Re: AEA cuts URPE and other heterodox sessions for 1999
Susan, Al, Lori, et. al., Yes! Great you got this out on pen-l as soon as possible is better. I've been feeling guilty and depressed about this since I heard - but was not able (or not up to) to log on for a while. Lori - Yes, I absolutely agree. This is when we need Roemer, Heibroner, Galbraith etc. to make a case that this is not the way to run a professional organization (i.e. to treat members like employees and dictate conditions to them with no input consultation, warning not to mention democratic process) Maybe we could scare the "good image" of the AEA witha legal challenge or just nasty public relations at next meeting. Anyway its easy to talk... Al, could you forward letter to Germai and all of us so we have factual stuff to go on - at least as much as they're willing to share with us though Al's e-mail appeared to be comprehensive. Maybe we should write a letter on e-mail and ask Germai to send to all important URPE members to express their outrage to AEA. An AEA card burning session in Washington? - maybe that what they want us to do. I'm thinking out loud here - but I think we need to get something out to our membership as an urgent emergency message and coordinate with other groups. Somebody should call Roemer, Heibroner, Galbraith, I'm thinkingof the names on Germai's poster - And I think Al, it seems to me that it would be good if you could call the AEA and try to talk with them about this before the SC meeting - maybe get some more dope on how this was done , who's behind it and what if any appeal process there is , and maybe they have info on the orginal agreement as well. Also, we need to contact Frank Thompson and others who have been ASSA coordinators to see what they know and if there is anything in writing onthe URPE allotment - although you're probably already trying to do this... There is also the publicity angle. Should be getting this out in the press? It might be embarrassing to the ASSA if say the ACLU got into this or whomever as ideological censorship? Of course we would need to be able to counter a lot of their psuedo rationales - Maybe I'm just flying off the handle on this. Just some midnite meanderings, Vinceremos ! Ron ****** Ron Baiman Dept. of Economics Roosevelt UniversityFax: 312-341-3680 430 South Michigan Ave Chicago, Illinois 60605 Voice: 312-341-3694 ** On Thu, 19 Feb 1998, L. Johnson wrote: > > > My own personal opinion is that its time for all tenured radicals, and > otherwise job-secured individuals to make a big stink at the meetings, > some non-violence clogging of the system (after we exhaust all the > diplomatic routes) > > On Thu, 19 Feb 1998, Fleck_S wrote: > > > long post on AEA cutting URPE sessions from 32 to 18 for 1999 ASSA > > meetings (AND TO 9 FOR 2000).. > > > > Hello Pen-lers, > > > > I have some dour news that needs some serious thinking and action. Al > > Campbell, organizer of the Union for Radical Political Economy sessions > > at the January Economics meetings (ASSA), received a letter from the > > American Economics Association coordinator of the ASSA indicating that > > the AEA has deemed it necessary to cut sessions of URPE down to 18 for > > 1999 in New York, and to 9 by the year 2000. URPE has historically had > > 30-32 sessions, which has allowed many radical economists to get their > > way paid to the meetings. > > > > Here is part of an email that Al Campbell sent to the URPE Steering > > Committee on February 10: > > "The AEA appears to run the ASSA- I just got a letter from the > > secretary of the AEA, on AEA stationary, annoncing the ASSA is wiping > > out our slots to the ASSA as we have kown them (signed in his capacity > > as "ASSA coordinator." ) The letter made very clear they have no > > intention of considering their decissions (which were made with no > > input of the affected groups, but of course made in the name of justice, > > fairness, and so on) > > "Over 10 years, registration at the ASSA meetings has gone up > > 3%, while seesions have gone up 27%. That is a crisis as far as they > > are concerned. (It seems less than crisis proportions ot me, that the > > number of meetings has gone up 27%) This has caused them two problems, > > that they sort of throw in to their long letter without being careful on > > the logic of why their solution is the only solution to these problems. > > One is that the attendence at some sessions is way down, to what they > > say is embaraasing to the organizers (one might think the oprganizers > > could decide that, but they fortunately will
Re: International sign-on against MAI!
Bob, I tried to call but all your message machines are full! the Democratic Socialists of America would very much like to sign to this. national Washintong office director: Chris Ridiough Tel: 202-726-0745 DSA has made this the highest priority political action. Best, Ron ** Ron Baiman Dept. of Economics Roosevelt UniversityFax: 312-341-3680 430 South Michigan Ave Chicago, Illinois 60605 Voice: 312-341-3694 ** On Fri, 6 Feb 1998, Robert Naiman wrote: > Dear Pen-lers: > > The statement below will hopefully be officially released soon to the media. > As you can see, there are gaps internationally in terms of the sign-ons. > Please take a look if you think there are any groups that would sign-on, > especially from the South. Pass it on to them or give their name and contact > info to us. Feedback to: > > Robert Naiman > Public Citizen-Global Trade Watch > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 202-546-4996 > > Of course, more organizational sign-ons are welcome, regardless of > geographical location. > > >>JOINT NGO STATEMENT ON THE MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT (MAI) > >> > >>NGO/ OECD Consultation on the MAI > >>Paris: 27 October, 1997 > >> > >> > >>INTRODUCTION > >> As a coalition of development, environment and consumer groups from around > >>the world, with representation in over 70 countries, we consider the draft > >>Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) to be a damaging agreement which > >>should not proceed in its current form, if at all. > >> > >>There is an obvious need for multilateral regulation of investments in view > >>of the scale of social and environmental disruption created by the > >>increasing mobility of capital. However, the intention of the MAI is not to > >>regulate investments but to regulate governments. As such, the MAI is > >>unacceptable. > >> > >>MAI negotiations began in the OECD in the Spring of 1995, more than two > >>years ago, and are claimed to be substantially complete by the OECD. Such > >>negotiations have been conducted without the benefit of participation from > >>non-OECD countries and civil society, including non-governmental > >>organizations representing the interests of workers, consumers, farmers or > >>organizations concerned with the environment, development and human rights. > >> As a result, the draft MAI is completely unbalanced. It elevates the rights > >>of investors far above those of governments, local communities, citizens, > >>workers and the environment. The MAI will severely undermine even the meagre > >>progress made towards sustainable development since the Rio Earth Summit in > >>1992. > >> > >>The MAI is not only flawed in the eyes of NGOs, but conflicts with > >>international commitments already made by OECD member countries: > >> > >>The MAI fails to incorporate any of the several relevant international > >>agreements such as the Rio Declaration; Agenda 21; UN Guidelines for > >>Consumer Protection (1985); the UNCTAD Set of Multilaterally Agreed > >>Principles for the Control of Restrictive Business Practices (1981); and > >>the HABITAT Global Plan of Action. > >> > >>The MAI fails to comply with OECD commitments to integrate economic, > >>environmental and social policies (1). > >> > >>The MAI removes responsibilities on transnational enterprises which were > >>previously agreed by the OECD under the OECD Guidelines for Multilateral > >>Enterprises 1976 (2). > >> > >> > >>The exclusion of developing countries and countries in transition from the > >>negotiations is inconsistent with OECD policy on development partnerships > >>(3). > >> > >>Problems with the MAI stem both from the broad restrictions it places on > >>national democratic action, and from its failure to include sufficient new > >>systems of international regulation and accountability. > >> As the MAI stands, it does not deserve to gain democratic approval in any > >>country. All the groups signing this statement will campaign against its > >>adoption unless changes, including those cited below, are incorporated into > >>the body of the MAI. > >> > >>SUBSTANTIVE CONCERNS > >> As drafted, the MAI does not respect the rights of countries - in > >>particular countries in transition and developing countries - including > >>their need to democratically contr
Re: A Sane Economy is Sustainable
Carla, My observations on your comments: I don't think it makes sense to make "growth" the prime culpret for unsustainability. WE're going to need major techno change to get sustainability which will require growth. The issue in my view is the control and allocation of growth to were its needed most in the ways its needed most (much more health, education, houseing, etc., public sector stuff directed to lower-income peoples) Thus in my view theissue reduces to one of social versus private choice. Overall growth and its allocation should be a social choice and not one made by profit maximizing individuals in an owner class in market economies. So it does get back to democratic socialism and power and privilege. Best, Ron ** Ron Baiman Dept. of Economics Roosevelt UniversityFax: 312-341-3680 430 South Michigan Ave Chicago, Illinois 60605 Voice: 312-341-3694 ** On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Dear Friends > I'm a newcomer who wants to say hello, before leaving - which, I'm sorry, > I must do quite soon. You-all are too prolific for me. > > > I work for a non profit corp: Witnesses for a Sustainable Economy which is > interested in exploring alternatives to an ever expanding economy, without > further injury to the poor. My primary focus is what we've been calling a > "Sane Economy" in which we advocate breaking the link between work and income. > > I wont explain it all now but if you'd like to see our newsletter: > CONVERSATIONS on a Sane Economy and How to Get there, send me( at my personal > Email address) your snail mail address. Also tell me if you'd like to be > alerted when we launch an effort to approximate a Sane Economy on a mini- > scale among ourselves. (We want a network of at least 1,000 people) > > I would like to invite comment on a few of our assumptions. Do you-all > agree that our economy - as now consitituted - must expand or collapse.? Is > this acknowledged across the political spectrum? I know the work of Herman > Daly and Douthwaite's GROWTH ILLUSION. Can you suggest other books, > accessible to laypersons, which explore and explain this? > > Do you agree as the above indicates, that economic growth is caused not only > by population increase, but also by the inner dynamics of the economy itself.? > > Do you agree that the global economy is not sustainaible NOW, yet it continues > to > grow. > > So, too, must communist economies grow - as long as distribution is tied to > the paying job.Given that productivity ever-increases and that the same > product can be made by ever fewer people, a communist economy must also keep > increasing its level of production in order to create paying jobs. Do you > agree? > > Thanks for any thoughts you may want to share on this. > > Carla > > Rabbi Carla Theodore > Executive Director > Witnesses for a Sustainable Economy > > >
Re: The situation in Cuba
Louis, I was in Cuba last summer and I would agree with your assessment. The Gov actually tries to restrict joint venture hiring so that it takes place through hiring halls. JOint vantures are supposed to pay the going rate in the Caribean and the cuban employees are supposed to get a salary comparable to peso salaries - the gov gets the difference. The problem of course is that under the table compensation etc. as you have alluded to ensures that workers in the dollar economy and in the market sector make much more than those in the planned sectors. All are aware of the problem but given the extreme lack of foreign exchange and ability to borrow (CUba has to pay cash for imports - or very high private credit due to US blockade) the need to survive is paramount. Its actualy a miracle that they have - buty their not out of the woods yet - their is still a trade deficit. When I was their I gave some very critical talks on the nature of Cuban "democracy" - all the while emphasizing my support for socialism and for the gains of the revolution - I tried to promote a constitutional amendment to intutionalize democratic socilaism and make it less dependent onthe regime or the party. We had some great talks - I believe this might save the revolution and put the US policy to shame. If anyone interested I have a paper on this - but i need snail mail to send. Vinceremos! Ron ** Ron Baiman Dept. of Economics Roosevelt UniversityFax: 312-341-3680 430 South Michigan Ave Chicago, Illinois 60605 Voice: 312-341-3694 ** On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Louis Proyect wrote: > Sid Schniad: > >PS -- please, Louis, try to address the substantive issues that I'm trying > >to raise without engaging in ad hominem attacks on me for raising them. > > You and Brian aren't raising any new issues as far as I'm concerned. > Anybody who reads a newspaper is aware of the problems in Cuba. As I said, > I posted from NY Times articles and Mark Cooper long ago on PEN-L that > described these social inequalities. This is old news. > > The real question is what the Cuban government should do to protect > whatever vestiges of socialism remain. Do you have any recommendations? The > mixed economy that has spawned these injustices were forced upon the Cuban > government by the fact of their economic and political isolation. I don't > watch television news, so I can't comment on "income inequality" in the > state sector. Doctors who work for pesos have meager wages, as do > sugar-cane cutters. Higher wages are only available to those workers > employed in joint ventures. In the Mark Cooper piece I posted a couple of > years ago, there's a lengthy description of his dinner with the Cuban > manager of one of these firms. He wears a Rolex watch and has taken Cooper > out to a fancy lobster dinner. He says that capitalism is the wave of the > future. The Castroist old-guard is locked in a bitter struggle with these > people. Why doesn't it simply keep their wage at the same level as managers > in state-owned enterprises? > > The answer is simple. The foreign companies set the wages and like to > reward managers handsomely so they can count on them to crack the whip. As > long as Cuba does not have the power to keep such companies out, it doesn't > have the power to affect what happens inside the plant-gate. The reason > these companies are there is that they provide foreign currency, > technological training and jobs. They also infect Cuba with the distortions > of class society. All these problems existed during the NEP as well. There > is no solution to them, alas. Capitalism is much more powerful and can > dictate to weak, isolated socialist countries. > > I don't mind discussing these questions, but if people are serious about > it, they're going to have to approach them in a rigorous and scholarly > fashion. Otherwise, I will treat them with the contempt they deserve. I > have been following Cuban developments closely for 30 years and I take them > seriously. Anybody who blathers on about Castro supporting capitalism is > not really worth my time. The speech that Castro made when the Pope arrived > could not be made by somebody who favored capitalism. > > Louis Proyect >
URGENT JAN. 26 DEADLINE !!:EEA and imperiled economy
Dear Fellow pen-l'ers: if any of you are thinking of going or presenting at the Easterns you may be interested in this: It realtes to the URPE Imperilied Economy project: Dear Comrades, Per our discussion at the ASSA we will be able to have a panel of proposed new Imperiled Economy papers at this years Eastern Economics Associaition Conference if there is interest. The conference is scheduled for: Feb. 27 - March 1, at the Crowne Plaze Manhattan Hotel , in New York City. Fees are as noted below. If you are interested, please contact Dawn at numbers listed below and register for the conference at the website listed below by FEB 26! Best Regards, Ron for the Editorial Committee ** Ron Baiman Dept. of Economics Roosevelt UniversityFax: 312-341-3680 430 South Michigan Ave Chicago, Illinois 60605 Voice: 312-341-3694 ** -- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 20:31:09 -0500 (EST) From: Dawn M. Saunders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: BAIMAN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> urpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: EEA and imperiled economy Hi, Ron and Heather. Here's more info, taken off the web page for EEA. Yes, people CAN fax in a credit card registration, and so can indeed get on the program if they decide to by the 27th. THe bad news is the fees, which we knew were high. We are a complete session, so that saves some money. But all must pay conference registration fees: EEA members pay $45, non-members $95. You can become a member for $50 -- so for $95 you can get membership also. Take note that the web address changed: no big deal, as there's a place to click to the new address at the old address' site. But the new address is: www.iona.edu/academic/arts_sci/orgs/eea/eea.htm. When you get to the page, click on what I think were blue italics spelling out "Submission Form" for the faxable form. I hope that covers it! DAwn
Re: David Card's response
Phill, I don't know that this is exactly what your looking for but: John Schmitt in Jan. 1996 EPI Briefing paper: "The Minimum wage and Job loss: Opponents of Wage hike find no effect" offers a detailed response to the Neumark and Wascher Critique and others. There is also a later essay by Springgs and Schmidt: The Minimum Wage: Blocking the low wage path" in RECLAIMING PROSPERITY, Ed. Schafer and Faux, M. E. Sharpe 1996. I have encountered the same with a U. of Chicago consulting group report against the Living Wage here. Scmidt notes that the N&M data was supplied by an industry group with astake in the outcome (The Employment Policy Institute backed by maufactureres, resturants and retailers) and includes resturants not in the C&K original analysis and that indipendent data collected by W&N does not bear out their results. Finally they look at hours instead of numbers of jobs. In terms of income workers would still earn much more even if their small decline in hours worked was accurate and most other studies show no statistically significant effect on jobs from moderate wage floor increases. Best, Ron ** Ron Baiman Dept. of Economics Roosevelt UniversityFax: 312-341-3680 430 South Michigan Ave Chicago, Illinois 60605 Voice: 312-341-3694 ** On Thu, 8 Jan 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Some time ago (a year?) someone posted (Doug?) a response > by David Card to the critique that two other economists > had given to _Myth and Measurement_. Unfortunately, I did > not save the response and now I have need of it to counter > claims by a neo-right critique of minimum wages who is > claiming that Card and Krueger's work has been discredited. > I have tried going back into the Pen-l archives but > haven't been able to find it. > a. does anyone have it who could e-mail it to me? or > b. does anyone remember exactly when it was posted or > how I can find it in the Pen-l archives? > > Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Paul Phillips, > Economics, > University of Manitoba
RE: Critiques of NC risk analysis
Jeff, Peter Dorman (long-time and active URPE member - U. Mass Grad) at Michigan State University James Madison College, East Lansing, MI has written much on this stuff including a book: MARKETS AND MORTALITY: ECONOMICS, DANGEROUS WORK, AND THE VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE Cambride U. Press, 1996 (or 1997) More indirectly, some of my stuff on the irrelevance and non-optimality of Neoclassical surplus value methodology may be of interest. Best, Ron ** Ron Baiman Dept. of Economics Roosevelt UniversityFax: 312-341-3680 430 South Michigan Ave Chicago, Illinois 60605 Voice: 312-341-3694 ** On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Fellows, Jeffrey wrote: > Pen-l'ers: > > Does anyone know of a good radical critique of NC risk analysis? I am > particularly interested in applications to health care, including > questions related to estimating risks of illness and injury. > > Jeff Fellows > Nat Center for Injury Prevention and Control > Atlanta, Georgia > (770) 488-1529 > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mexico and the IMF
Marty, How about: Bob Blecker's: "Will Mexico's Economy Rebound from Reforms" in FORUM FOR APPLIED RESEARCH AND PUBLIC POLICY Spring 1997. Though dated (it compares Mexico to Asia's success before Asia deregualted) - this short article has references to other more in depth material. Best, Ron ****** Ron Baiman Dept. of Economics Roosevelt UniversityFax: 312-341-3680 430 South Michigan Ave Chicago, Illinois 60605 Voice: 312-341-3694 ** On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Martin Hart-Landsberg wrote: > Dear Penners, > > I have recently learned that many progressives in South Korea are > seriously misinformed about the Mexican currency crisis in 94/95 both in > terms of how the Mexican government responded to it and the impact of the > IMF structural adjustment program on the Mexican economy and living and > working conditions. Believe it or not there is a feeling among some labor > activists in South Korea that the Mexican government coordinated a > national dialogue resulting in a social agreement including labor that > helped protect working class interests leading to a speedy recovery from > the crisis. > > > If you have recommendations on some readings that would be useful for > activists there to read to better understand what happened and is > contnuing to happen in Mexico I would greatly appreciate you sending > them to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I will collect them and forward them to my contacts in South Korea. > > Thanks, > Marty Hart-Landsberg >
Re: URPE at ASSA Party On Sunday Night
Marc, I hope you made it 0 I'm sorry I didn't get this earlier. It was a good party even though all went to hear Buddy Guy's Blue's Club about mid-way through - you can't compete with some stuff! Best, Ron ****** Ron Baiman Dept. of Economics Roosevelt UniversityFax: 312-341-3680 430 South Michigan Ave Chicago, Illinois 60605 Voice: 312-341-3694 ** On Fri, 19 Dec 1997, Dollars and Sense wrote: > Ron, how about directions on how to get from the convention to the party? > Is it walkable, or public transit or what? Marc Breslow.
