the ballot in those two states, he said. Nader has drawn far more attention than Badnarik, 49, a computer programmer from Austin, Texas. In the Humphrey Institute poll, Nader drew as much as 5% of the vote in a four-way race, and he appeared to draw more support from Kerry than Badnarik took from Bush. But it is unclear how many state ballots will include Nader. Badnarik is already on the ballot in 30 states, Winger said, and the Libertarian Party says its candidate has made the ballot in all 50 states for the last three elections. The impact of third-party candidates has received renewed attention since 2000, when Nader ran as the Green Party candidate and won thousands of votes that many analysts thought would have gone to Democrat Al Gore, likely putting Gore in the White House. Republicans sought to discount a threat from Badnarik, noting that, even in the Humphrey survey, Bush won support from 90% of Republicans. Vin Weber, a former Republican congressman from Minnesota who is advising the Bush campaign, said the impact of the Libertarians would be so minimal that it fit more in the category of what the weather was like on election day. I have not been involved in a single discussion yet where the impact of the Libertarian Party has been raised as a significant risk factor, Weber said. (Peter Wallsten, Libertarian Badnarik May Cost Bush Support, Poll Finds, emLos Angeles Times/em, a href=http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/whitehouse/la-na-poll21jul21,1,4355572.story?coll=la-news-politics-white_house;July 21, 2004/a)/blockquote The Republicans don't appear to be too upset with Badnarik, leaving him alone, unlike the Democrats who have used everything from lawsuits to slanders to keep Nader off the ballots. Probably the Republicans are counting on Badnarik's obscurity, just as the Democrats do not fear David Cobb on the Green Party ballots
Re: Economics and law
David writes: I don't have a strong opinion on whether regulation should be done by legislation or litigation -- it seems like a peripheral issue. I think that is a HUGE issue, not peripheral. But that's for another thread and another day. [...] safety is not an absolute value that takes precedence overy everything else. That is evidenced by how people actually live their lives, and that fact must be taken into consideration when determining appropriate rules. This is the heart of it. To use your own words: how people actually live their lives. The reason most of the people are on this list is that most of the people (who are not on this list) do not have control of the way they actually live their lives. Their lives are determined by economic forces that are really more akin to weather. (Not controllable by themselves. I can only buy a Pinto, not a Lexus. You call that free will I call it economic coercion.) Ken. -- Ive been trying to show you over and over Look at these, my child-bearing hips Look at these, my ruby red ruby lips Look at these, my work strong arms and Youve got to see my bottle full of charm -- P.J. Harvey
Re: Economics and law
Kenneth Campbell writes: [...] safety is not an absolute value that takes precedence overy everything else. That is evidenced by how people actually live their lives, and that fact must be taken into consideration when determining appropriate rules. This is the heart of it. To use your own words: how people actually live their lives. The reason most of the people are on this list is that most of the people (who are not on this list) do not have control of the way they actually live their lives. Their lives are determined by economic forces that are really more akin to weather. (Not controllable by themselves. I can only buy a Pinto, not a Lexus. You call that free will I call it economic coercion.) I was thinking more along the lines of rich people who buy sports cars rather than Volvos, or who love riding motorcycles. I was thinking about the following thought experiment. Assume that taking a car from point A to point B would take 30 minutes, and the chance of dying during the ride was 1 in one million. Assume that taking public transportation from point A to point B would take 60 minutes, and the chance of dying was 1 in ten million. I am willing to bet quite a significant percentage of the population would take the car, and I just don't think you can blame that on bourgeois property relations. Even taking your example into consideration, let's imagine a lack of economic coercion. Actually, I can't imagine it. In any event, let's assume that the law requires every car have the safety of a Lexus and everybody can afford a Lexus. Fine. But then a new car comes on the market that is safer than a Lexus, but costs a lot more. Conceptually, you are right back where you are today, where the poor can buy a used Pinto. David Shemano
*Life After Capitalism Conference 2004 NYC August 20-22nd*
To URPE Members and Friends * *Life After Capitalism Conference 2004 NYC August 20-22nd* www.lifeaftercapitalism.org -- register now !