Left gets nod from right on copyright law
[IPR - 22.11.2002] Left gets nod from right on copyright law (CNet) U.S. Appeals Court Judge Richard Posner, one of America's most prominent jurists, warned Tuesday of an enormous expansion of intellectual-property law, adding a conservative voice to a chorus of criticism that's so far come from the left... http://news.com.com/2100-1023-966595.html --- The content of this message is provided in my private capacity and does not purport to represent the University of Canterbury.
Cost of patenting pharmaceuticals
New Zealand's Pharmac agency buys prescription pharmaceuticals on behalf of the government for subsidised sale through pharmacies. It is detested by the pharmaceutical companies (and the US government) because of its hard nosed and efficient tactics which force down their prices. The following quote from Pharmac's chief executive is revealing as to the effect patents have on prices: Typically savings in the region of 80 per cent to 90 per cent are achievable when drugs come off patent, but lesser reductions are achieved in subsequent tender rounds. - Christchurch Press, 13 November 2002, p.A9 Bill The content of this message is provided in my private capacity and does not purport to represent the University of Canterbury.
RE: German banks in crisis
What implications does this, plus the report of German economic troubles earlier this month on PEN-L, have for the Euro? Bill -Original Message- From: Chris Burford [mailto:cburford;gn.apc.org] Sent: Monday, 28 October 2002 14:55 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:31617] German banks in crisis From this weekend's copy of The Business printed on pink paper to mimic the FT Germany's banking system is in crisis this weekend as the country's central bank, the Bundesbank, closely monitors worrying developments at HVB Group, the second-largest German commercial bank, amid growing fears that escalating losses threaten to swamp it. Analysts fear that HVB may have to be rescued by the state and that another German banking giant, Commrerzbank, might also have to be nationalised. Germany's interventionist-minded Chancellor, Gerhard Schoreder, has a track record of mounting state bail outs of ailing German business. [They quote an unnamed senior banker in Frankfurt.] The problems at HVB have heightened concerns in markets that Deutsche Bank is also about to unveil big losses when it reports thrid-quater results on Wednesday. [The state needs to destroy, write off, old, unperforming, capital, in order to keep the current circulation of the economy going. This is quite normal under capitalism. However their false consciousness obstructs their ability to see that this should be routine, because they dare not recognise the marxian law of value] Chris Burford London
RE: Query: planned obsolescence
Vance Packard wrote about such things for the general reader, beginning in the 1950's. One, The Waste Makers, was specifically about planned obsolescence I think. See also http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/sbeder/columns/engcol8.html by Sharon Beder, from the perspective of ethical engineering, for a short article on planned obsolescence that mentions Packard and earlier references. Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, 14 October 2002 4:22 am To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:31317] Query: planned obsolescence Hi all, Could anyone help me out with early references to planned obsolescence, specially in the auto industry? When did the debate on this erupt? Did it ever? What is some good reading? What prompted me to think about this was this passage from noted New Guinean anthropologist Peter Lawrence, speaking of the difficulties of modernizing New Guinea: ... it is an economy lacking profit motif and emphasising annual subsistence, it tends to be a stationary , changeless economy. There is no incentive to improve old techniques of production, or to find new ones or new goods and resources. Hence there are no forces internalised within the system to create change. In contrast to our own - in which the 1967 motor car is presumably faster, safer, more comfortable and more prestigious than its 1966 predecessor - the native economy goes on, year in and year out, in the same old way, affected only by climatic conditions, abundance of fish and game, and the size of the work force available. (Lawrence 1967:36) I thought the example of the car was particularly amusing, given the 'irrational exhuberance' of building Buicks with speed-holes, chrome widgets, fins, etc... Ironically, Lawrence was mounting an argument regarding the exhuberant hopes of cargo cultists; but his example is the zenith of our own fetishism... Thiago PS. Is this too off-topic? I'm trying to get my pen-l legs... - This mail sent through IMP: www-mail.usyd.edu.au
RE: Re: Re: Singapore