CDV Debates on CSPAN!
Dear Comrades, Please Post: >On Saturday and Sunday, January 3 and 4, C-SPAN will broadcast the "Left versus Right" debate with Barbara Ehrenreich, Cornel West, David Frum, and Stuart Butler. This debate was part of the Center for Democratic Values' "Arguing with the Right Conference" on November 6-7. Check for the exact times for "Does the American Economy Serve Democratic Values" on the C-SPAN Web page or call (202) 737-3220 AFTER DECEMBER 25. We suggest that you videotape it for future community and/or class use. Please send your thoughts, comments, and reviews to us at: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Thanks!, Ron Baiman
Re: URPE at ASSA Party On Sunday Night (fwd)
Dear Comrades, To all who are planning to be in Chicago for the ASSA meetings: URPE PARTY ON SUNDAY, JAN 4, 1998 8-12 PM ROOM 320 ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY 430 S. MICHIGAN AVE. CHICAGO, IL WILL INCLUDE LIVE MUSIC: MYLES TATE AND JAZZ INC. AND: JIM WESTRICH'S "CALM COOL COLLECTIVE SOUND SYSTEM" AND: FOOD AND DRINK ON THE HOUSE! COSPONSORED BY URPE AND THE ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY ECONOMICS FACULTY "THE UN-CHICAGO SHCOOL OF ECONOMICS" See you there!, Ron ****** Ron Baiman Dept. of Economics Roosevelt UniversityFax: 312-341-3680 430 South Michigan Ave Chicago, Illinois 60605 Voice: 312-341-3694 **
Re: URPE at ASSA Party On Sunday Night
Dear Comrades, To all who are planning to be in Chicago for the ASSA meetings: URPE PARTY ON SUNDAY, JAN 4, 1998 8-12 PM ROOM 320 ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY 430 S. MICHIGAN AVE. CHICAGO, IL WILL INCLUDE LIVE MUSIC: MYLES TATE AND JAZZ INC. AND: JIM WESTRICH'S "CALM COOL COLLECTIVE SOUND SYSTEM" AND: FOOD AND DRINK ON THE HOUSE COSPONSORED BY URPE AND THE ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY ECONOMICS FACULTY "THE UN-CHICAGO SHCOOL OF ECONOMICS" See you there!, Ron ****** Ron Baiman Dept. of Economics Roosevelt UniversityFax: 312-341-3680 430 South Michigan Ave Chicago, Illinois 60605 Voice: 312-341-3694 **
Re: Intermediate Micro Text
Steve and Gil, Just a warning - I found Schotter's book unworkable for my class - as it is a fairly technical and game theory based presentation - but your circumstances and inclinations may be different. I ended up using Mansfield as it is pedogogically easier - but of course pretty much straight Neo-Classical. In my more advanced courses I very partial to Steve Marglin's GROWTH DISTRIBUTION AND PRICES (Harvard) which has micro and macro, also Hahnel and ALbert's QUIET REVOLUTION IN WELFARE ECONOMICS (Princeton). But these are graduate level texts although i sometimes distribute the first chapters to other classes. Also Roemer's FREE TO LOSE (harvard) is pretty non-technical Roemer type Marxism but gets across some key points. Best, Ron ** Ron Baiman Dept. of Economics Roosevelt UniversityFax: 312-341-3680 430 South Michigan Ave Chicago, Illinois 60605 Voice: 312-341-3694 ** On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Gil Skillman wrote: > Try Andrew Schotter's text, Microeconomics: a modern approach. It retains > some questionable neoclassical presumptions (e.g., exchange is the > fundamental social economic relation), but on the whole is better than the > available alternatives. > > > >Dear PEN-Lers: > > > >I need to select an intermediate micro text with great alacrity. Can > >anyone suggest a sound text that includes some good topical materials? > > > >If you wish, you can reply privately and I will post a summary of the > >recommendations to the list. > > > >Steven Zahniser > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > >
Left vs. Right CDV Debate
Comrades, FYI, this may be useful for classes - Best, Ron Baiman Friends, Comrades, and Colleagues: The Center for Democratic Values' "Arguing with the Right" conference was a rousing success. Proposed follow-up projects include a national Left versus Right debate in D.C. or New York, a book, "Arguing with the Right," local Left versus Right debates, and a California CDV conference in 1998. The "Left versus Right" debate with Barbara Ehrenreich, Cornel West, David Frum, and Stuart Butler, on November 6 at Capital University in Columbus (before an SRO crowd of 1000 people) will be aired on C-SPAN during the week of Christmas. Check for the exact times for "Does the American Economy Serve Democratic Values" on the C-SPAN Web page or call (202) 737-3220. We have viewed the debate with students, a DSA local, and a well-known filmmaker, and have concluded that it is riveting and provokes enthusiastic discussion. We recommend that you watch it and videotape it for future community, and class use. Please send your comments to us at: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Best wishes, Ron Aronson Center for Democratic Values 5700 Cass Avenue Room 2426 Detroit, MI 48202 (313)577-0828 Fax (313)577-8585 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.igc.apc.org/CDV
Job Posting
Comrades, I was asked to post this on pen-l by Ron Aronson, a senior faculty member at Wayne State (and a prominent DSA leader), Cheers, Ron ** Ron Baiman Dept. of Economics Roosevelt UniversityFax: 312-341-3680 430 South Michigan Ave Chicago, Illinois 60605 Voice: 312-341-3694 ** -- Forwarded message -- Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 11:14:05 -0500 From: Ronald Aronson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Please Post on URPE list ASSOCIATE DEAN FOR DEGREE PROGRAMS The College of Lifelong Learning Wayne State University The College of Lifelong Learning invites applications for the position of Associate Dean of Degree Programs/Director of the Interdisciplinary Studies Program (ISP). The Associate Dean reports directly to the Dean of the College while providing leadership for one of the College's three major divisions. The Associate Dean administers the bachelors and masters degree programs in the Interdisciplinary Studies Program; provides intellectual leadership in a pioneering program and curriculum; supervises a resident faculty of 22 and academic staff of 6; administers an enrollment-driven unit budget; and oversees student services, including recruitment and retention of a non-traditional student body of over 600 working adults. Minimum qualifications include an earned doctorate, a solid professional record that makes the candidate tenureable in a major research university; administrative and leadership experience; demonstrated ability to work collegially and creatively; a record of commitment to affirmative action and to integrative approaches to education; energetic commitment to the urban mission of the College and the University, to curricular and teaching innovations, to securing external funding, and to technological innovations. Minorities and women are encouraged to apply. Salary is competitive and the position carries excellent fringe benefits. Applications will be accepted through December 15, 1997 or until suitable candidate is hired. Send letter of application; resume, names, addresses and telephone numbers of at least three references; at least three samples of creative scholarship, curricular innovations, or program development to: Dr. Phyllis Vroom, Chair Associate Dean for Degree Programs Search Committee College of Lifelong Learning Wayne State University 5700 Cass Avenue Detroit, MI 48202 Wayne State University is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer All buildings, structures and vehicles at WSU are smoke-free Wayne State University--People working together to provide quality service Cynthia Ward, Assistant to the Dean Wayne State University, College of Lifelong Learning 2662 A/AB--Phone: (313) 577-4596 Fax: (313) 577-7744 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ASSOCIATE DEAN FOR DEGREE PROGRAMS The College of Lifelong Learning Wayne State University The College of Lifelong Learning invites applications for the position of Associate Dean of Degree Programs/Director of the Interdisciplinary Studies Program (ISP). The Associate Dean reports directly to the Dean of the College while providing leadership for one of the College's three major divisions. The Associate Dean administers the bachelors and masters degree programs in the Interdisciplinary Studies Program; provides intellectual leadership in a pioneering program and curriculum; supervises a resident faculty of 22 and academic staff of 6; administers an enrollment-driven unit budget; and oversees student services, including recruitment and retention of a non-traditional student body of over 600 working adults. Minimum qualifications include an earned doctorate, a solid professional record that makes the candidate tenureable in a major research university; administrative and leadership experience; demonstrated ability to work collegially and creatively; a record of commitment to affirmative action and to integrative approaches to education; energetic commitment to the urban mission of the College and the University, to curricular and teaching innovations, to securing external funding, and to technological innovations. Minorities and women are encouraged to apply. Salary is competitive and the position carries excellent fringe benefits. Applications will be accepted through December 15, 1997 or until suitable candidate is hired. Send letter of application; resume, names, addresses and telephone numbers of at least three references; at least three samples of creative scholarship, curricular innovations, or program development to: Dr. Phyllis Vroom, Chair Associate Dean for Degree Programs
RE: URPE Web sight
Comrades, It appears that Eric Nilsson : [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the current active manager (and orginator) of the URPE website. We have been trying to relieve Eric and transfer to Dave Burdette (on the URPE SC) but have been unable to at this point. Best, Ron URPe Midwest Rep. ** Ron Baiman Dept. of Economics Roosevelt UniversityFax: 312-341-3680 430 South Michigan Ave Chicago, Illinois 60605 Voice: 312-341-3694 **
RE: URPE Web sight
Jeffrey, Sorry this is so late in comming! URPE's website is at: http:\\economics.csusb.edu\orgs\URPE Dave Burdette : [EMAIL PROTECTED] is our current webmaster. We would like to do more with the site and are trying to get the resources to do it. Best, Ron URPE Midwest Rep. ** Ron Baiman Dept. of Economics Roosevelt UniversityFax: 312-341-3680 430 South Michigan Ave Chicago, Illinois 60605 Voice: 312-341-3694 ** On Wed, 29 Oct 1997, Fellows, Jeffrey wrote: > Can anyone tell me URPE's web sight? > > Jeff Fellows
Re: help - on livable wage campaigns
For the third time (I've lost this twice!) so I'm going to be very brief: Local minimum wage data shows a net wash (see Krugger and Scmidt EPI report). living wage bills are targeted to place bound large employers over which city has much leverage with non-profit pass alongs. This is excellent emplyment enhancing econ deve subsidy which will go to people most in need as opposed to top down subsidies trikel down which politicians like as they can support their contributors. IN short demand side multiplier effects outweigh the supply side job suppression effects. I have text of my testimony to Chicago City Council on this if your interested. At URPE sumer conference Bob (polin) said that his most convincing argument in LA was that local profitable and successful employers paid the liveing wage. Best (so late its usless)!, ROn ** Ron Baiman Dept. of Economics Roosevelt UniversityFax: 312-341-3680 430 South Michigan Ave Chicago, Illinois 60605 Voice: 312-341-3694 ** On Sun, 19 Oct 1997, DOUG ORR wrote: > I have just been drafted to participate in a panel discussing the merits of > implementing a "livable wage" in Spokane. The opposition includes a business > owner (not sure which industry) and the president of the local Chamber of > Commerce. > > I feel preety secure going in, but I would like to hear from people who > may have participated in these debates (Bob Pollin are you there?). What > are the arguments from the other side that I should be ready for? What are > the most effective arguments in favor. > > Any help I can get before Wed. at noon would be very useful. > > Thanks, > Doug Orr > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
re: "third world" revolutions and the Press in Cuba
** Ron Baiman Dept. of Economics Roosevelt UniversityFax: 312-341-3680 430 South Michigan Ave Chicago, Illinois 60605 Voice: 312-341-3694 ** On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, James Devine wrote: > >>... [F. Castro's] suspicion toward a free press might seem Stalinist to > some, but considering the role of "La Prensa" in Nicaragua, our judgment > should be measured by the reality of imperialist subversion.<< > > Right. But no matter how sympathetic we are to the plight of Cuba in the > face of imperialism, we can't ignore the fact that such opposition to a > free press can and does represent a barrier to the flowering of workers > democracy and democratic socialism in the future. Further, such a battle > against democracy can easily change from being a "necessary evil" to > something good, something that preserves the power of the bureaucrats. > > The suppression of democratic tendencies in Cuba is a different kind of > victory for imperialism than an explicit counterrevolution. It's the > prevention of a "good example," a true alternative to capitalism and class > society in general. This is of course was the almost explicit motivation of > the Reaganistas in their war against Nicaragua. > > > Louis and Jim: Let's be clear that true socialist democracy should not include a "free" press owned by private interests like La Prensa (and the the increasingly monopolized U.S. media) but "socialist free speach rights" which would have to mean democratic control of media with an open grant and subsidy policy for opposition view points (as I believe opposition Newspapers are subsidized in Sweden). I have argued for a constitituional referendum in Cuba which would include this as part of a socialist democratic constitution to replace Leninist one party rule in Cuba with a truly socialist democracy which would prevent the kind of power of private property abuses which characterize exclusively Liberal capitalist democracy. Some of the Cubans liked it, others shut me down, but thats a different story for another day.
Center for Democratic Values (CDV) Conference
Dear Comrades,
FYI, CDV is a DSA sponsored "think-tank" (broadly defined) dedicated to
promoting explicitly left (broadly democratic socialist - not exclusively
DSA) ideology.
Ron Baiman
"P R E S S R E L E A S E . . . .
__
Does the American Economy Serve Democratic Values?
A "Left versus Right" Debate at Capital University
__
Thursday, November 6, 1997 at 8:00 pm . . .
Capital University in Columbus, Ohio, is sponsoring a public Left-Right
debate, featuring Cornel West (Harvard University) and Barbara Ehrenreich
(Blood Rites) versus David Frum (Dead Right) and Stuart Butler (Heritage
Foundation). In conjunction with the debate, the Center for Democratic
Values, the think-tank project of Democratic Socialists of America, is
holding its first national conference, "Arguing with the Right," November
6-7 at the Clarion Hotel (Worthington). The conference will include
historical and analytical sessions, plus skills workshops for contesting
the Right's current dominance of American political discussion.
Contact Ronald Aronson, Wayne State University
5700 Cass Avenue, Room 2426, Detroit, MI 48202
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; phone (313) 577-0828; fax (313) 577-8585
__
"Arguing with the Right" Tentative Program
Thursday, Nov. 6
8:45 Registration, Coffee, and Welcome
9:15 Panel on the Right's Success: Chip Berlet ("Eyes Right"); Eric
Vega (anti-proposition 209 and 187 activist and DSA National Political
Committee); Holly Sklar ("Chaos or Community")
10:45 The Right's Key Ideas: Jim Aune ("The Rhetoric of the Market");
Harvey Kaye ("Why do Ruling Classes Fear History?"); Jessica Jerome
(University of Chicago), Paul Kockelman
(University of Michigan)
12:15 Lunch - Keynote address: "Arguing with the Right about Public
Schools," C. J. Prentis (Ohio State Representative)
1:45 What is the Left's Core Identity?: Allen Hunter (Haven Center
for the Study of Social Change); Herb Boyd (The Black World Today); Barbara
Ehrenreich (DSA National Co-chair)
3:45-5:00 A: Reclaiming Religion, Values, and Morality from the Right:
Duane Oldfield ("The Right and the Righteous"); Eugene TeSelle (Vanderbilt
University Divinity School); Rabbi Melody Johnston
B: Is the Right Attacking Women?: Barbara Bergmann ("In
Defense of Affirmative Action"); Chris Riddiough (DSA Political Director);
Russ Bellant ("The Coors Connection")
C: How Contemporary Debate Gets Framed and How to Open it to
the Left: Ellen Ratner ("101 Ways to Get Your Progressive Issues on Talk
Radio"); Rich Schrader (former NYC Commissioner of Consumer Affairs); Mary
Jean Collins (People For the American Way)
8:00 Does the American Economy Serve Democratic Values? - Cornel
West and Barbara Ehrenreich for the Left, and David Frum and Stuart Butler
for the Right
Friday, Nov. 7
8:30 Evaluation of Debate by Capital University Students, led by Guy
Molyneux (Peter Hart Research)
9:30 Skills Training
(Each workshop will be presented at 10:00 and again at 11:15)
A. Talk Radio: Ellen Ratner
B. Using TV and Video: Bob Fitrakis and Suzanne Patzer (Host and Producer
of "From the Democratic Left"
C. How to do Op-Eds: Holly Sklar and Allen Hunter
D. Arguing: Devon Burghart (Center for a New Community) and Deborah Halbert
(Otterbein College)
12:00 - 1:00 Lunch - Keynote address: "Saving Our Children from
Poverty," Barbara Bergmann (American University)
1:30 Issue Workshops: The Right's Key Ideas and the Left's Responses
(These are round-robin workshops, lasting 25 minutes and presented 3 times)
A. Affirmative Action: Barbara Bergmann and James Upton (Ohio State
University)
B. Arguing for Public Schools: Mary Jean Collins and Mary Jo Kilroy
(Columbus Board of
Education)
C. Living Wage: Dave Reynolds ("Democracy Unbound")
D. Arguing for Health Care: David Green (UHCAN!) and Cathy Levine (UHCAN! Ohio
Issues Coordinator)
E Arguing for Unions: Milt Tambor (Michigan AFSCME)
F. Arguing about Racism: Herb Boyd and Ernest Green (Otterbein College)
G. Arguing over the Environment: Harvey Wasserman (Greenpeace)
H. Arguing about Crime: Kevin Pranis (DSA Youth Section Field Coordinator)
and Lynn Chancer
Center for Democratic Values
National Conference November 6-7 Columbus, Ohio
Registration fees: $75 per person; $50 for participants; $15 for
students. If you are attending the DSA National Convention, the $110
registration fee includes free admission to "Arguing with the Right," which
immediately precedes the DSA convention. Checks can be sent to the address
below and can be made payable to: Center for Democratic Values.