-- The protests around the Republican National Convention taking place in New York City later this summer are shaping up to be perhaps the largest this country has ever seen. As folks from all over the United States have started booking their flights, organizing their local communities into busses and vans, and collecting that last bit of gas money from in between the pillows of their couches- organizers are quietly discussing the possibility of having over 1 million people converging in the streets of New York City during the week of Aug 28th-September 2nd While these protests will give us the chance to collectively raise our voices in opposition to the direction that this government is taking us - many of us realize that the problems that we face run much deeper then simply the Bush administration, the Democrats, or this upcoming current election cycle. What we face are institutional problems, problems which will only be challenged and ultimately overcome by imaginative and broad based social movements- not ballot boxes. Life After Capitalism 2004 aims at contributing to this process by providing a space for activists- in the run up to the intense mobilization period- to reflect on the importance of long term vision, strategy, and face to face relationship building. This is an invitation, asking activists from around the country to come into New York City a week prior to the major demonstrations and participate in what should be an exciting and energizing weekend - a weekend that seeks to bring together and give voice to the (non-sectarian) anti-capitalist left in the United States. Below you will find a list of both speakers as well as topics of discussion which should hopefully give you an idea of what this conference is trying to accomplish. Check out the website (www.lifeaftercapitalism.org) - also linked at the top of zmag.org. The site will be updated every week in terms of speakers, sessions and a full schedule of the conference should be posted by August 1st. The site briefly outlines the basic areas of focus within the conference but more importantly allows you to register online, something we encourage folks to do as soon as possible due to space restrictions of approx. 800 participants. We have worked very hard to keep all costs to a minimum ($15-25 sliding scale) - all registration fees go directly into making this weekend happen as our only funding comes through the opening Friday evening event and conference fees. We also have a number of free registration slots which will be extended specifically to activist communities who have been traditionally marginalized from these kinds of gatherings and debates. For information regarding a waiving of trhe conference fees and any other questions, please contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or call (212) 591-0083. --- REGISTER ASAP! We have heard from hundreds of people around the country who are planning on attending but registration has been slow. We realize that many of you are planning on registering when you arrive but we ask that if you can you please take 5 minutes and register online ( You can pay by calling the CUNY Grad Center during business hours). The website has just been updated and it really easy to follow the registration steps. Early registration is especially important to us because ALL of our money (for flying out speakers, printing materials, getting food for all of you, paying for huge space costs etc) comes from registration and our opening Friday night event on August 20th (see downloadable flyer on the website) The website continues to be updated regularly and if you have not been to it yet please check it out at: www.lifeaftercapitalism.org --- updated list of participants (this is a VERY partial list) * Elizabeth 'Betita' Martinez * Robin D.G. Kelley * Naomi Klein * Michael Albert * Ruthie Gilmore * Vijay Prashad * Chris Crass * Starhawk * Cindy Milstein * Adolph Reed * Genevieve Vaughan * Steve Shalom * Andrej Grubacic * Jaggi Singh * Helen Luu * Clare Bayard * Graciela Monteagudo * David Solnit * Tiokasin Ghosthorse * David Graeber * Michael Hardt * Monami Maulik * Eddie Yuen * Kazembe Balagoon * Lisa Fithian * Bilal El-Amine * Kai Barrow * Valery Alzaga * Jose Schiffino * Lynne Stewart * Janine Jackson * Grace Chang * Arthur Manuel * Antonia Juhasz * Ted Glick * Ana Nogueira * Jason West -- 4. Updated list of participating organizations or networks* * Anti-Racism for Global Justice * Argentinian Social Movements Neighborhood Assembly of Colegiales Unemployed Workers Movement of La Matanza Unemployed Workers Movement of Solano * Argentina Autonomista Project * Bring The Ruckus! * California Prison
Re: Economics and law
David wrote: Conceptually, you are right back where you are today, where the poor can buy a used Pinto. David Shemano My parents were not poor... they were working class... they did work to make ends meet. Your mobile poverty metre is a tad chintzy. To assume that they might have to buy a car destined for litigation because it was a corporate decision seems contrary to the essential role of law. Ken. -- No customer in a thousand ever read the conditions [on the back of a parking lot ticket]. If he had stopped to do so, he would have missed the train or the boat. -- Lord Denning Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 1 All ER 686
Re: Economics and law
Kenneth Campbell rides to the rescue of Charles Brown: Why do you assume such facts for a socialist society? Note that Charles uses his language with purpose. There do not seem to be a lot of wasted words. There is the statement and for a long time in that last sentence -- and it means something. Consider it. If I had considered it, I would have had to conclude that Charles had qualified his thought to irrelevancy or that he did not believe what he was saying. We have 75 years of experience with socialist inspired economies. socialist inspired economies ... Grin. What the hell is that? Any economy in a country whose name had or has the words People's, Socialist or Sweden in it. To call certain of those countries socialist would have invited charges of red-baiting, so I decided to be nice and call them socialist inspired. David Shemano
Re: Economics and law
David wrote: Any economy in a country whose name had or has the words People's, Socialist or Sweden in it. I like Sweden. You gotta problem with that, punk? Ken. -- I like Sweden. You gotta problem with that, punk? -- Me in this thread