Singapore also has substantial government ownership of industry - Government-linked companies, according to the WTO's March 2000 Trade Policy Review of Singapore [sorry to quote such a source!], some of which are the largest in Singapore ... account for around 25% of the market capitalization of the Stock Exchange of Singapore. It has a strong strategic investment policy, the government aiming to encourage high value-added manufacturing and services. Neither are things as free-market as they are sometimes made out to be. There's a bit more about this in a paper I put together regarding New Zealand's FTA with Singapore (now signed) - see http://canterbury.cyberplace.org.nz/community/CAFCA/publications/Trade/i ndex.html Though I think Lee Kwan Yew started off life as a socialist, that is long gone and the picture I get (without having Anthony's direct knowledge) is consistent with Anthony's - authoritarian state capitalism which has been very successful in raising living standards. Bill -Original Message- From: Anthony D'Costa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 26 September 2002 17:12 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:30571] Re: Re: Singapore Let me see how best to respond to these issues. My remarks off the cuff are inserted below: Cheers, Anthony xx x Anthony P. D'Costa, Associate Professor Comparative International Development University of Washington Campus Box 358436 1900 Commerce Street Tacoma, WA 98402, USA Phone: (253) 692-4462 Fax : (253) 692-5718 xx x On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Paul Phillips wrote: This query was put to me by a colleague and former pen-l-er. Anybody familiar enough with Singapore to suggest an answer for this student? Paul Phillips Economics, University of Manitoba Professor Vorst, I am particularly interested in the last part of your lecture today, where you were comparing the economics of smaller countries to larger countries with regards to their imports/exports. I am very interested in the idea that a very small country, like Singapore, which imports most, if not all of their needs for maintaining life. Yet it is a thriving, wealthy country. Singapore is a wealthy country by most economic measures. It is a city state having been kicked out by Mahathir's Malaysia in 1967 or 1969. S'pore is largely Chinese (80+%), mostly from the coastal regions of China, some by marrying local Malays became Peranakans. They are culturally unique having a mix of both Chinse and Malay, not to mention their cuisine called nonya. So ethnic Malays comprise close to 20% and a small percentage of ethnic Indians, mainly Tamils from the southern state of Tamil Nadu, a good number of them being Muslims. Lee Kuang Yew was a clever man. Despite rising from a labor group he essentially marginalized them on precisely because he was aware of Singapore's vulnerability. Trained in cambridge UK (I believe) where he must have had tough time given his basic dislike of liberalism. S'pore was already an entrepot port, importing for processing before exporting. S'pore's export stats are often over 100% because of this double-counting. From some fishing and ship repair activities, LKY jumped into the bandwagon of MNC based exports plus the usual subcontracted out work based on low wages (the new international div of labor argument) as it no natural resources to speak except if it can called that good deep water port facilities. But in order to provide a stable environment for FDI, LKY had a social policy that essentially recognized the importance of inter-ethnic balance. Mind you the Chinese are dominant in every way but LKY ensured that the other two minorities were not left behind. So there has been almost an unwritten policy of quotas (not liberal at all),where a % of the three ethnic communities are represented proportionately in govt, univs, etc. LKY also believed in meritocracy and bureaucracy (I can vouch for its effectiveness, given that I had to deal with immigration (the INS here is a shame)). LKY later appropriated Confucianism, justifying the hiererchical nature of government, the power of the state over civil society, believed in engineering society through economic incentives and penalties, but really relied on a legal system borrowed from England but implemented with an Asian falvor (flogging is real). S'pore is also known as fine city. In terms of policy S'pore followed the free trade route but by making best use of what it had, port facilities and its people. But there is a twist to all this it ensured free trade would work in its favor by education, eliminating any opposition (read leftist) to investments and wage demands, investment in infrastructure (I have not
RE: Re: Trade Query
Also, isn't about half or so (more??) of current trade intrafirm trade? Bill In 1994, intrafirm trade accounted for more than one third of U.S. exports of goods and for more than two fifths of U.S. imports of goods. (U.S. Intrafirm Trade in Goods, By William J. Zeile, SURVEY OF CURRENT BUSINESS, February 1997, p.23) UNCTAD still uses an estimate of about one third of world trade is intrafirm. (World Investment Report 2001, p.56) (Another) Bill
RE: RE: Bushist militarism