Location: Clarion Hotel, 7007 North High
Re: Is listproc working okay?
Michael, I concur. Its harder to find my e-mail messages or anything else, without the PEN-L designations for all the pen-l stuff. Thanks much if you can! Best, Ron ** Ron Baiman Dept. of Economics Roosevelt UniversityFax: 312-341-3680 430 South Michigan Ave Chicago, Illinois 60605 Voice: 312-341-3694 ** On Sun, 5 Oct 1997, J Cullen wrote: > >Michael, now that we have shifted to galaxy, the primary addressee when > >you reply to a message is not the mailing-list, but the person who sent > >it. A bit inconvenient and worth fixing. > > > >Louis P. > > Also, if you get to tinkering with the list mechanics, how about putting > PEN-L back in the subject line? It helps me keep my email lists straight. > > Thanks, > > -- Jim Cullen > > > THE PROGRESSIVE POPULIST > James M. Cullen, Editor > P.O. Box 150517, Austin, Texas 78715-0517 > Phone: 512-447-0455 > Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Home page: http://www.eden.com/~reporter > > >
[PEN-L:12760] cdvnet: Radical Scholars & Chicago Labor Teach-in (fwd)
8TH ANNUAL MIDWEST RADICAL SCHOLARS & ACTIVISTS CONFERENCE A TEACH-IN ON LABOR & NEW ALLIANCES Strategies for Workplace, School & Community in the 21st Century October 24-25, 1997 Roosevelt University, Chicago Conference begins Friday, 1pm and ends Saturday 10pm Keynote Plenary: Friday, 7pm Speakers: Abdul Alkalimat, William Adelman, Bill Ayres, Liane Casten, Carl Davidson, Bill Fletcher, Doug Gills, John Hagedorn, Manning Marable, Robert McChesney, Kim Moody, Bertell Ollman, Mike Parker, David Schweikart, Helen Slessarev, Pavlos Stavropoulos, Dan Swinney, Carole Travis, Gerry Zero and many more... MAJOR PANELS --Labor's Alliances: Learning from History --Radical Theory: Why Dialectics? Why Now? --Unfair Burdens: Working Women, Today's Inequities & The Tasks of Unions --The Media, Labor and Labor's Media --Democratic Schools in a Democratic Society --New Technology, Unions & Changes in Work --Socialism's Future: A Debate --Race, Nationality and Winning Alliances --Structural Reform, Mass Campaigns & New Alliances --Globalization, Neoliberalism and Labor Strategy --Independent Politics: Labor-Community Alliances --Welfare Reform, Income Policy & Trade Unions Also: Book & Literature Exhibits, Political Receptions, Videos, Cultural Events Roosevelt Co-Sponsor: School of Policy Studies Organizational Co-Sponsors: Committees of Correspondence, Democratic Socialists of America, Midwest Center for Labor Research Open University of the Left Help by Registering in advance $50 Sustainer $25 Regular $15 Student/Low income Make Checks to Networking for Democracy 3411 W Diversey, Chicago, IL 60647 Contributions are Tax Deductible Tel: 773-384-8827 Fax: 773-384-3904
[PEN-L:12346] Re: Chilian Soc. Sec. reform
Joe, Best quick reference I've seen is by Vicente Navarro, In These Times, March 3, 1997 "Chasing Chile - right over the cliff". Best, Ron ****** Ron Baiman Dept. of Economics Roosevelt UniversityFax: 312-341-3680 430 South Michigan Ave Chicago, Illinois 60605 Voice: 312-341-3694 ** On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, jf noonan wrote: > > Can somebody give me a quick (online) reference to some stuff about > the privatization of Social Security in Chile? I know I've got some > stuff at home, but I want to reply to a query I got elsewhere now. > > Thanks. > > -- > > Joseph Noonan > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
[PEN-L:12290] Re: Shape of Production Possibility Curve
Rudy, Problems with the "diminishing returns" production function wfirst raised to my knowledge by Pierro Sraffa in his 1926 Economic Journal article. There is a symposium on this in then 1930 Economic JOurnal article with Young. This is a major weakness in the whole Neoclassical edifice which is even acknowledged though not integrated into a theory by Marshal himself and by recent Neoclassicals such as Mansfield in his text "MIcroeconomics" (8th Edition , Norton) - see empirical estimates of long-run total cost functions (the flip side of production funtions) on p. 243-244. Most of them are not "u" shaped. Robert Kuttner also adresses this issue while endorsing a Schumpeterian view of long run dynamic efficiency in his recent excellent book "Everything for Sale", Knof, 1996. I assume your refering to long-run problems. If I understand your question correctly, This is a long standing central point of contention between NC's and others PK's, Rads, Schumpeterians, etc. Best, Ron ****** Ron Baiman Dept. of Economics Roosevelt UniversityFax: 312-341-3680 430 South Michigan Ave Chicago, Illinois 60605 Voice: 312-341-3694 ** On Tue, 2 Sep 1997, Rudy Fichtenbaum wrote: > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > --8596EDC528FE2FDF4B76ED97 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > I a gearing up to teach our introductory course in economics (We are on > a quarter system). All principles book always portray the PPC as being > concave and use it to talk about the law of diminishing returns. Isn't > this incorrect from a technical perspective because diminshing returns > requires that one factor be held constant while varying another factor? > In transfering resources from guns to butter (the classic example) isn't > one transfering both labor and capital? If this is the case then how > can the law of diminishing returns apply? > > Next most texts rationalize the concave shape and the law of diminishing > returns by stating that as resources that are best suited for one type > of production are transfered to another type of production they are not > as efficient. This results in increasing costs i.e., a concave > production funtion. How can this be squared with the assumption that > labor and capital are homogenious? If labor and capital are homogenious > then they should be equally adept at producing guns or butter. > > The only way I know of to get a concave PPC is to have two production > functions where at least one has increasing returns to scale. This is > of course inconsistent with perfect competition. > > Am I right about this stuff or did I miss something? > > Rudy > -- > Rudy Fichtenbaum Phone: > 937-775-3085 > Department of Economics FAX: 937-775-3545 > Wright State University email: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Dayton, OH 45435 > > > --8596EDC528FE2FDF4B76ED97 > Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Content-Description: Card for Rudy Fichtenbaum > Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf" > > begin: vcard > fn: Rudy Fichtenbaum > n: Fichtenbaum;Rudy > org:Wright State University > adr:Department of Economics;;3640 Colonel Glenn >Hwy;Dayton;OH;45435-0001;US > email;internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > title: Professor of Economics > tel;work: 937-775-3085 > tel;fax:937-775-3545 > tel;home: 937-233-5252 > x-mozilla-cpt: ;0 > x-mozilla-html: FALSE > end:vcard > > > --8596EDC528FE2FDF4B76ED97-- >
[PEN-L:12266] Re: Comp.Econ.Sys. course bibliography
As many of you know we're trying to put together a collection of URPE Reading lists which we also want to put on the URPE Home Page - I think we would be glad to link this to pen-l (or vice-versa) depending on what gets done first! Best, Ron URPE Midwest Rep. ** Ron Baiman Dept. of Economics Roosevelt UniversityFax: 312-341-3680 430 South Michigan Ave Chicago, Illinois 60605 Voice: 312-341-3694 ** On Thu, 11 Sep 1997, James Devine wrote: > Eric Schutz writes: >>I have just updated a bibliography on socialist > economics that I sent out to pen-l'ers in 1991, suitable for use in courses > on, e.g., Comp. Econ. Sys. I'll be happy to e-mail the new version (about > 200-titles) to pen-l'ers on request.<< > > what we need is a pen-l FTP or gopher site to collect such bibliographies > and syllabi (etc.) so that folks can access this kind of thing easily and > at any time. I recently found a Marx bibliography on line that turned out > to be very useful. It would be great if pen-l could make this kind of > contribution. > > > > > in pen-l solidarity, > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://clawww.lmu.edu/fall%201997/ECON/jdevine.html > Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. > 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA > 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 > "Dear, you increase the dopamine in my accumbens." -- words of love for the > 1990s.
[PEN-L:11704] Re: Chris Tilly
Doug, I believe Chris can be reached at: (617) 731-5543 (h) or 185 Davis Ave. Brrokline, MA 07146 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (508) 727-9820 (o), (508) 934-3035 (f) I think Univ. of Mass. at Lowell Ron ** Ron Baiman Dept. of Economics Roosevelt UniversityFax: 312-341-3680 430 South Michigan Ave Chicago, Illinois 60605 Voice: 312-341-3694 ** On Tue, 12 Aug 1997, Doug Henwood wrote: > Does anyone know how to get in touch with Chris Tilly? I'd like to have him > on the radio to talk about part-time work. > > > Doug > > -- > > Doug Henwood > Left Business Observer > 250 W 85 St > New York NY 10024-3217 USA > +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax > email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > web: <http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html> > >
[PEN-L:11300] Re: URPE SUMMER CONFERENCE
PUBLIC NOTICE TO THE PEN-L COMMUNITY, PLEASE COME TO THE: ** UNION FOR RADICAL POLITICAL ECONOMICS (URPE) SUMMER CONFERENCE THEME: WHAT IS THE GOOD FIGHT? ECONOMIC QUESTIONS FOR THE NEW LABOR MOVEMENT DATE: AUGUST 23-26, 1997 AT: CAMP CHINQUEKA, BANTAM, CONNECTICUT SCHEDULED PLNEARIES AND EVENTS INCLUDE: WORKFARE VERSUS FAIR WORK PROGRESSIVE MACROECONOMIC POLICY WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE A RADICAL IN 1997 FIRST ANNUAL DAVID GORDON MEMORIAL LECTURE BY BOB POLLIN MEETING OF CONTRIBUTORS TO THE NEW URPE READER(S) AND COLLECTION OF RADICAL POLITICAL ECONOMY SCHOLARSHIP PAPER PRESENTATION (AND DONATED BOOK SALE TO SUPPORT IT) ELECTIONS TO THE URPE STEERING COMMITTEE AND RRPE ED BOARD URPE GENERAL MEMBERSHIP BUSINESS MEETING NUMEROUS ADDITIONAL WORKSHOPS AND PAPER PRESENTATIONS This is a conference for Left oriented activists and intellectuals having fun with (or without) kids. Swim, canoe, and hike. At night campfire singing , DJ dancing, and Contra dancing. Cost including tent-space or cabin, 100-300$ . Childcare and lifeguard provided. A great place to informally schmooz with your favorite Pen-l'ers and other assorted Radical Political Economists from the U.S. and abroad. The premier forum for radical economists and and activists and their families in the U.S. for years - what the ASSA (even URPE at the ASSA!) can't offer! CONTACT: URPE NATIONAL OFFICE 1 SUMMER ST. SOMERVILLE, MA 02143 TEL: (617) 776-5888 FAX: (617) 628-2025 E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***** Ron Baiman Midwest Rep.: URPE Steering Committee Roosevelt Univ., Chicago
[PEN-L:11047] Re: Texts in Comparative Systems
Friends, I would greatly appreciate any suggestions on books or other materials for a Comparative Systems course. I last taught this course with a set of articles reflecting my own perspective at the time but am looking for a more comprehensive and systemic overview - a kind of radical text (if such a thing exits) for this time to supplement my articles. Thanks much! Ron ** Ron Baiman Dept. of Economics Roosevelt UniversityFax: 312-341-3680 430 Michigan Ave Chicago, Illinois 60605 Voice: 312-341-3694 **
[PEN-L:10581] Re: Cuba
Louis Max and Jim, Perhaps you'll ought to join us on at summer conference in Cuba - plane leaves tommorow! My impression is that Louis is correct on this one though I'm going to try to find out for my self. Best! Ron ** Ron Baiman Dept. of Economics Roosevelt UniversityFax: 312-341-3680 430 S. Michigan Ave Chicago, Illinois 60605 Voice: 312-341-3694 ** On Thu, 29 May 1997, Louis N Proyect wrote: > The remarks below by Max and Jim Hurd are flippant and show very little > insight into Cuban history and politics. Even the bourgeois press concedes > that there is very little support for a capitalist restoration in Cuba > along Polish lines. One of the reasons for this obviously has to do with > the successive migrations of counter-revolutionary Cubans to the United > States, sponsor of most of Cuba's woes. The average Cuban is smart enough > to understand that American blockade and Russian betrayal are the cause of > their problems rather than Castro. Younger Cubans are resentful of Castro > but ther politics tend to be leftish. If a thread on Cuba opens up on this > list, I hope it can be based on solid information rather than off-the-cuff > opinion. > > Louis Proyect > > > > On Thu, 29 May 1997, Max B. Sawicky wrote: > > > The msg below suggests to me that when Fidel goes to > > his reward, the shit hits the fan in Cuba, even without > > a US invasion. Has anybody ever considered what the > > US left ought to be saying and doing with regard to such > > circumstances? > > > > MBS > > > > > > --- Forwarded Message Follows --- > > Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 16:27:07 -0500 (EST) > > From: Jim Hurd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To:Jason A Schulman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Re[2]: dsanet: Unity Proceedures > > Reply-to: Jim Hurd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > A member of the Cuban Communist Party was at a party I had the > > other night. This CP member has a more negative analysis of the Cuban > > Revolution than do you! Isn't a bit strange that Castro, has never once > > in all his years in power be overruled on a decision (internally)? Even in > > a very deformed "workers state" wouldn't there be some breaks on one man's > > will? That he isn't as quirky as Pol Pot, The Talibans, Kim il Sung, > > Ceaucescu etc, is testimony to a certain mental stability-- but the guy is > > an absolute dictator. I would prefer him as a Communist to say Stalin, in > > the same sense that I would prefer Harold Washington to Jane Byrne as a > > Democrat, but the workers in Cuba have no real power. > > > > === > > Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW > > 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 > > 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 > > > > Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views > > of anyone associated with the Economic Policy > > Institute. > > === > > > > > > > >
[PEN-L:10545] Re: planning and democracy
** Ron Baiman Dept. of Economics Roosevelt UniversityFax: 312-341-3680 430 S. Michigan Ave Chicago, Illinois 60605 Voice: 312-341-3694 ** On Sat, 24 May 1997, Max B. Sawicky wrote: > > > b) When might this be necessary? One good example is WITHIN large > > multinational corporations i.e. like Microsoft . Are these not national > > and international PUBLIC institutions which are determining the course of > > Techno development for the world? Should their choices and strategies > > not be democratically acountable? My point here is that there is no way > > Sure. > > > to reduce accountability of institutions in the economy to the market > > I don't think I said there was. > > > plus taxes and subsidies. Democratic Planning is inevitable . . . > > If you generalize the definition of planning > beyond ownership and direct control of capital > allocation, I don't disagree either. I do think > there isn't much left of planning, properly > speaking, much less socialism, without public > ownership of capital and public control of its > allocation. What's left is where most of us are, > in some kind of social-democratic framework. > In other words, I agree with those on the further > left who say most of us on, say, PEN-L, aren't > really socialists. I differ in that I think > that's as it should be. Max, Your previous two points appear to contradict each other. It appears to me that if the inherently SOCIAL CHOICES of large and powerful and powerful enterprizes are to made DEMOCRATICALLY AND SOCIALLY ACCOUNTABLE and if we agree that the INDIVIDUAL CHOICE driven markets (when they are optimally competitive - and if income is fairly distributed) cannot do this - it appears to me that we are talking about social "ownership" and control of capital among other things. "Social ownership" as Pierson points out is not a clear and obvious concept just as "private ownership" in today's corporate capitalism is not so clear - but a limiting case. In my view there is no recourse but to go beyond Social Democratic type "indirect" influence of investment and markets to a much more active and direct control over these as well as the social decisions of powerful entities within the economy. This is just democracy - again markets and indirect planning schemes appear to me to be woefully inadequate to this job - not to mention the need for more equitable distribution on income. > > > c) This doesn't mean that this PROJECT can be accomplished > > overnight and that market pricing will be abolished over night. > > Market Prices > > currently reflect supply and demand of socially embeded markets - what > > would be difference with more planning ? - presumabley better prices > > which actually reflect real social constituted priorities and needs as > > determined by more democratically (and less CEO ) determined social > > choices plus many important decisions which try to take into account > > social goals and some shadow prices that more accurately reflect > > externalities and future social development goals than present market prices. > > This example reinforces my previous remark. > To my way of thinking, you are describing > Pigouvian taxes, where tax rates adjust prices > up or down as appropriate to social cost. If > that's socialism, then every state with excise > taxes on gasoline, liquor, and tobacco are > socialistic, or, more likely, none Even if such a "perfect tax" system could be devised to take care of all the externalities inequities in power, product tie-ins, research and cross licencing, etc etc. (see LEAN AND MEAN, Bennett Harrison) - WHO would do this if one conceeds so much private power to corporate and individual capital and restricts one's activity to indirectly manipulating prices on the market. It seems to me that this policy approach offers no solution to this classic problem of social democracy - evident today on a global scale. Thanks for your detailed response - and sorry I'm so late in responding! Best, Ron
[PEN-L:10309] Re: planning and democracy