Re: Greens For Nader Update: Rigged Convention Divides Green Party (Sign and Forward This)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/10/04 3:16 PM At 1:07 PM -0400 8/9/04, Michael Hoover wrote: nader people might be of greater help to polity in general (of course, this is electoral campaign which, by definition, has narrow focus) by highlighting unequal/unjust ballot access procedures, state by state rules are clear violation of 14th admendment equal protection... The best way to highlight unequal/unjust ballot access procedures is to actually run a campaign that runs afoul of them -- then, there is a practical struggle. Who cares if ballot access procedures are unequal and unjust if there is no candidate other than the Democratic and Republican ones to begin with? of course, my point was that nader people have not - and will not - raise equal protection matter (although they'll - no doubt, and rightly so - complain about being exluded from prez debates)... At 1:07 PM -0400 8/9/04, Michael Hoover wrote: carcasses of 'minor' parties across u.s. political landscape Minor parties -- the Liberal Party, the Free Soil Party, etc. -- are destined to die, but they are among the important political arenas through which people network, gain experience, and accumulate knowledge, and I'm interested in what individuals who are trained in struggles that cannot immediately achieve their goals learn and what they will do with what they have learned. We need to keep learning from major failures and minor successes until we encounter objective conditions that may allow us to make use of our experience and knowledge. neither of parties cited above would seem to be good examples of your explanation (wonder how many folks are even familiar with either)... free soilers (1848-54) were northern elite splinters from dem party who had come to oppose slavery for economic reasons (in contrast to moral abolitionists), they desired 'free land' for homesteading (19th century economic elites often manipulated egalitarian rhetoric of homesteading for financial gain by paying people to occupy land for them) while southern slaver class needed more land to perpetuate slave-based planatation system... free soil platform was ambivalent document in which anti-slavery plank was followed by statement that congress did not have authority to interfere with slavery within state boundaries, but then party slogan 'free soil, free speech, free labor, free men' was contradictory... interestingly, some complained that martin van buren's (former u.s. prez, 1837-40) 1848 prez campaign played 'spoiler' in splitting dem votes - van buren received about 10% of 'popular vote') and allowing whig zachary taylor to be elected (taylor died in office under somewhat suspicious circumstances, his body was exhumed within last decade to look into possibility of arsenic poisoning, test results said no, but michael parenti (that cper/milosevic supporter/conspiracy theorist!) suggests otherwise in _new political science_ article a few years back)... 1850 compromise weakened cause, party got about 5% of vote in 1852 prez election, dissolved itself shortly after, members dirfted into newly formed rep party... re. liberal party, suppose you mean new york liberal party as it is only one of any significance (if one considers it as such) that i'm aware of, origins in american labor split at end of ww2 over whether or not commies should be allowed to play a role in alp, anti-commie labor leaders opponents of such a role founded liberal party, so party had organized labor (of a cold war sort) support early on which manifest itself in endorsement of truman in 48 made possible by new york's 'fusion' ballot status... ny liberal party went on to endorse/nominate dem party candidate in every prez election except 1980 when it supported john anderson, party also gave endorsements to dem candidates for u.s senate from ny except for its support of 'liberal' republican jacob javits, some suggest that party's support of javits - who lost to alphonse d'mato in rep primary - split dem/lib vote in 1980 between javits and dem elizabeth holtzman allowing d'mato to win... what are lessons... At 1:07 PM -0400 8/9/04, Michael Hoover wrote: reform party line is absolutely irrevelevant in states where party has ballot status save two - florida and michigan (drum roll please - so-called 'battlegrounds') It would be ironic if Cobb/LaMarche are on the Green Party ballots in one-party states and Nader/Camejo are on the ballots in battleground states. Yoshie greens have prez ballot line in florida, parties have to hold national nominating convention to qualify, state went from most difficult access law in country to one more equitable a few years ago via initiative vote spearheaded largely by libertarian party with help from some other minor parties, including green, reform, socialist... however, my point was that nader's use of reform endorsement is politics as usual... michael hoover -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad
Re: nader goes southwest
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/10/04 10:01 PM Nader Presidential Campaign Announces Southwest Airlines as its Unofficial Campaign Airline Nader had a good word for Southwest Airlines founder, Herb Kelleher. wonder what nader thinks of kelleher's $47,500 to rep national committee this year and $2000 to bush campaign... wonder what nader thinks of southwest helping ins detain 'illegal' immigrants at various airports... wonder why nader didn't mention that about 90% of southwest employees are unionized (seems that would be good reason for selection), of course, company began with no unions and implemented 'cooperative culture' environment (via esop) and 'cross-utilization' (allowing management to take workers from one area and use them temporarily elsewhere) of employees prior to collective bargaining, these features have remained prominent parts of southwest's management-labor relations, both of which serve to increase labor productivity and hold down labor costs... michael hoover -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