** Ron Baiman Dept. of Economics Roosevelt UniversityFax: 312-341-3680 430 S. Michigan Ave Chicago, Illinois 60605 Voice: 312-341-3694 ** On Tue, 20 May 1997, Max B. Sawicky wrote: > What is the basis for the allotments? "Democracy." > If nobody owns capital, why not permit consumer > sovereignty and use taxes and subsidies to adjust > prices to social costs? Democratically of course. > Max, I would defer to Bill for comments the rest of your post but this idea of using taxes and subsidies as a substitute for other types of planning I think needs also to be specifically addressed. I have four points here: a) In my view the essence of socialism is (aside from socializing the means of production) social choice - i.e. planning. There really is no such thing as "market socialism" as Christopher Pierson points out in SOCIALISM AFTER COMMUNISM - most forms of socialism include markets but with a large degree of planning, regulation, taxes and subsidies and political social choice which are necessary to achieve socialist goals which the market on its own will not. I see this attempt to reduce all planning to "taxes and subsidies" as another way to try to avoid direct and explicit social choice in cases where this may be necessary ( I have nothing agains t taxes and subsidies if that all thats needed). b) When might this be necessary? One good example is WITHIN large multinational corporations i.e. like Microsoft . Are these not national and international PUBLIC institutions which are determining the course of Techno development for the world? Should their choices and strategies not be democratically acountable? My point here is that there is no way to reduce accountability of institutions in the economy to the market plus taxes and subsidies. Democratic Planning is inevitable with all its worts and problems and these are unavoidable if socialist goals (like reducing the SOCIAL division of labor (per Pat Devine), fostering liberating and sustainable technology before it become an irreversable fact - like PCB's in Lake Michigan and in the global environment, etc.) are to be realized. c) This doesn't mean that this PROJECT can be accomplished overnight and that market pricing will be abolished over night. Market Prices currently reflect supply and demand of socially embeded markets - what would be difference with more planning ? - presumabley better prices which actually reflect real social constituted priorities and needs as determined by more democratically (and less CEO ) determined social choices plus many important decisions which try to take into account social goals and some shadow prices that more accurately reflect externalities and future social development goals than present market prices. d) I've been arguing these points with David Belkin of "Market Socialist and Limited Government" fame or notoriety within DSA (in various SOCIALIST FORUM issues) and I may be projecting some of his views on you - but they do seem similar a sort of "Neo-Leftism" which (I think) emphasizes public and social choice problems and presumes that these are so great that we must accept mostly markets with limited government instead of seeing this as a challenge and a project that can't be avoided - the social choices will be made by markets and they won't then ususally be socialist social choices. I don't think you take this to anywhere near the extreme that Belkin does who has problems with industiral policy for example - or you wouldn't be working for EPI - I don't think. And, speaking of more nuanced positions: I am sympathetic to the idea of using "constructed or regulated markets" as much as possible to avoid the direct relations of subordination and command inherent in "vertical" relations of planning, as Selucky (MARXISM SOCIALISM AND FREEDOM, London: Macmillan, 1979) points out (see Pierson quote p. 88). Markets can offer the ILLUSION of objectivity and diffusion of direct command. But still many social choices will have to be direct (by democratic bodies) at some level however mediated through markets - and many will not be matters of taxing and subsidizing market driven choices. Cheers!, Ron
[PEN-L:10149] Re: Walras vs. Sraffa
** Ron Baiman Dept. of Economics Roosevelt UniversityFax: 312-341-3680 430 Michigan Ave Chicago, Illinois 60605 Voice: 312-341-3694 ** On Tue, 13 May 1997, Ajit Sinha wrote: > > Ron, I don't understand how could the reswitching critique be applied to the > Marxian/Sraffian theory? I have not read either Marglin or the reference Gil > was talking about. Though I would like to read both, when I get some free > time. But I think the critique has to be something different than what has > been proposed by Gil and you. Reswitching basically critiques the > neoclassical thesis of substitution of the 'factors of production' as a > response to changes in 'factor costs'. The Sraffian theory does not have > anything like this, so how could the reswitching critique apply to it? > Ajit, This is indeed one of the more interesting points which Marglin makes (which I haven't really gotten through myself yet!) But in later chapters of his book (GROWTH DISTRIBUTION AND PRICES) he formulates a continuous substitution Neo-Marxian (a.k.a. Sraffian) model with variable proportions (Chapter 13) in order to show that although the NC model depends on this more than the Neo-Marxist or Neo-Keynesian, the other models can also be formulated with continous substitution which allows for reswitching as well. If Marglin is right, this particular (structuralist/marginalist) distinction between the models becomes a matter of formalism rather than substance - the real substatial differences lying elsewhere. If this is correct, I believe it strengthens the case for a Neo-Marxist (Sraffian)/Neo-Keynesian (long run) and NC short-run grand "unified" approach as it would vitiate the critique that the former is too rigid and structural. Best Regards, Ron
[PEN-L:9982] Re: Books for Review
Eric, How are things going? - my usual lame greeting however blitzed out by 500 e-mails not too bad. I would be interested in reviewing: Comar, Edward A., ed. THE GLOBAL POLITICAL ECONOMY OF COMMUNICATION: . Thanks, Ron ** Ron Baiman Dept. of Economics Roosevelt UniversityFax: 312-341-3680 430 S. Michigan Ave Chicago, Illinois 60605 Voice: 312-341-3694 **
[PEN-L:9964] Re: Barbara Ehrenreich and DSA?
Louis, Yes, Ehrenreich is an Honorary Chair of DSA and quite active - recently she spoke at the DSA youth conference in Columbus Ohio. You can smear DSA's "pretty good name" as much as you'd like too - we can take it - isn't that what "democratic" socialism is all about! I thought her "deviationist" thinking in the Book reviews was quite interesting. Regards, Ron ****** Ron Baiman Dept. of Economics Roosevelt UniversityFax: 312-341-3680 430 S. Michigan Ave Chicago, Illinois 60605 Voice: 312-341-3694 ** On Tue, 29 Apr 1997, Louis Proyect wrote: > In the latest Nation magazine Barbara Ehrenreich reviews 3 books on the > subject of war while Susan Faludi reviews Ehrenreich's new book on the very > same subject called "Blood Rites". I found all of it completely hostile to > traditional socialist thinking on the subject. Is Ehrenreich still with DSA? > I want to respond to this stuff on the net but don't want to smear DSA's > pretty good name. > > Louis Proyect > >
[PEN-L:9953] Re: Walras vs. Sraffa
Dear Comrades, At the risk of wading into this with little time to thoroughly go through the lengthy posts especially Ajit and Gil (I have perused them to around April 22 or so), I think the following may add to this debate (Gil -Robin - you may recognize this!) a) In agreement with Gil, Steve Marglin also discounts the importance of reswitching as a count against the NC-Walrasian framework arguing that similar that similar critiques can be applied to "Neo-Marxist" models (which in Marglin's typology are closer to what GIL/Ajit are labeling Sraffian models) - this is in GROWTH DISTRIBUTION AND PROFITS. Also Marglin ends up trying to integrate an investment function (what he calls a Neo-Keynesian model) into his Neo-Marxist model on the grounds that some combination of these two would represent the most accurate Macro growth model. Thus a recognition of a need for a more careful modeling of future oriented goods like investment and savings. David (Gordon) I believe was also in concurrance with this approach as he taught a full course basically on this book incorporating other readings from Lance Taylor, Becker, Scott, etc. - I'm not trying to drop names here - just ot give some idea of where I got turned onto this and its geneology! b) In agreement with Ajit and Robin, (and Marglin), the basic political implication of the Walrasian NC model that growth and distribution depends on Biology (rate of popu;ation growth as full employment is presumed) , technology, and preferences (from out of the sky) cannot be ignored. The neglect of the function of class power both in the labor and in investment markets is the major political implication of this model. There is no "surplus" being expropriated and turned over to captialists , the non-classical , neo-classical implication cannot be ignored. c) On the issue of supply, i think we have to get back to Sraffa's original point regarding the general absence of upward sloping long-term marginal cost curves i.e. supply curves. We have to regognize that the Walrasian model is therefore basically a "short-term" model when "endownments - ie. class structure" and major long-term investments are given. As a short-term model I have no problem with it. c) In the long term is where "social choice" and "endogeneous preference formation" are critical. These I would argue points to social wage setting and technognology investment paremeters of class struggle. This is how histroy and laws of motion which is what we are presumably more interested in are made. Robin's QUIET REVOLUTION IN WELFARE ECONOMICS lays out some important results on endogenous preference formation. The social choice aspect I believe is best captured through the kind of structuralist I-O DYNAMIC and explicitly class struggle parameterized framework that Sraffian or "Neo-Marxist" models represent. The key here is the distinction between INDIVIDUAL CHOICE represented by NC walrasian models and social choice (and democratic planning) represented by the other models. This also is why I think competitive game theory would have to applied pretty carefully if at all to theis higher level of social choice parameter setting. In Solidarity, Ron ** Ron Baiman Dept. of Economics Roosevelt UniversityFax: 312-341-3680 430 S. Michigan Ave Chicago, Illinois 60605 Voice: 312-341-3694 **
[PEN-L:9567] Re: URPE Summer Conference
Sorry folks about the slip! By the way though: The URPE summer conference is scheduled for for August 23-26 at Camp Chinquecka in Bantam (Western) CT. The theme this year will be: "What is the Good Fight: Economic Questions for the New Labor Movement". Plenaries will be: Workfare versus Fair Work, macro Policy for the Left, and Wither URPE/ Whether URPE: What does it mean to be a Radical in 1997. Confirmed speakers include Bill Fletcher, Education Sec. of the AFL-CIO, Nancy Rose , and many others. Bob Pollin will be giving the first David Gordon memorial lecture. Please come and bring your ideas and workshop proposals and papers! Contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or (212) 663-2911 For rides and fees call URPE National Office: (617) 776-5888 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9558] Re: FWD: IMPORTANT !!! READ RIGHT AWAY!!!! -Forwarded
> Subject: FWD: IMPORTANT !!! READ RIGHT AWAY > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain > Content-Disposition: inline > > > -- > Subject: IMPORTANT READ RIGHT AWAY! > Date: Tuesday, April 08, 1997 11:03AM > > > > ATTENTION INTERNET AND ONLINE USERS.. > > Be on the lookout for this email subject AOL4FREE.com. It will bring > > lots of heart ache when it destroys your system files as you open it for > > viewing. Delete it IMMEDIATELY! > > > > THERE IS A NEW AOL SCAM."It is essential that this problem be > reconciled > as > > soon as possible. A few hours ago, I opened an E-mail that had the > subject > > heading of aol4free.com Within seconds of opening it, a window > appeared > > and began to display my files that were being deleted. I immediately > shut down my computer, but it was too late. This virus wiped me out. It > ate > the Anti-Virus Software that comes with the Windows '95 Program along > with > > F-Prot AVS. Neither was able to detect it. Please be careful and send > this to as many people as possible, so maybe this new virus can be > eliminated. > > > > FORWARD this to as many people as you care about] > > > __ > This e-mail message is subject to attorney-client privilege and contains > information intended only for the person(s) named above. If you have > received this transmission in error, notify us immediately. Destroy the > original message and all copies. > >
[PEN-L:9557] Re: URPE Summer Conference
Jim, On behalf of the URPE steering committee I've been asked to ask you if you can be "disk jockey" at the summer conference yet again? I believe this would be the second night of the conference which will be held during the usual dates in late August. Let me know as soon as you are able. We need to firm up our schedule for the Newsletter. Thanks, Ron (708) 445-9052
[PEN-L:9420] Re: help on readings on socio-economics?
> > >I have a student who is interested in doing an independent study on > >"social economics." Unlike most students, she is actually more interested > >in getting a theoretically understanding of this particular school of > >thought. I know there is a Society for the Advancement of Socio-economics. > >Can anyone suggests some readings (texts or articles) that would provide > >an introduction. > > > >Thanks, > >Doug Orr > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] Doug, I believe that one of the "canonical texts" of the Social Economics folks is: HUMANISTIC ECONOMICS Mark A. Lutz and Kenneth Lux NY:Bootstrap Press, 1988. Ron
[PEN-L:9418] Re: Hawkins, Belkin, Magdoff
On Mon, 31 Mar 1997, Louis Proyect wrote: > PEN-L'ers might be interested in my unbiased, journalistic musings on the > panel discussion "What economics for socialism? Marxist, Market Economy, > Cooperative?" that took place at this weekend's Socialist Scholars > Belkin is a member of Democratic Socialists of America, the sponsor > of the Socialist Scholars Conference and official section of the Second > International in the USA. He is a socialist in name only. Like most DSA'ers, > his politics can best be described as liberal Democrat with lip-service paid > to a socialism somewhere in the distant future, perhaps the 24th century. > Just for the record - (and I don't expect Louis to agree with me) I am also a DSA member and have debating this stuff with David Belkin for some years vociferously (see SOCIALIST FORUM - recent and back issues). I find that by far most DSAers agree with my "anti-Belkin" "anti-market" pro social choice and social governance "democratically planned socialism" point of view and reject most of David's arguments. As the major SOCIALIST organization in the U.S. (we have it in our name folks) I don't think that most DSAers are the kind of "liberal democrats" that Louis describes. In fact I find this canard of beating on DSA now a little silly. Of course we are a pluralist organization and David is an active member - but his views should be treated as those of a small minority within a much larger democratic-socialist organization. In Solidarity, Ron Baiman Chicago, DSA CDV Steering Committee
[PEN-L:9416] Re: market socialism, cont.
Michael et. al., Sorry again for the late reponses - I realize that you may not catch this but what the hell! Regarding my comments - I don't think the issue is the "purity" of market socialism vis avis markets but the counter-productive political implications of advocating "market-something" when you cant't as a socialist support market allocation as a principle whatever the result (as a Hayekian or neo-liberal can). Here I agree with Robin Hahnel and other anti-market socialists. Regarding reform or transition politics - this was one of Pierson's points as your summary of Schweickart's review also notes. I would have to disagree with S.'s conclusions though I think (at least as you praphrase - I have to read the review (thanks for the reference) he does capture some of Pierson's key arguments - with a particular spin! My own spin would be that not withstanding their claims to the contrary "market socialists" DO NOT offer a "feasible" political STRATEGY to go beyond Social-Democracy and Communism and (mostly - S. being one of the exceptions as he includes democratically planned net investment as part of his "economic democracy" - I think planning should be extended to other realms like labor markets, social pricing of basic infrastructure, commanding heights of commodity production, etc. but at least S. goes pretty far in this direction) DO NOT offer a practical VISION of socialism . The focus on property rights is not a good and feasible political transitionary strategy. Focusing on "anti-market" politics in my view is key to current progressive strategy - needless to say "market socialism" tends to point away from this. On vision Pierson's point is that market socialists tend to neglect the non-market spheres like the state, civil society, etc. The point is that socialist values require extensive democratical "social choice" which cannot be derived from markets i.e. there is ultimately no escaping "democratically planned socialism" INCLUDING extensive social choice type planning within the economy if it is to reflect socialist values especially of radical democracy. I don't see this as "muddle headed" - I don't think Pierson or any socialist has any problems with the goal of "socializing" social property so I don't think the issue is that this is "too radical". Its just that though this is always an important issue for socialists "market socialism" makes it THE ISSUE and (sometimes the only issue) and this is not politically advantageous and undermines the broader socialist project which requires a lot more than just changing property relations within a market. S. may be right that Peirson doesn't talk alot about class power (there are a lot of other books on this) but I don't think he is trying to avoid or neglect his reality - the focus of the book is on analyzing the strngths and weaknesses of "market socialism" and deriving political conclusions from this analysis. One could alternately argue that singling out the one issue of capitalist ownership is not an effective way to proceed politically at this time. This does not mean that it is thereby dropped from the socialist agenda - rather it needs to be included in a much broader socialist agenda that market socialists have (mostly) dropped. Best Regards, Ron Baiman Roosevelt Univ., Chicago On Thu, 20 Mar 1997, Michael Hoover wrote: > > According to ypu, Pierson has two main > > objections to market socialism. > > 1) A market socialist economy cannot be a "pure" free market economy but > > will require extensive government regulation to deal with externalities, > > 2) Market socialism cannot be achieved by reformist means. > > --Justin > > > I think pen-l readers (market socialists and non alike) may find > > > SOCIALISM AFTER COMMUNISISM: THE NEW MARKET SOCIALISM by Christopher > > > Pierson (Penn State , 1995) of interest. > > > Ron Baiman > > I recently read a review - I'v not read Pierson myself - by David > Schweickart in American Political Science Review...according to > S, P maintains, on the one hand, that market socialism is > unfeasible because it is too radical - it takes aim at the heart > of the contemporary economic order and aims to replace capitalist > ownership of the means of production with some form of social > ownership...on the other hand, S says that P asserts that market > socialism is unfeasible because it isn't radical enough - that > market socialists have insufficiently addressed ways in which > the political state and civil society can be more democratic and > that market socialists haven't adequately explored q
[PEN-L:9333] Re: LA Living Wage Passes!
Bob, This is great news! Its been dead in committee forever in Chicago where they're afraid to bring it up to vote for fear of embarresment as most Alderman supported it - but a Daley a.k.a. the Dictator opposes it they will not let it out of committee. I will pass this on. In Solidarity, Ron Baiman Roosevelt U., Chicago On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, Robert Pollin wrote: > Finally, some very good news for the left and labor movement. After > a long, bitter struggle, the LA Living Wage ordinance passed 12 - 0, with > three abstensions. Mayor Richard Riordan had promised to veto the > ordinance, but with a 12-vote majority, the ordinance is now veto proof! > > Though the coverage is still very small--directly probably about > 5,000 workers--it should help unions to fight for new wage norms throughout > the city. > > This victory was the result of an extremely well organized and > effective labor/progressive coalition. Several people at UC-Riverside, > including me, worked with the coalition in producing research, including a > full scale study, "The Economics of the Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance." > > There are great lessons here about what it takes to win something > worthwhile. One thing is that well-supported appeals to social justice > really can be effective at the local level, where the dominance of big money > corporate politics is far less pervasive--even in a big city like LA. > > -- Bob Pollin > > > > Robert Pollin > Department of Economics > Univesity of California-Riverside > Riverside, CA 92521-0427 > (909) 787-5037, ext 1579 (office); (909) 788-8106 (home) > (909) 787-5685 (fax); [EMAIL PROTECTED] (e-mail) >
[PEN-L:9319] Re: market socialism, cont.
Justin, I'm sorry for the very belated response. Referring to quick and dirty summary of Pierson's SOCIALISM AFTER COMMUNISM (Pen State U., 1995) you ask? On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, Justin Schwartz wrote: According to ypu, Pierson has two main > objections to market socialism. > > 1) A market socialist economy cannot be a "pure" free market economy but > will require extensive government regulation to deal with externalities, > etc. OK, but why does this show that markets do not have a central role as > regulators of a socialist economy or can be entirely dispensed with in > favor of planning? > I think the issue here is "central role as regulators of the economy" and the very gray area between "market socialists" and advocates of what I like to call "Democratically Planned Socialism" who accept a role for markets but who emphasize that social-choice and planning will have THE central role in regulating the economy though markets will have A role in this as well particularly in areas pertaining to individual choice. This group which I am partial too include (in my reading) Pat Devine (with his distinction between "market exchange" and "market forces" and David Laibman, David Kotz) but could also include folds identified "market socialists" such as David Schweickart and perhaps yourself? depending on the relative emphasis placed on markets as "social regulators". As I read it Pierson's point is that socialists cannot make markets a "good" in themselves in the way that Hyekian liberals and conservative do this. They cannot really be "market socialists" but only socialists who see some value in markets IF THEY SERVE TO FURTHER SOCIALIST GOALS. I see this as corroborating the arguments of anti-"market socialists" that it is a mistake for socialists to politically refer to their vision as "market-anything". Socialist goals are incompatible with "market ideology" (in this sense as an ultimate and principled regulator ) and this has to be made clear in the label that we give to our vision. > 2) Market socialism cannot be achieved by reformist means. Why is this a > criticism of market socialism rather than reformism? > I don't believe so, as Pierson is a reformist. The point I believe is that in so far as market socialism is viewed as a way out of the problems of social-democratic reformist politics it fails. I think he is right that this has been one of the markets socialists principle justifications (a practical and feasible socialism that can be currently attractive politically and useful now as an organizing vision for socialists). Pierson points out that reforms which have to more with expanding the power of democratic and collective social choice - over markets (what I would call anti-market politics) may be more feasible and better then trying to retain market regulation and change property rights. IN Pen-L Solidarity, Ron Baiman Roosevelt U., Chicago
[PEN-L:9318] Re: Market socialism
On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, James Devine wrote: > Ron Baiman writes: >>I too like much of Hahnel-Albert's work but feel that > their > categorical rejection of all market mechanisms is counter productive and > leaves them open to the wishfull thinking impractical utopian type > criticism to which they have been subjected. << > > It's important to remember that there's a very important theoretical reason > to categorically reject market mechanisms: it encourages us to develop > alternatives, as Albert and Hahnel have done. I've talked to Robin Hahnel > and he says he doesn't reject markets completely, since any socialist > effort to run the economy would (at least initially) be forced to use > markets. (He said that he agreed with a letter I sent to Albert's Z > magazine.*) But we should know what we're trying to achieve (the utopia) > _before_ we compromise. At least that way we know what the costs of the > compromise are. > > *yeah, I know that it's not literally his magazine. > Jim - a belated response (I just read your post). Persons who believe that "individual choice" can work quite well through markets and therefore should be relegated to (properly social choice circumscribed) markets cannot view the abolition of markets as "the utopian goal". In this sense - this *in principle* rejection of markets by Hahnel and Albert - whatever practical comprimises they conceed are necessary for the transition or whatever - is what I believe leaves them vulnerable. In Pen-L Solidarity, Ron Baiman Roosevelt U., Chicago
[PEN-L:8975] Re: market socialism, cont.
Jim (Devine), I liked your post on dumping costs and the idealization of markets by some market socialists as a magical way to avoid "political" social choice decisions. I too like much of Hahnel-Albert's work but feel that their categorical rejection of all market mechanisms is counter productive and leaves them open to the wishfull thinking impractical utopian type criticism to which they have been subjected. I think pen-l readers (market socialists and non alike) may find SOCIALISM AFTER COMMUNISISM: THE NEW MARKET SOCIALISM by Christopher Pierson (Penn State , 1995) of interest. I'm reveiwing for SCIENCE AND SOCIETY which sent me the book out of the blue - for which I'm grateful. Pierson who is a political scientist has packed an awsomely exhaustive survey of market socialism both from economists , but particualry from policy sci theorists such as Dahl, Held, and Gould, which is highly relevant to this debate but which we economists rarely address. His conclusion: though the market socialists have provoked a much needed debate on some traditional socialist assumptions, it is not a viable or feasible program for the future. Among other things this is because market socialists are not Hayekians who can see the market as an absolute ideal but rather acknowledge that bad market outcomes must be corrected politically. This implies an embedding of markets in politics in a way that Neo-Liberals would dispise, but which means that markets can only be advocated conditionally for utilitarian purposes by market socialists so that in the end the issue once again is increased democratization and accountability of both the state and civil society - a job which cnnot be reduced to markets. Pierson argues that in the end market socialism is also not a FEASIBLE strategy politically as the changes in ownership it advocates would be fiercly resisted and could not be implemented without collapsing an existing captialist economy (esp. in an era of global capitalism) This which is also the problem of social democratic reforms which led to some of the market socialism ideas IS NOT SOLVED by market socialism. Pierson seems to lean towards a "wage-fund" or "pension-fund" staregy which a la Meidner could be implemented gradually out of growth. Finally,an era of increasing recognition of "environmental limits" whatever they may be, implies greater atention to collective control over resources. So we're back to social choice, "externalities", and the environment - (my reading) once again. You can run but you can't hide (from social choice) behind a market! Cheers! Ron Baiman Economics, Roosevelt Univ., Chicago
[PEN-L:8828] Re: mkt socialism and sustainability of economic growth
Ajit, I agree with you on both points. I would frame the first as rasising the importance of having some degree of ex-post "social choice" or "voice", regarding important production technologies and organizations i.e. democratic planning of forces of production which cannot generally be reduced to tax and subsidy incentives and/or ex-post "market regulation". Ron Baiman Roosevelt Univ, Chicago On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, Ajit Sinha wrote: > > > Also in 1992, a WARNING TO HUMANITY was issued by the Union > > of Concerned Scientists that began: "Human beings and the > > natural world are on a collision course. Human activities > > inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the > > environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many > > of our current practices put at serious risk the future that > > we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, > > and may so alter the living world that it will be unable > > to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental > > changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our > > present course will bring about." > _ > > This point comes back to the issue I had raised earlier. A lack of a > critique of the forces of production by socialist economists is no longer > posible. In this whole debate over market versus planned socialism we are > only concerned with what to produce and how to distribute. My point is how > to produce is the central question for socialism now--this is what would > determine the "freedom" or lack of it of the workers and humanity in > general, as well as sustainability of life. > > > > And finally, in 1993 THE GROWING WORLD POPULATION, a joint > > statement by 58 of the world's scientific academies said: > > "In our judgement, humanity's ability to deal successfully > > with its social, economic, and environmental problems will > > require the achievement of zero population growth within > > the lifetime of our children." > > > It is fashionable to make "population" a or rather the "problem". This in > many cercumstances a dangerous idea. It leads to policies that attempt to > directly control population, which basically means controling the people of > poor countries. Population, in my opinion, is more of an effect rather than > the cause of poverty and environmental degradation. One needs to separate > population from environmental problems as a first step to be able to deal > with the real issues seriously. > > Cheers, ajit sinha >
[PEN-L:8827] Re:Need Help: Anti-trust (fwd)
Folks, Any other suggestions? Post directly to Landay and pen-l- I'll see copy on pen-l. Thanks Much! Ron -- Forwarded message -- Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 13:59:58 -0600 (CST) From: BAIMAN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jerry M. Landay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Anti-trust Jerry, The works I'm most familiar with in this area are: Michael Best THE NEW COMPETITION , I believe from 1989, presents a different view that the classic anti-trust approach. Bennett Harrison LEAN AND MEAN on more recent industrial organization, not so much anti-trust. Alfred Chandler THE VISIBLE HAND among many other works is the pre-eminent econmic historian of industiral organization who also is more postive about U.S. big business in the post-war era than most anti-trust types. THere is also CONRTRIVED COMPETITION , i forget the author but he teaches at Harvard I believe and came out a few years ago. I'll post on radical econ list to wee what else comes up. Cheers, and Good Luck! Ron On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, Jerry M. Landay wrote: > Ron: > > I met you at the Radical Scholars Conference, and am now writing at > the > suggestion of Steve Balkin. > > Am a non-economist now beginning research on the media monopoly > issue with > regard to deregulation and the annihilation of anti-trust enforcement with > regard > to media mergers and acquisitions. My objective is to write an article for > general, non-technical readers on the issue under the general working title: > Whatever Happened to antitrust (I've just completed the first of a triad > called > Whose First Amendment Is It Anyhow)? > > Am going to Washington shortly to do some interviews on the > subject, and > want to be generally informed with a relevant historical overview. Can you > recommend > one or two books that will provide that overview, beginning with the robber > barons and > TR and coming up to date -- at least through Reagan? The more readable the > better > for this layman. Any other recommendations to relevant reading matter is > much appreciated. > > My thanks in advance. > > Jerry M. Landay > University of Illinois @ Urbana > > >
[PEN-L:8736] mkt socialism and sustainability of economic growth (fwd)
Dear pen-lers, I'm taking the liberty of forwarding this from the CDV (Center for Democratic Values) list. Ron Baiman Roosevelt U., Chicago -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 03:56:02 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: cdvnet: sustainability of economic growth Based on portions of recent posts from Eric Ebel and Ron Baiman, I'm concerned that many DSA people seem to be unaware of the many well-informed and well-respected people who dispute the idea that economic growth can continue indefinitely (an idea now widely accepted by people on both the left and the right). The following message, forwarded from the Alliance for Democracy list, briefly summarizes and documents what the writer calls "a scientific consensus that the economy can not continue at the scale that it has" and that "we may have as few as 35 years left before the 'functional integrity' of our ecosystem is destroyed." -Ralph Suter Subj: ALL: Issue/Sustainability/TheThreat Date: 97-01-31 11:09:49 EST From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Hanson) There is now a scientific consensus that the economy can not continue at the scale that it has. Moreover, we may have as few as 35 years left before the "functional integrity" of our ecosystem is destroyed. Any plans for future money-making games will have to correlate with modern science. Otherwise, this list itself is just a game. Jay references from reality: In 1992, the two most prestigious scientific institutions in the world, the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society, issued POPULATION GROWTH, RESOURCE CONSUMPTION, AND A SUSTAINABLE WORLD which ended with: "The future of our planet is in the balance. Sustainable development can be achieved, but only if irreversible degradation of the environment can be halted in time. The next 30 years may be crucial." Archived http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page7.htm Also in 1992, a WARNING TO HUMANITY was issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists that began: "Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about." This warning was signed by over 1,500 members of national, regional, and international science academies. Sixty-nine nations from all parts of Earth are represented, including each of the twelve most populous nations and the nineteen largest economic powers. It was also signed by 99 Nobel Prize winners. Archived http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page8.htm And finally, in 1993 THE GROWING WORLD POPULATION, a joint statement by 58 of the world's scientific academies said: "In our judgement, humanity's ability to deal successfully with its social, economic, and environmental problems will require the achievement of zero population growth within the lifetime of our children." Archived http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page75.htm
[PEN-L:8735] Re: Pension ownership
Colin, A late response, As far as I know the resident Radical Economist expert on this subject (at least for the U.S. - though I believe she's also looked at this in other countries) is Theressa Carlducci (or something close to this - ) at Notre Dame Univ., Economics Dept. I think she just co-authored a book on this. Hope this is helpful, Ron Baiman Roosevelt Univ., Chicago On Sun, 9 Feb 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > This is posted from another list with the original poster's permission: > > CBPENETers, > > I keep reading of cases of disputes about the "ownership" of pension > surpluses. I attach an article from today's Daily Telegraph about such a > dispute. > > Here in my own university the fact that faculty salaries have not increased > over the last few years has had the effect of producing a surplus (because > the pension fund anticipated that our salaries would be higher than they > currently are), and the faculty association and the university > administration are at loggerheads over who the surplus belongs to. > > Has there ever been an article published about this topic? I cannot recall > seeing any academic analysis of the problem. I recall that the closure of > Dominion food stores about 12 years ago was surrounded by controversy about > the ethics of employee pension fund management and trusteeship. Does anyone > have any thoughts, citations or analysis to offer on the topic? > > Colin Boyd > > -- > > Electronic Telegraph > Saturday 8 February 1997 > > Power firms 'misused' pension surplus > By Michael Smith > > (the "$" sign indicates one english pound in the following article: Colin) > > PRIVATISED electricity companies wrongly removed $1 billion from the > industry's pension funds to finance redundancies and to take holidays from > contributions, according to solicitors acting for pensioners. > > The claim follows a ruling yesterday by Dr Julian Farrand, the pensions > ombudsman, that National Grid had "misused" the $44 million it removed from > the pension scheme after an actuarial valuation in 1992 found a surplus in > the fund. > > The money was used to pay for early retirements and to make the pension > contributions that the company itself would otherwise have had to pay from > profits. Peter Woods, solicitor for the pensioners who complained of the > breach, said that the same misuse had occurred within 13 other electricity > firms. > > Fourteen of the privatised electricity companies used a total of $500 > million in surplus pension funds to pay redundancies and take holidays from > contributions after the 1992 valuation, Mr Woods said. A similar exercise > took place after a 1995 valuation found a surplus in the fund, making a > total of more than $1 billion in "misused" pension funds, he added. > > "The ombudsman's judgment should apply across all the electricity supply > schemes," Mr Woods said. "Where the companies have used surpluses in the > same way they should have to repay it with interest. > > "In respect of the 1992 valuation, the total that should be repaid is > around $500 million. But there was a similar sum in respect of the 1995 > valuation, making a total of $1 billion." > > The power firms expected to be most affected by the ruling are National > Power, which used $176 million for "early retirement deficiency payments", > Nuclear Electric, which used $70 million, and PowerGen which used $59 > million. > > Dr Farrand found that using the money to pay for redundancies or employers' > pension contributions was a breach of the company's duty to exercise the > funds in the best interests of the pensioners rather than its own. > > The scheme's clauses and rules made no provision for pension funds to be > used by the employer, and any amendment to allow it was specifically > excluded, he said. > > "The group trustees have at the insistence of the principal employer > misused the surplus," Dr Farrand ruled. The $44 million should be repaid to > the pension scheme with an additional $2.3 million interest. > > National Grid said it had acted on the advice of its lawyers at all times > and was now discussing the ruling with them with a view to making an appeal > to the High Court. > > "At all times the legal advice has fully supported the company's view that > the arrangements were properly and lawfully made," a National Grid > spokesman said. "It remains our view that the arrangements represented a > fair allocation of the surplus for the benefit of the membership and the > company." &
[PEN-L:8706] Re: market socialism, planned socialism
One of my biggest problems with "mkt socialists" is they have apparently given up on the *PROJECT* of socialism. I have no problem with acknowledging that conscious social choice is not a "solved problem" i.e. that there may be many cases where we may not be able to devise in a particular society at a particualr point in time a "social choice" mechnaism that will function "better" than markets by some generally agreed upon criteria which may even include equity as well as innovation etc. But isn't this precisely our job? - to recognize that markets when applied to social choice (I think that for individual choice their fine - what resturant to go to , what color shoes etc.) will ultimately simply cater to the most powerful market players (in many ways which people on this list have pointed out) and that they cannot ultimately serve as a central social choice allocation mechnaism for a democratic society if socilist ideals - of the kind that Hahnel and Albert, Pat Devine, etc. have expressed very clearly - are to be obtained. What I'm suggesting here is that we not think of this as a utopian scheme to be implemented now, but as a project which may include versions of mkt socialism as intermediate steps but not as a final goal i.e. we may start with financial and investment planning a la Schweickart or Pollin, but we shouldn't think that we have to start or stop with this and leave all else to markets. We, in my view, should be also pushing on other fronts, like direct labor mket planning and wage setting (the "living wage"), and push for more social pricing of important infrastructure, social technological choice where these have braod impact (as in microsoft and intel for example). All the while is seems to me our political message should not be confused - we (I) ultimately would like to see markets only as subordinate mechanisms to coordinate individual choice - wihtin a braod framework of consciously and democratically determined social choice parameters. Otherwise it seems to me we will ultimately have barbarism either of an ecological or social variety. Social Democracy did go quite a way (as the NYT article on Norway shows I think) but is now im most cases in retrenchment, mostly I think due to the ascendency of WORLD captialism. It seems to me our task is to reverse this and to build on Social Democracy toward democratic socialism. In so doing, "market socialist" models may over intermediate kinds of compromise positions to push for which would in most cases be an important step forward - but they can't be seen as ultimate forms, or the last best hope of socialism! So we're going to, inevitably, have historical "path dependency", but we should keep our goal straight and our goal is NOT market socialism, unless one calls market socialism, a socialism with completely democratically planned social choices and only "individual choices" left to circumscribed and regulated markets. Hasta La Victoria! Ron Baiman Roosevelt U., Chicago
[PEN-L:8594] Re: market socialism, planned socialism, ut
Ajit, In response to your questions on "capitalist technology" and "socialist ideology". I agree completely that these are key issues for "market socialism". I have focused particulary on the latter, i.e. the contradiction between "market ideology" and difficulty this raises for the kind of after-the-fact adjustments that many market socialists acknowledge are necessary for equity, social division of labor, and long term planning, and even more problematic is a socialist espousal of "markets" as a label in today's "insane maretization" (to use Peter's words) climate. The former of course cuts both ways, we want "socialist technology" but we also want innovation and often painful technological change when this is socially beneficial. This relates to the problem of innovation that Roemer, Kotz, and others have highlighted as a key problem of Centrally Planned Economies and an issue that democratic planning must address. As I noted in my post I think Laibman's model does address this by introducing competition, and cross contracting, between socialized entreprizes, within a planning framework which would presumably also have input as to the kinds of technologies chosen and if techno change is truely socially beneficial. This is something we (who prioritize democratic planning) have to work on - I think a gradual approach from here (cap market economy) to there, with various levels of *broadly defined* stakeholding merging to a degree of centralized planning for the commanding heights , as I outlined in my previoius post, may offer a practical resolution to this issue. But of course this needs to be much further specified and elaborated.
[PEN-L:8585] Re: market socialism, planned socialism, ut
On Sat, 8 Feb 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In response to Rhon Baiman: > > 1) Social division of labor: agreed that this is important > for socialism. But can't a substantial measure of social > control over the division of labor be handled *directly* > and decentrally via workers' self-management, and *indirectly* > and centrally via investment planning--eg. subsidized credit > allocation for firms that innovatively deploy workers in a > variety of supervisory and menial tasks--and *directly* and > centrally by prescribing appropriate employment policies in > the central and local government sectors, as well as prescribing > suitable labor laws for the worker-controlled sector (mandating > various kinds of interaction in the workplace, etc)? > Yes, I agree, but particularly the later is direct labor market planning - or a more advanced version of "active labor market policy" as in Sweden. I have suggested for example that all workers be required to spend a periods of time doing work in all categories of the social division of labor (I believe Devine had 5 or 6 for example: nurturing, managing, creative, drugery, skilled, etc.) before specializing. This might just be included as an extension of formal education or as part of military service in some countries. Though some would argue that this would represent a further encroachment of individual choice, it seems to me that it greatly extend opportunity and possibility, as well as breath of experieince for MOST people and thus expand real individual choice. This is part of the reason why I don't think it is useful to make an artificial separation between the finacial and other sectors allocating the first to planning and the latter to the market as Schweickart does. Social versus individual choice , planning versus markets, will require case by case adjudication it seems to me, with individual choice (markets) generally circumscribed by longer-term, more deliberative, and braoder scoped, planning. > 2) Labels: Schweickart himself terms his model 'economic > democracy', not 'market socialism'. I think he recognizes > the many limitations of markets, particularly as regards > the volatility of market determination of investment, the > effects of advertizing and sales manipulation, and > the need for a large, non-market sector of public services > in areas like health-care, education, social services, > public transport, public recreational spaces, etc. > Yes again, I now recall that you are correct, as I noted in my earlier post, I like Schweickart's book alot - in fact a quote from a very supportive review I did of it for the RRPE is emblazened on the cover of the paper back edition. I think David goes farther than any other of the broadly speaking "market socialist" models that I'm familiar with, in recognizing the need and importance of planning. A major problem here, as I see it, is one of PR and ideology and goes back to the original Marxist critique of "equal exchange" ideology. It would be very hard to justifiy the degree of investment planning that S. proposes (and the labor market planning that you propose) and at the same time uphold markets as a dominant mechanism for goods, and labor (income) allocation. It seems to me that as socialists we must continue to emphasize that though markets can be useful and important particularly for decisions that that are truely private in that have negligible externalites, important allocation decisions which impact beyond individuals should be subservient to conscious value driven, democratic political allocation, to the extent that accountable and democratic mechanisms can be devised which do improve upon market allocation. This I believe should be our guiding *principle* which in principle delegitimates "equal exchange" and markets politically. In the U.S., socialists should not be lending further credance to the "insane marketization" of society (as you put it for other countries) - but rather, as we have historically, working full tilt against it. The subtleties beyond the labels can be addressed if necessary i.e. that we don't dogmatically reject all markets , they are important for "exit" type accountability to consumers, managed competition (excuse the phrase) is probably necessary to stimluate innovation and achieve greater accountability for many "socialized" enterprizes, etc. (see Laibman's model for example), but while acknowledging that we do take this into account, we need to work to emphasize the importance of 'prisoner's dilemma', equity, long-term planetary and human development, etc. which demonstrate how markets are fundamentally undemocratic, unjust, unfair, and will ultimately lead us to
[PEN-L:8524] Re: market socialism, planned socialism, utopian
getting around paid and professional planning - and professional elected public officials - to make the nitty gritty decisions subject to broadly debated programs and priorities. Its just like what we have now except no public accountability (for CEOs), but it would go beyond this to look at whole markets and industries as in Devine's Negotiated Coordinating Committees. This is getting too long - hope its useful. In Pen-l Solidarity, Ron Baiman Dept. Of Econ. Roosevelt Univ. Chicago
[PEN-L:8522] Re: Submissions Needed for Imperiled Economy Update
Dear Comrades, While I'm on a role here, may I remind you also that URPE is attempting to put together a new Reader (like the Imperiled Economy I&II) but without a title as of yet. Also see Ad in most recent Newsletter. We're looking for representative essays on RPE in the 3000 word range. > > Please send to: > > Ron Baiman > Dept. of Econ. > Roosevelt Univ. > 430 S. Michigan Ave. > Chicago, IL 60605-1394 > > Tel: (847) 619-8573 > Fax: (847) 619-8555 > > in Wordperfect 5.1 or ASCII > > Tentative deadline: Sept. 1, 1997 > > > Thanks, > > Ron
[PEN-L:8521] Re: Submissions Needed for Reading Lists in Radical PE
To Bob, Anders, and all other URPE comrades, Thought this would be a good thred to remind all that URPE is trying to collect Reading Lists again for Radical PE Courses (see add in most recent Newletter) Please send to: Ron Baiman Dept. of Econ. Roosevelt Univ. 430 S. Michigan Ave. Chicago, IL 60605-1394 Tel: (847) 619-8573 Fax: (847) 619-8555 in Wordperfect 5.1 or ASCII Tentative deadline: Sept. 1, 1997 Thanks, Ron
[PEN-L:8520] Re: URPE mailing list
Eugene, I would suggest Germai at the National Office (617) 776-5888. As far as I know we don't have a standard policy on this yet - except to share the list with other Left media for publicity purposes. As this seems a worthy cause (I for one would love to get a copy of this film for my classes) I'm sure we can work something out. I'm hoping Germai and your friend have some idea of what would be good - and then we at the Steering Committee I think can give Germai authority to do this - possibly for some token fee or nothing though I'd have to consult with other SC members! In Solidarity, Ron Ron Baiman Mid-west Rep to URPE SC Roosevelt Univ. Dept. of Economics 430 S. Michigan Ave. Chicago, IL 60605 On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, Eugene P. Coyle wrote: > Who should I contact re renting the URPE mailing list? A friend, who's, > film, "Taken For A Ride," about the GM, Firestone, et. al. conspiracy to > replace transit with automobiles, aired on PBS last August is interested in > distributing it to progressive adacemics. > She wants to mail to URPE members as well as progressives in > Geography and Planning departments, etc. Suggestions welcome. Please > advise me directly on how she can contact the correct person at URPE. > > Thanks. Gene Coyle > >
[PEN-L:8519] Re: Japan as a wave of our future
Anthony et. al.: As I'm sure you know, it is my understanding that, Japanese indus policy has not been to a large extent based on actual management of credit and targeted growth and other incentives and penalties , but as I understand mostly tremedous public-private cooperation or "authoritative suasion" by MITI etc. - no? Stiglitz gave a great paper on this at the ASSA in Boston a few years ago in which he debated wome World Bank guys who were as I recall trying to make a fiscal case which indicated little gov intervention in Japan. I never saw the paper printed up - but it must be somewhere. This is not inconsistent with gov. fiscal austerity.
[PEN-L:8515] Re: capital mobility restrictions
On Fri, 27 Dec 1996, Steele, Jen wrote: > > I'm curious what pen-l folks have to say about capital mobility restictions, > such as a return to a fixed exchange rate system, as a means for stabilizing > local economies. Personally, I have a hard time inagining it. Do you think > it's feasible? What other controls on capital mobility exist, here or in > other countries? Any suggestions on short, current readings about this > issue? Maybe this thread can get us off the personal stuff and back onto > economic issues. Jen, I read (i believe in Schweickart's "Against Capital) that Thurow (as in Lester) is now for a "flexible peg" and that he now regrets the complete liberalization of exchange rates (a little late!) Not much - but maybe helpful. Ron Baiman Roosevelt U. Chicago
[PEN-L:8416] Re: endogenous tastes
This is very late, but it struck me that in Jim's (as in Devine) note he never mentioned Hahnel and Albert's "The Quiet Revolution in Welfare Economics" which is more or less completely devote to modeling the implications of endogenous preference formation in modified NC Welfare econ terms - I found it an excellent book on the topic which also reviews much of the radical PE literature on various and related topics. Ron Baiman Roosevelt U. Chicago
[PEN-L:7733] Re: Textbook on Marxism...
William, For what its worth I'm about to teach an undergraduate course on Marxist Economics (essentially though its not called this) , I'll be using: Paul Sweezy's THEROY OF cAPITALIST dEVELOPMENT NY:Monthly Review Press 1942, 1970 ; John Roemer's FREE TO LOOSE, Harvard U. press , 1988 ; and David Laibman's VALUE TECHNICAL CHANGE AND CRISIS, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1992 In Solidarity, Ron Baiman Economics Roosevelt Univ, Chicago
[PEN-L:7675] Re: Ctr for Democ Values
On Wed, 20 Nov 1996 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > friends, > > in response to jim westrich's comments on ron aronson's presentation at the > midwest radical actviists confernece, i wasn't criticizing his lack of vitality, > just his lack of much of anything to say. i know he was pinch hitting for > another person, but he's a practiced speaker, so i don't see why he had to give > such a trite and boring presentation. by the way, who are these "potluck > community activists"? > > michael yates Michael, Jim, et al: In Ron Aronson's defense (here I must admit that I am on the CDV coordinating Committee) he is an Academic not a "practiced publilc speaker" - at the time he was not only pinch hitting but also pretty fatiqued having just done a panel that afternoon - met with his daughter for dinner and on his way to Purdue that evening - anyway I think you have to give him some slack especially when he'd following Hitchens who is a "practiced public speaker" In this case I think amusing but not much of substance to say either unless you agree with his pro-free trade rhetoric... On the CDV and "potluck Community Activists" - it seems to me to smack of destructive left arrogance to dismiss these folks who we have to get on our side if were going to get anywhere - i.e. yes we need strikes and high-intensity political action - but we also need to speak to folks who are doing day to day stuff keeping body and soul together which may not be so directly political. So the values and ideology message again - CDV (llike DSA) may often be criticised for not being hard-core enough but we're trying to educate people about "socialism" - (and in the DSA case we even dare to callour selves "socialists" -sommething a lot of supposedly more leftish groups won't do - its even become and issue in URPE - the word "Radical" I mean) so I think its a valuable effort - that we socialists desperately need to do - regardless of Ron Aronson's "pinch hitting" speaking skills on a given night - bye the way we were trying to get someone else to do this and had to twist his arm to take it on as none of us would! In Solidarity, Ron Baiman Roosevelt Univ., Chicago URPE Midwest Rep.
[PEN-L:7674] cdvnet: DEMOCRATIC VALUES Book Series (fwd)
Fellow Pen-l'ers this may have been posted already by someone but I don't think it will hurt to forward it again. With the little preface by Aronson. CDV is loosely affiliated with DSA but aims to be independent and to draw in other Left (democratic socialist) voices. The Following is from Ron Aronson's post: I'm pleased to post the description of DEMOCRATIC VALUES, our Guilford Press Book Series. Please post this on other lists you may subscribe to - sociology, political science, economics, etc., and please email any suggested book topics and/or authors. I'd be happy to discuss any ideas with you. Proposals are invited. They should include: -Your basic argument, the breadth of the material you intend to cover, and the point of view you will bring to the work; -a paragraph or so describing the other texts that are available on the topic--please include their strengths and weaknesses, as well as what you see differentiating the volume you propose from those others; -a table of contents and a more detailed version of the same in which each chapter is summarized in a paragraph; -an estimated length and date of completion. Along with the prospectus send your current CV, and either a sample chapter or a writing sample penned at a general audience level. The description follows. The Center for Democratic Values Over the past 20 years, the American Left has become marginal to public debate in the United States as the center of political gravity has shifted to the Right. Discussions have been taking place - about how best to manage the economy, the role of markets, the place of government, the rights of minorities, what are the nation's shared values - without the participation of Left intellectuals, whether academic, professional or activist. The Right's success is due not only to superior financial resources and organization; and not only because it has become more successful at harnessing new techniques and technologies. Above all, at a time of profound economic and social insecurity, the Right has succeeded in addressing and voicing popular anxieties for its own elitist and undemocratic ends while the Left has scarcely been part of the discussion. In order to rejoin and reshape the discussion, the Left will have to clarify and more effectively express our values and our ideas in public debates. But the Left seems to have lost its sense of direction, vision, and conviction, its confident sense of a historical, political, and moral mission. We face the task of rethinking our visions, models, and programs - right down to who we are and what motivates us. Recognizing this, we are joining together to create the Center for Democratic Values. The Center is a network of academics, professionals and activists committed to gathering, exploring and rethinking progressive ideas on society, the economy, and government and making them part of the mainstream conversation. We will do this through clarifying our starting points and rethinking our positions on key issues, through organizing ourselves to make our presence felt, and through mastering the skills and techniques needed for reaching the mainstream. DEMOCRATIC VALUES: A Guilford/Center for Democratic Values Series DEMOCRATIC VALUES is a book series designed to shift mainstream debate to the left in the United States through the clear presentation of alternative analyses and policy proposals. Series titles will focus on current social and political issues as well as questions of values and culture. Specific volumes will address issues such as: the next steps for the labor movement; affirmative action and the assault on civil rights; corporate domination of culture; and foreign policy in the 21st century. Certain volumes will address more general topics such as: the role of government, the nature of the common good; the fate and future of feminism; and the future of the Left.The series seeks to help lay the groundwork for the ideas and the political program of the next Left. To do so, we must not simply recirculate our conventional wisdom but rethink what the Left is today, and what it can be tomorrow - what are our shared values and beliefs, what kinds of changes we advocate, what are our critiques and programs, even who we are. And as we do this, we also need to learn,once again, how to talk to ordinary Americans in words and ideas that relate to their lives, concerns, and experience. As these books are targeted to a mainstream audience, they will be nonspecialist in orientation, written in direct and accessible language, short (150-180 printed pages), and with a minimal scholarly pretentions. We expect to use them to generate policy debates in Washington and within trade unions, to provide new ideas and tools for political activists, and to stimulate intellectual ferment on campuses. They will be aggressively promoted to DSA's 12,000 members (through DSA's ma
[PEN-L:7362] Re: Personal Explanation
Dear Fellow Pen-ler's, Perhaps my comments were "off the wall" in particular as they talked about actions that people took who are nominally in "our" camp - note that we talk about other folks (i had just finished reading a lot of stuff on Paul Krugman) and their behaviour in the classroom and elsewhere and it doesn't become "scurrlious" and viscious "ad-hominem" attacks, "low, low" , etc. Those who have argued that we should probably stay away from negative personal anecdotes about leftists as they cause too much bad blood between us have a point. These for the most part should be left to personal communications between us and not put on the general list. In this case, however, I was relating a rather "public" incident, it went before the graduate student council, which got me "reinstated", (this should be additional support for my claim that i was not being disruptive to the class - i was merely disagreeing - in fact as i was being kicked out, or in one of the later classes, the teacher in question stated explicitly "i want absolute hedgemony over this class") and was well known to everyone that year (15 years ago!). I was responding to an assertion about teachers (not exclusively their ideas) or a query about programs which i assumed included a desire to know something about teaching and i had also just finished looking at a lot of stuff about "academic despots" and teaching etc. in connection with Paul Krugman - as noted above. I did add in my derogatory personal opinion of their ideas at the time - but that is not "ad-hominem" or "scurrlious" - I hope! I was careful to qualify my opinion (as has been noted) by saying that I have not kept up with their ideas, implying (as has been noted) that these ideas may have changed and that (i agree) the person in question may regard thsi whole incident as an unfortunate mishap which he regrets (i hope!). I agree that none of us are perfect - though this strayed far beyond the bounds of "acceptable" imperfection in teaching to the point where some on this list seem to have a hard time believing it (i guess i would too). The source of my "off the wall" comment was a sense I guess of obligation (and undoubtably - i won't deny it - though this really wasn't primary in my thinking at the time - pointing to a connection between ideas and behavior which i think is quite important in this case especially - and i would guess still is relevant 15 years later - after all we marxists should be particularly sensitive to this i would think) about a class which I was required to take in spite of my efforts to avoid it, which class turned into a hellish experience which i believe i have a "public service" responsibility to warn perspective students of. This is not to deny that other people have had very different experiences. Nobody has to accept my views. The experience however is a fact. I'm sorry this came up at the same time as the Pomo discussion which probably contributed to its intermingling with this other thread and greater notoriety than it deserves or is useful to spend on it. Regards to all, Ron Baiman
[PEN-L:7293] Re: pol econ PhD programs
On Sat, 2 Nov 1996, Stephen Cullenberg wrote: > colleague, Gary Dymski, first. I still remember the first time I met you > at an URPE summer camp in Connecticut, before you came to UMass, when you > stood at a DSA table frothing that Althusser was just a Stalinist scum, the > self-same Althusser whose for most of his career fought against the > orthodox Stalinism in the French communist party. I wondered then about > your motives and the accuracy of your denunciations. I wonder still. > > >On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Blair Sandler wrote: > > > >> > >> I hate to say it but UMass Amherst is the obvious place to go, with Rick > >> Wolff, Steve Resnick, Sam Bowles, Nancy Folbre (and Ann Ferguson down the > >> hall), Julie Graham in geography, David Kotz, Jim Crotty, Jim Boyce, even > >> (shudder) Herb Gintis. :) Whatever anyone thinks of any of these > >> individuals or their work, UMass offers a broad range of different > >> heterodox perspectives on social theory. > > > >Jen, Blair, > > > >As someone who was > >suspended from Steve Resnick's class for daring to disagree with him > >(in a non-disruptive academic way - Eric Neilson , Gary Dymsky, and others > >who were in t hat class are my witnesses) , I would not put him on this > >list. I found the essentially dogmatic view of Marxism espoused by > >Resnick and > >Wolf (in 1981 - I havn't bothered to keep up with their stuff since for > >obvious reasons) to be profoundly disturbing and distressing. > >I know this debate has been had (p-robably many times) on Pen-L, > >but I thought my experience might be of interest (Jen, if you go to U > >Mass which does have some excellent people , I would advise that you > >steer clear - as much as possible of R&W). > > > >In Solidarity, > > > >Ron Baiman > >Roosevelt Univ. > >Chicago, IL > > O.K. Steve, You may "reveal" whatever you like about my "situation at U. Mass" (I don't think the fact that I was not a regular student but spending a year getting some independent study credits and trying to get into the program from the New School has much to do with anything as I'm almost certain Resnick didn't know this - he certainly made no mention of it as a "cause" or a reason for screaming at me and kicking me out of his class in a fit of hysteria, I'm not even sure he knew my name when I was "suspended") and my "hidden motives", I was promoting DSA and still am a DSA member and promoter and have always been very open about this. I don't recall calling Althuzer a "scum" though I may have said something about dogmatism - . In any case this is not about ad-hominem attacks but ideas - I refrained from detailing the manner in which I was "suspended" precisely to avoid getting into ad-hominem character issues. I wrote this after reading about a similar situation someone on the list experieinced with Krugman - and more material on the list on "academic despotism". I happen to think that my experience with Resnick relates to this. You obviously had a very different experience but it doesn't invalidate mine. This is not "slander" and "inuendo" or "scurrilous attacks", its just what happened to me. I was also told that the year before I came Resnick tried to "throw someone out the window". Now this I cannot vouch for, and I don't know the circumstances, as I wasn't there, but a good number of people seemed not to be too surprised at what had happened to me. I'll stop here as I don't think its worth much time for either of us to "debate" this issue. Be Well, Ron
[PEN-L:7146] Re: pol econ PhD programs
On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Blair Sandler wrote: > > I hate to say it but UMass Amherst is the obvious place to go, with Rick > Wolff, Steve Resnick, Sam Bowles, Nancy Folbre (and Ann Ferguson down the > hall), Julie Graham in geography, David Kotz, Jim Crotty, Jim Boyce, even > (shudder) Herb Gintis. :) Whatever anyone thinks of any of these > individuals or their work, UMass offers a broad range of different > heterodox perspectives on social theory. Jen, Blair, As someone who was suspended from Steve Resnick's class for daring to disagree with him (in a non-disruptive academic way - Eric Neilson , Gary Dymsky, and others who were in t hat class are my witnesses) , I would not put him on this list. I found the essentially dogmatic view of Marxism espoused by Resnick and Wolf (in 1981 - I havn't bothered to keep up with their stuff since for obvious reasons) to be profoundly disturbing and distressing. I know this debate has been had (p-robably many times) on Pen-L, but I thought my experience might be of interest (Jen, if you go to U Mass which does have some excellent people , I would advise that you steer clear - as much as possible of R&W). In Solidarity, Ron Baiman Roosevelt Univ. Chicago, IL
[PEN-L:7044] Re: krugman again
Max, Michael, et. al.., Thanks for filling me in on Krugman - this was my impression before I read his Nov/Dec 1996, Mother Jones article (which I have as my Mom got a subscription - I stopped some time ago due to , I believe, similar reservations about its California like focus on lifestyle stuff and its hassle with a new editor - wasn't it Michael Moore? - however this particular issue has some excellent pieces, maybe MJ has changed?) For what ever its worth this article comes all out in favor of supporting labor unions too. -with a note on not idealizing them - which I think we'd all agree with. So at least on these issues he appears definitely on the Left, though even in this article (aside from the decline of unions) he downplays trade, and techno change, in favor of Union decline, money in politics, and changing values, though he points to the pwerful government of the Roosevelt period as creating the now declining "middle class". Ron Dept. of Econ Roosevelt Univ., Chicago
[PEN-L:6949] Re: krugman again
On Sun, 27 Oct 1996, Michael Perelman wrote: > Did anyone see Krugman's piece in the recent Slate? According to > Krugman, > people like Jaimie Galbraith and Rob't Kuttner are not fit to comment on > economic matters because they either do not understand (in Kuttner's > case) > or they do not choose to use (in Galbraith's case) to use the > mathematical > methodology that Krugman espouses. > Michael, Excuse my ignorance but what is the "Slate" ? I just read an excellent Krugman piece in the recent Mother Jones on Inequality and was mightily impressed (heartened) that he was on our side at least on this issue - so I'm quite curious about your comment. Thanks, Ron Baiman
[PEN-L:6947] Re: Textbook help
Eric, See my (this day) post to Blair for my "Usual suspects" list of texts. Ron
[PEN-L:6946] Re: intro macro textbook?
Sorry, I forgot to mention that I also use the Dollars and Sense Macro Reader as a supplement which I find students (conservative or Liberal) generally like.
[PEN-L:6945] Re: intro macro textbook?
Blair, I experienced the same "freedom" when I came here and used Bowles and Edwards (Harper Collins) and Stiglitz and had terrible evaluations. I now use Colander (Irwin) mostly with study guide and some supplementary Bowles and Edwards. I've also tried Fusfield (good book but dated and going out of print) (Scott Foresman) and Ridell/Shackelford and Stamos (Addison Wesley) - I haven't seen their new edition. Just thought I's warn you! Ron Baiman Roosevelt U. Chicago
[PEN-L:6941] Re: URPE Bibliographies and Economics Course
On Thu, 17 Oct 1996, Eric Nilsson wrote: > Next fall I'll be teaching an introductory course on a variety > of different economic topics. The focus will be on the U.S. > The course will focus on issues, not on the use/misuse of > economic theory of any particular brand. > Eric, I just happen to have "Taking Sides" by Swartz and Bonello (of Notre Dame) 7th Ed. 1995, Dushkin Pub. Group, Guilford, CT Also, yes D&S has a bunch of readers including just basic macro and micro which even my most conservative suburban students find interesting! Finally, I've been charged with putting together another URPE bibliography volume, - a formal call will be issued shortly - but this may take a while. However pass the word. I might as well make this official: I'm at: Dept. of Econ Roosevelt Univ. 430 S. Michigan Ave. Chicago, IL 60605-1394 Tel: (312) 341-3694 Fax: (312) 341-3680 CALLING ALL PEN-Lers! Please send me Bibliographies of econ courses from an URPE perspective (Radical PE, Post-Keynesian, etc. ) to be included in this collection. Thank you much, Ron Midwest URPE Rep.
[PEN-L:6501] Re: Giffen
Robin, Good point on expectations in your Sept. 26 post. I always emphasize even my intro classes that the whole framework depends on a supply curve which is completely driven by cost and independent of demand considerations (or expectations) unlike almost all real world supply curves - so the perfect competition assumptions necessary for the supply demand curves to be independent make the model mostly totally unrealistic to begin with! Cheers, Ron Baiman Roosevelt Univ., Chicago
[PEN-L:6499] Re: Mehrene Larudee's e-mail
On Sat, 21 Sep 1996, Alejandro Valle Baeza wrote: > > Is there anyone out there who might know Mehrene Larudee's > e-mail address? I think she is teaching in the department of economics > U. Mass. at Amerst. > Alejandro, Mehrene - Listed author of the excellent instructor's manual/study guide for Bowles/Edwards radical intro text , is at Univ. of Kansas last i knew. Don't have her e-mail. Ron Baiman Roosevelt Univ., Chicago
[PEN-L:6497] Re: URPE
Antonio, Another Better late than never maybe - URPE uses the Dollars and Sense Fax number which I don't have but D&D Tel number is : 617 - 628-8411, and URPE Tel number is (617) 776-5888 (just in case) Ron Baiman RooseveltUniv, Chicago
[PEN-L:6496] Re: Information about EPI
On Sat, 14 Sep 1996, Alejandro Valle Baeza wrote: > I am interested in Economic Policy Institute publications. Can any one > tell me how to obtain publications from such institute? I am interested > in The State of Working America and others publications. > > thanks in advance > Alejandro, As I havn't seen any immediate response yrt on the list - and on the theory of better late than never! hers isEPI's address and Tel number: Economic Policy Institute 1730 Rhode Island Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20036 Tel: (202) 775-8810 I don't have their e-mail off hand. Cheers, Ron Baiman
[PEN-L:6495] Re: cobb-douglas
Ted, This may be redundant as I'm responding too late and you probably know about this but just in case: Anwar Shaik's "Laws of Production and Laws of Algebra: The Humbug Production function" in Review of Economics and Statistics, 1974 complete with a Solow reply and Shaik's "Humbug II" in Ed Nell ed. " Growth Profits and Property" Cambridge press, 1980 are classics oin on this stuff which I think may be highly relevant to your questions. In Solidarity, Ron Baiman Roosevelt Univ., Chicago URPE Midwest Rep. p.S. - Any chance of restarting the venerable Berkely URPE Chapter ? (just a thought)
[PEN-L:6237] Re: Midwest Radical Scholars and Activists Conference
David, We have got a ticket for you tentatively for: Friday Nov. 15 leave Newark 9:20AM arive Chicago Midway 10:40 AM Continental 1269 Sunday Nov. 17, Leave Chicago Midway 10:25 AM arrive Newark 1:22 PP Conference starts at 1:00pm (registration) on Friday and ends late Saturday night. Your welcome to stay at my place if you'd like. Would this work out for you? In Solidarity, Ron
[PEN-L:5763] Re: URPE Summer conf drive share
Dear Comrades, Am driving to URPE summer conference from Chicago with my two kids (11 and 6) would like to share driving . Please call me at home at (708) 445-9052 . Will be leaving this Friday morning 8/23. Thanks, Ron Baiman
[PEN-L:5760] Re: Welfare "reform" op-ed piece
Gil, A very late comment (sorry I finally gave up trying to use my email at home and came all the way downtown to use it so I'm catching up and enjoying a system that actually works) : I find that calling to abolish the (property based income) dependency of the very rich adds a little dimension to the hypocracy of "work ethic" values etc. for the poor - who after all is destroying thmoral fabric of our society? I have an editorial in a Democratic Left of mabe a year and a half ago which calls for this. In Solidarity, Ron Baiman Roosevelt Univ., Chicago
[PEN-L:5759] Re: Efficiency Stuff
Eric, Gil, Robin, etc. Regarding your recent (end of July!) exchange on the use of utility theory for redistribution. (it so happens as I posted a while back that I'm writing a paper on this very topic...) First off in applied work Neoclassical do engage in summing up individual consumer and producer surplus (implicitly weighing money utility of extra spending power or income equally across agents) this however is either done through "the back door" withoug mention (as Eric implied) or it is claimed that this is a "distribution neutral" procedure which just gets at efficiency (i.e. pareto Optimality) issues. It turns out that htis is not the case if one looks closely at the compensation tests used to justify this. In fact this methodology implicitly sanctions regressive redistributions in a big way. This is used to justify rebalancing rates in teleocmmunications for example giving long-distance (lets say donald trump with $10,000,000 income a $100 dollar discount (as wealthy people use long distance much more) and say raising the rates of 9 low income 10,000$ folks by $10 each. If one assumes 0 price elasticities and more or less equal marginal costs (not exactly but close enough) for long distance and local one come out with a "consumer and producer surplus" gain on the order of $10 dollars , i.e. social welfare is increased by the Neoclassical calculus which just shows that getting price closer to marginal costs is better etc. In fact most would agree that the nine low-income guys had much greater losses than Trump gained and social welfare did not rise but in fact delined i.e. the old "social pricing" scheme of having long-distance subsidize local was better. I think for the lay person (as in Eric's students who havn't been bambuzzled by NC theory) this is a no brainer. The problem here is that in practive we need to evaluate tradeoffs (i.e. some pareto optimums may be "better" than others) as we radicals are well aware and as applied public policy decision makers do all the time (see Mansfield intermediate text for int'l trade and other "consumer surplus" evaluations of social policy) In my paper I argue that by reformulating the compensation tests, marginal cost= price derivation, and inverse elastitivy rule derivations, essentially by "coming clean" and weighing individual compensating variations, and marginal utility of money by income (or wealth as any "reasonable" lay person would do) than it turns out that "social welfare" maximizing outconme in any real economy (where not everyone has equal income) is progressive i.e. prices etc. have to be proportionate to income or wealth. Now, of course one cannot campare individual utilities acrsoo individuals but looking at statistical averages of large aggregtes is a whole different matter and in fact is done all the time via consumer surplus methodology which (as I show) will only work if all incomes are eaxactly equal i.e. if you use it in any real economy where incomes are unequal you end up advocating regressive redistribtions. To make the NC rules "distribution neutral" the parameters need to be weighted by the exisiting social distribution. I.e. as Robin points out in the Quiet Revolution NC is not a complete system in theory. But that does not mean it isnt completed in practice in a highly regressive way. I see no reason these kind aggregarte averaging calculations should not be done in a reasonable way particularly if there being done anyway in an unreasonable way. The paper begins with Bentham stuff that Eric talks about - again this seems eminently reasonable to me for large aggregates and of course discounting second order complexity that Gill brings up like when would the Marginal utility of money start going down etc. These are issues that can with of course some judgement calls by decision makers (but what else is new!) be dealt with in practice and they certainly don't invalidate the more general principle that all existing societies (that I know) could benefit very highly from progressive redistributions (within reason). As a side benefit the }progresive marginal cost pricing" etc. principles which I derivable virtually ensure that any static regressive redistribution will fail. In Solidarity, Ron Baiman Roosevelt Univ., Chicago
[PEN-L:5602] Re: neoclassical economics & efficiency
On Wed, 24 Jul 1996, Gil Skillman wrote: > consistently applied. See separate post for details, but the basic problem > is that the compensation principle sounds good in isolation but is > impractical at best---in strictly neoclassical terms--- when applied to any > concrete situation. Here's the problem: how would anybody determine what > the appropriate level of compensation is? Doesn't only the potentially > injured party know? And especially if it is known that the compensation > would only be "hypothetical" (see Jim D's recent post), wouldn't that party > insist that the relevant compensation would be virtually infinite? And how > could anyone prove any such claim wrong? > In light of these (entirely individualistic) considerations, the > compensation principle is hoist on its own neoclassical petard. > > So the neoclassical bottom line on these issues, I think, remains that of > the Arrow impossibility theorem, which rules out such compensation tests. > This is not to deny Gene's point that misguided neoclassicals persist in > invoking them; it does deny that they are "reasonable" in doing so. > Gil, Dont't individuals determine the value of what they are will to trade for in any ideal "free excahnge' situation? Also see my last post - I think this stuff can be turned on its head as well by applying "relative" compensation tests and comming out with redistributive "truely social welfare increasing" social pricing schemes as existed before deregualtionn in telecommunications. In Solidarity and in a Rush!, Ron Baiman Roosevelt Univ, Chicago
[PEN-L:5601] Re: efficiency
On Wed, 24 Jul 1996, Gil Skillman wrote: > > This is a good point--I neglected this "out" in my earlier posts. As Jim > suggests the notion of "hypothetical compensation" is completely bankrupt > without, at the least, additional conditions on distribution. For example, > a person can be made willing to accept (hypothetical) compensation for > pollution that will kill her in 20 years, IF she is on the verge of starving > today. But that hardly makes it acceptable. > > For what it's worth, the notion of (hypothetical) compensation is also > criticized among neoclassicals, and typically isn't invoked without hedging, > in light of this. > But in applied work "consumer surplus"' and the compensations tests to justify it is still very much acceptable ! In fact I'm rehashing an old paper on this for the summer conference which analyses the Telecom policy efects of this line of thinking and serves as an "immanent critique" of NC using NC methods by deriving a "progressive Marginal cost = P" and "prgressive inverse elasticity rule" using NC methods which I think have there place at a lower (ind choice level) of the economy. Essentially its clear that consumer surplus is just back door utility comparison so why not do it more accurately relative to income or wealth? Cheers, Ron Baiman Roosevelt Univ., Chicago
[PEN-L:5126] Re: Request for Info: Living Wage
On Sun, 16 Jun 1996, Michelle Billies wrote: > >I have been approached by a community group here in Syracuse, NY, > >considering launching a campaign for a living wage requirement for > >firms that do business with the city. I believe there such a legal > >requirement in Baltimore and I am told that Buffalo is conducting > >a similar campaign. > > > >They asked me about determining the economic effects of such a plan. > >Does anyone out there in Pen-Land have any knowledge, experience, or > >expertise with something like this? Does anyone know what the > >experience of cities that have done this has been? > > > >Thanks in advance for any suggestions. > > > > > >David Andrews > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > You can also try the New Party which has living wage campaigns in 10 > cities. Try Adam Glickman at 212-302-5053. > > Also, I am an activist in New York City collecting information on community > groups protesting welfare reform, working on "alternatives to welfare" or > doing anti-poverty work more generally. Which group in Syracuse is > launching this campaign? Have you located the groups in Buffalo and > Baltimore? > > Thanks - > > Michelle Billies > **New address: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > I just testified before the Chicago City Council on this and would be glad to send my testimony (I can only do this hard copy because of my primitive system here) to those interested. My basic argument was that that Living wage Ordinances are excellent local economic development initiatives as they: a) transfer resources to at least some of those who need them most, b) are easy and cheap to monitor and implement unlike traditional grants, tax abatements, TIF zones , etc - which in Chicago are hardly monitored at all as it turns out anyway, c) ** the most important point as anti-living wage arguments stress all the jobs that will be lost**THEY CREATE JOBS as most ordinances have exclusions for small businesses non-profits and others doing business with the city who would be most cost impacted so COST SIDE job growth reduction can be greatly diminished through flexible funding of the Ordinance by local authorities (for a very small cost compared to other tax-abatements etc.) On the other hand DEMAND SIDE multiplier effects are increased because of the high level of LOCAL CONSUMPTION by low-wage workers (again unlike traditional programs which give most of their benfits to developers etc. who probably don't even live in the locality). Since most local minimum-wage studies indicate a wash in terms of job creation (se excellent EPI briefing paper by John Schmitt and also the statement by 101 economists on the minimum wage not causing unemployment) - this implies Living wage should create jobs. I had to really go after some U of Chicago consultants on this stuff! Also - the ordinance has passed in Milwaukee and Santa Clara County (CA) to my knowledge). I hadn't I hadn't heard about Syracuse or Buffalo. In Solidarity, Ron Baiman Dept. Of Econ. Roosevelt Univ. 430 S. Michigan Ave. Chicago, IL 60605
[PEN-L:5125] Re: what is to be read?
On Sat, 15 Jun 1996, Doug Henwood wrote: > I frequently get asked by LBO subscribers what books I'd recommend they > read as intros to basic economics that were also politically congenial. > I've never come up with a satisfactory answer to the question. Any > suggestions? Doug, You probably know most of these but I'll add my two bits to the "list": 1) First I would at least go with a David Colander "Economics" or a Bowles and Edwards "Understanding Capitalism" as intro texts rather than Blinder or Stiglitz though for certain mainstream topics I guess those are better. Ridell, Stamos, and Shackeoford "Economics" might be good for a read. I really like David Schweickart's "Against Capital" though he does have market socialism bias. Also Roemer's "Free to Lose" is great though it has a "analytical Marxist" bias. Other radical intro texts are Hunt and Sherman and David Fusfeld (unfortunately going out of print) . Am waiting to here other's suggestions including your own! In Pen-l solidarity, Ron Baiman Dept. Of Econ. Roosevelt Univ., Chicago
[PEN-L:5111] Re: TIAA-CREF and PROXY VOTING
On Fri, 28 Jun 1996, Teresa Ghilarducci wrote: > > > Dear TIAA - CREF participants: > > Please watch for a proxy shareholder resolution this September initiated by > DEAN BAKER of the Economic Policy Institute 202-331-5525. He is asking the > TIAA-CREF board to have limits placed on individual executive compensation > packages in any corporation n which it holds an equity interest. The target > for these limits should be 150 times the median annual wage in the economy > (approximately $3,000,000.) This limit is to include all compensations. > > > VOTE FOR THE EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION LIMIT RESOLUTION ON YOUR CREF PROXY!! > Way to go Dean and Teressa! - This is Excellent! One of these ideas that one wishes were done but can't get to it Anyway, this may repeat the reminder to people! Ron Baiman Dept. Of Econ Roosevelt Univ. , Chicago
[PEN-L:4933] Re: CALL FOR PAPERS & PANELS: Midwest Radical Scholars & Activists
Fellow Midwest pen-lers, Please note the following: > SEVENTH ANNUAL > MIDWEST RADICAL SCHOLARS & ACTIVISTS CONFERENCE > > PROSPECTS FOR THE NEW CLASS WARFARE: >RIGHTISM, LIBERALISM & THE LEFT > > ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY, CHICAGONOVEMBER 15 - 16 > > > CALL FOR PAPERS AND PANELS > > Most Americans believe they are in deep economic trouble. They're worried > about job security, shrinking paychecks and a growing gap between rich and > poor. That's the main issue brought to the surface in all the debates > surrounding the 1996 election campaign. > > But the choice between Bob Dole's authoritarian conservatism and Bill > Clinton's regressive neoliberalism offers only another rerun of the "lesser > of two evils" dilemma. No matter who wins, everyone who earns a living by > selling their labor, rather than by cashing in on the labor of others, is > going to be in harsh and difficult circumstances. > > DANGEROUS TIMES > > The right wing is stagnant but entrenched. The liberals are thoroughly > compromised by corporate ties and capitulationism. And a proto-fascist menace > -- in the form of Pat Buchanan, the religious fanatics and the militia -- is > on the rise. > > At the same time, the trade union leadership has shifted a few steps to the > left and is aggressively recruiting a new breed of young organizers and > seeking insurgent allies. The Million Man March revealed a widespread > readiness for mobilization among African Americans. Almost in unison, the > business press has expressed its fear of an outbreak of "new class warfare." > > Can the left meet the challenge of these conditions? Can it develop the > ideas, the strategies and the tactics needed to overcome isolation and > division? > > Our conference this year will provide an arena where our best approaches to > these questions, from the perspectives of both scholars and activists, can be > presented and examined from all sides. With the common goal of getting some > clear and fresh thinking, we are calling for papers and inviting speakers on > many questions, including: > >Can the left formulate structural reforms in the economy and government to > help workers and the unemployed and to reduce the gap between rich and poor? > Should we do so, even if it means helping to save capitalism from itself? > How do we approach welfare reform, the minimum wage, the social wage, and the > negative income tax? > > Can democracy survive dollarocracy? Are fair and free elections truly > possible in societies ruled by great wealth? Should we take part anyway? How > do we assess the Labor Party, the New Party and the Green Party? What does > the outcome of 1996 tells us about the political composition of the > electorate? > > What kind of political consciousness or alliances do we need? Is there a > solution to the tension between class-based politics and identity politics? > How do we deal with antagonisms around culture, race, gender, and class? Does > class consciousness really exist? Is there an American mainstream? Or is it a > mosaic? How do we deal with the scapegoating of homosexuals and immigrants? > > What kind of society and culture do we want? How do we get it? Has the > revolution in the means of production -- robotics and the information highway > -- changed everything? If there is no such thing as a fully planned economy > or a totally free market, what is our vision of socialism? > > Our gathering of left scholars and activists will not solve all these > problems, but we will provide common ground for fruitful discussions, both > theoretical and tactical. We will have a variety of forms for presentations > -- plenaries, major panels, round tables, and workshops. Authors of new works > should encourage their publishers to take part in our two-day Book Fair. > > DEADLINE: SEPTEMBER 15 > > Send in your proposals by September 15. We are open to all trends on the left > and among rogressive social movements who are themselves committed to open > discussion. We hope you join us in November. > > > Initiated by Open University of the Left and Networking for Democracy: > Co-initiator at Roosevelt: School of Policy Studies > Donations are tax deductible > > Help us build the conference by sending in your registration fee early. $50 > for sustaining registrations, $25 regular, $15 for students and low-income. > Make checks to: > > Networking for Democracy > 3411 W Diversey Ave Suite 1 > Chicago IL 60647-1245. > > Tel: (312) 384-8827 > Fax: (312) 384-3904 > > E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > In Solidarity, Ron Baiman Dept. of Econ Roosevelt Univ.
[PEN-L:4211] Re: help!! with intro micro text
> J Devine wrote > > >can someone on pen-l suggest a good introductory microeconomics > >text? One with all of the standard MC = MR stuff and also moral > >hazard & adverse selection. > > > >I suddenly find myself teaching that course after many years away > >from it... > > > > I find myself in a similar quandry. While I have not converged yet, > the Stiglitz book has an entire chapter devoted to these issues. He also > talks about interest rate and saving in the micro section. Peruse. > Arvind Jaggi Jim, I've tried Stiglitz at Roosevelt and it was too difficult Ii.e. too much math I believe) for my students (yours may be different) - I use Colander which they seem to like and than finish off with the first part of Bowles and Edwards for ideological balance. Of course I don't get into adverse election and Moral hazard at all - and I know that Stiglitz is really into that stuff. In Solidarity, Ron Baiman Roosevelt Univ., Chicago
[PEN-L:3932] Re: Principles classes
On Thu, 4 Apr 1996 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hunt & Sherman and Riddell, Shackelford & Stamos aren't too one sided, > but both have their problems, especially, in terms of organization and > difficulty. > > Although Bowles & Edwards is somewhat one-sided, it bends the stick in > the opposite direction and would be my choice the next time I have a > choice. I used the first edition with some success. The greatest weakness > of the first edition -- its minimal coverage of mainstream theory -- has > been corrected somewhat in the second edition. I have found that Ridel, Shackleford, and Stamos, though including some good institutional material isn't pedagogically sufficient on main-stream theory for my students (who need maximum slow going through all the gory details). I love Bowles and Edwards first part but the latter two thirds of the book is really much too mathematical and otherwise obtuse for my students. (I also have a problem - and my students definitely do - with the singleminded focus on the labor market) It also is designed as a "political economy" course with constant references to Neoclassical economics which presume that the reader knows what your talking about. I've been trying to just use the first few chapters after going through a mainstream course with Colander. We definitely need abook which would teach Neoclassical and radical PE at a level which would be easily comprehended by intro students at the places where we teach - in one semester. I'm glad Eric raised this though - and I intend to check out Naples and Nadine. In Solidarity, Ron Baiman Roosevelt U., Chicago
[PEN-L:3723] Re: David M. Gordon Memorial
On Mon, 1 Apr 1996, Fikret Ceyhun wrote: > > Many who knew David Gordon personally told us their experiences > with him. Some gave us their vivid memories with him. I, on the other hand, > knew David through his activities at URPE. His contribution to URPE is > invaluable during the fledgling years of the organization. For years David > managed URPE meetings at ASSA, participated in plenary sessions in crisis > theory when the 1980s crisis was raging under the cruel regime of > Reaganomics. He articulated very well his interpretation of the crisis. > > David's premature death is a big loss to all of us in general and > to URPE in particular. We all will miss him. > > We could relive his legacy and brand of Marxism that he represented > by honoring him in a manner that fits to him. I believe URPE should > schedule an event for his memory in next URPE-ASSA meetings and a lecture > series about his works and his approach in annual URPE meeting, the one > like Richard T. Ely Lecture that AEA organizes. In addition, the editorial > board of RRPE should announce a special issue in his honor and ask > contributions from those who are associated with his works and also from > those who are critical of David's analysis. > > I strongly believe in establishing a tradition of honoring those > who have made significant contributions to Marxian analysis and are no > longer among us so that their legacy can be kept alive to future > generations. Our bourgeois colleagues already have such traditions of > honoring their members and we could not do less. Fikret, Though I just read this, you will be pleased to know that we (URPE) are following your suggestions. A special issue of the RRPE is planned on David's work and at the next URPE summer conference August 24-27, 1996 at Camp Chinqueka in Bantam, Connecticut we are planning two special plennaries as well as workshops devoted to David's work and will air the question of establishing a "David Gordon Memorial" lecture series (during summer camps and/or the ASSA - logistics to be worked out) at the genreal membership meeting. For the URPE steering committee, Ron Baiman URPE Midwest Rep Dept. Of Econ. Roosevelt Univ, Chicago (Also former student of David Gordon's)
[PEN-L:3396] Re: The Death of David Gordon
Bob and fellow pen-ler's, I just reactivated my pen-l sub and David's death is the first message I got - what a shock! I was not one of David's closest students but he graciously agreed to serve on my committee and ended up offering more to my dis than any of my other advisors, I think many New Schoolers would confirm his diligence and care for students. David also stepped forward to assist me on numerous occassions through out my embarringly lengthy graduate school career by talking with other faculty with whom I had difficulties and and assisting me with admisitrative financial aid and independent study problems etc. He was a New School faculty person whom I felt I could always turn to in time of need - again I think a not uncommon experience for his students. It should also be noted that until his illness (and even after its onset) David consistently showed up for URPE summer conferences and contributed substantially to the program through his "econometrics refresher courses" and papers which were often highlights of the summer program as well as offering constructive feedback to other presenters. Among all the old time URPE'ers he seemed to be the most commited to personally nurturing younger radical economists outside of the confines of his academic position at the New School, and probobaly did more both directly through his personal and professional contacts, publications, and URPE involvement, (and indirectly as long-time chair and chief dissertation advisor of the New School Econ Dept.), to sustain our community more than any one else I can think of. I do think we should maybe put together a collection of our statements and offer donations in his memory to the scholarship fund. Perhaps we can present this to Diana or to her designated representative at the summer conference. To a great person, a great teacher, a great scholar, and a tireless activist and organizer, with your deeds and words you nurtured us, now we must continue the struggle without you, but like Joe Hill we know that where radical economics lives you live, and we vow to continue to nurture the great flower that you have given us as long as we live, and pass it on, as you have to us. And David please forgive us for the hard times we often gave you on matters of political principle and thank you for your boundless patience and untireing zeal on our behalf. You will be amongst us always as we aspire to continue your work. Avante Popolo! Ron Baiman URPE Mid-west Rep. Dept. of Economics Roosevelt Univ., Chicago
[PEN-L:3019] Re: Critique of CGE
Alan, Sorry! I didn't cach the "C" for Computable I presume - please ignore my previous irrelevant message. Ron Baiman
[PEN-L:3018] Re: Rad. Critique of CGE and General Equilibrium
Alan, Being at AU you undoubtabley are familiar with Hanhel and Albert's the "Quiet Revolution in Welfare Economics" which is kind of an immanent critique (but others on the list may not be) - I also remember the John Eatwell had some very detailed critiques of some of the more modern versions of GE which he gave in his courses at the New School his old reading list includes an Eatwell citation from Classical and Marxian Political Economy Ed. Bradley and Howard. I don't know if I'm being that helpful as your topic is so broad it could include almost anything (i.e alot of mainstream disequilibrium and non-equilibrium stuff, all of PK and much of Marxian econ, not to mention institutionalists , etc.) Maybe you should try to be more specific about what your after? Than someone more knowledgable than myself about this could probably help more. In Solidarity, Ron Baiman Roosevelt Univ. Chicago, IL
[PEN-L:3017] Re: Barnes and Noble & consumer choice
Eric, It was the NY Times a while back maybe a few months I think. Isn't Literature/knowledge a business too? Regards, Ron
[PEN-L:3016] Re: CBA and economic theory
Ken, No!, From what I remember when I was working on this (unpublished paper - hopefully will get it out eventually) Kaldor-Hicks-Scitovsky requires "surplus value" comparisons which are just a back door method to make interpersonal comparisons by aggregating up absolute surplus value. Hanhel and Albert "Quiet Revolution in Welfare Economics" have a good section on this Chap. 1. In my calculations if one were to open about comparing utilities one would have to normalize it by income or wealth and this would lead to "progressive" marginal cost principals and quite different (negative) conclusions regarding welfare maximization under "free market" pricing. Ron Baiman Economics Roosevelt Univ., Chicago
[PEN-L:2949] Re: Israeli/Palestinian economics
Bill, Noam Chomsky had a recent article in Z magazine on the peace process which has references (I believe to some of his and other's work in this area in which he has been very involved. He is very critical of Israel and the U.S. - perhaps more than I might be as a "Holocast Zionist" myself - but I trust his integrity as to the facts. I hate to get into this but I think it is useful to note that the radical islamicists in their insistance that non-moslem minorities do not belong in the Middle East (even though many were there well before them) are imperialists and racists themselves. Of course this is not to say that Zionism as a national movement is not in conflict with the aspirations of the palestinians and does not use support from powerful imperialist allies such as the U.S. to sustain its persecution and repression of palestianians just as the Arab states (who have also persecuted the Palestinians) have used oil diplomacy to sustain their agenda. A friend characterized the middle east as "an historical tragedy" with no just solution. Many Jews litterly had no where to go during WWII so they colonized palestine pushing out palestinians who have also not been allowed to freely settle elsewhere I hope this has been helpful - In Solidarity, Ron Baiman Dept. of Economics Roosevelt Univ., Chicago
[PEN-L:2941] Re: Contacts for Living Wage / Minimum Wage Campaigns in US?
Anders, I don't know how many of these guys have Web pages and you may already know about these groups but as far as I know: The Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) (based in Chicago), The Midwest Center for Labor Research (MCLR), the New Party (New York City), are all heavily involved in living wage campaigns across the country. In Solidarity Ron Baiman Roosevelt Univ., Chicago
[PEN-L:2831] Re: outlines etc. for alternative introductory courses in economics
Jese, I'm repeating myself for the benefit of pen-lers. Check out American University Washington D.C for URPE course outlines - somebody there is putting them togehter. Ron Baiman Economics Rossevelt Univ. Chicago, IL
[PEN-L:1536] Re: Sorry about Personal mail
To all who were inconvenienced mia culpas for inadvertantly sending out personal mail ! Ron Baiman Roosevelt Univ., Chicago
[PEN-L:1437] Re: firm behaviour and teaching
Terry, Appreciated your comment as I'm wrestling with the same problem at Roosevelt Univ. in Chicago. Nice to hear from you - Ireland sounds nice. Cheers, Ron Baiman Economics, Roosevelt Univ., Chicago
[PEN-L:1410] Re: Tate & Lyle strike
Anyone know if these guys have contacted the a.e.sTAley strikers here in Decatur Il - owned by Tate and Lyle if i'm not mistaken - this may be a stupid question but there's no mention of any solidarity efforts or mutual coordination of strikes corporate campaign etc. in the references? In Solidarity, Ron Baiman Roosevelt Univ. Chicago, Economics, 430 S. Michigan Ave. ,IL 60605 (312) 341-3694