Title: RE: Bushist militarism It's terrifying stuff. The strategy also includes a chapter called Ignite a New Era of Global Economic Growth through Free Markets and Free Trade, thus formally uniting militarism with its trade and investment strategies. Coincidentally I was just watching a strikingly topical episode of the BBC TV series History of Britain. It was on how the British Empire explicitly used free trade and free markets (with the advantage of course of superior guns and technology, having wiped out large parts of Indias textile industry) accompanied by military suppression to subjugate Ireland and India in the 19th century, leading to rebellion and millions of deaths in famines in both countries. The imperial masters justified it in terms of bringing enlightenment and modern technology to the backward parts of the world. Bill -Original Message- From: Devine, James [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, 22 September 2002 04:01 To: 'PEN-L ' Subject: [PEN-L:30433] RE: Bushist militarism A senior White House official said Mr. Bush had edited the document heavily because he thought there were sections where we sounded overbearing or arrogant. I don't believe that Dubya read any of this. He's too busy playing video golf and working out. This whole document seems to cross the Rubicon, transforming the U.S. from a Republic to an Empire as Rome did. (That line is from the fascistic Pat Buchanan, whose ideal Republic is white male McCarthyite conservative and Catholic. I am not referencing the recent book by Hardt Negri.) This is the closest thing I've see to the U.S. declaring itself the World Government. I'm wondering when President Jenna Bush will appoint a horse to the Senate... Mr. Clinton's strategy dealt at length with tactics to prevent the kind of financial meltdowns that threatened economies in Asia and Russia. The Bush strategy urges other nations to adopt Mr. Bush's own economic philosophy, starting with low marginal tax rates. boy does this guy have a one-track mind! JD
RE: Re: RE: RE: Bushist militarism
I think it came out pretty clearly from the episode that rigging was central to the plot, though the commentary just referred to it as free trade. Bill -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, 22 September 2002 14:41 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:30442] Re: RE: RE: Bushist militarism Bill, as I understand it, Britain could not compete with India via free trade, but instead they rigged the game. Anthony probably knows about that; or maybe Rakesh, the lurker, would like to jump in. On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 02:21:07PM +1200, Bill Rosenberg wrote: The strategy also includes a chapter called Ignite a New Era of Global Economic Growth through Free Markets and Free Trade, thus formally uniting militarism with its trade and investment strategies. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(no subject)
SIGNOFF PEN-L
FW: Duke University Receives Grant to Limit Copyright Expansion
Duke University Receives Grant to Limit Copyright Expansion An anonymous donor has given $1 million to the Duke University Law School to fund efforts to find the correct balance of copyrighted material and that which is available in the public domain. The money will fund a new center that will consider laws such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and their impact on access to creative work. An official at Duke said the balance between the rights of intellectual property owners and the public domain has in recent years shifted in favor of copyright owners, to the detriment of having a rich culture and an innovative society. CNET, 4 September 2002 http://news.com.com/2100-1023-956637.html
New video on unemployment and neoliberalism in New Zealand
(Advert!) A full length documentary (1 hr 44 min) has been released by Vanguard Films tracing the fate of full employment as a primary policy goal of New Zealand's economic policies in the new right governments that took over from 1984. It is moving as workers, beneficiaries and unemployed speak first hand about how the policies of the 1980's and '90's impoverished them. It is informative as witnesses to the policy making tell how unemployment was used as a tool to reduce wages and inflation. In a Land of Plenty is written and directed by Alister Barry who also wrote and directed the Vanguard Films video Someone Else's Country which traced the new right revolution. Vanguard Films is one of the few progressive independent film makers in New Zealand; most of their work is done by volunteers to a professional standard. The video is available from The Community Media Trust P.O.Box 3563, Wellington Fax 04-472-5259 NZ$30 incl GST for individuals NZ$70 for groups, NZ$110 for institutions For more details see http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/jbl16910.htm Bill Rosenberg
Re: New Zealand election
An update on the final New Zealand election result. Labour has formed a coalition with the PCP (foregone conclusion) with the support in confidence and supply of the economic right/moral conservative United Future Party outside the government. The Greens are signing some kind of agreement with Labour, but it is not yet known just what. Clearly though, this is a move to the right, though hopefully small. The final election result gave the Greens an extra seat (9 instead of 8) at the expense of UF (8 instead of 9, losing a candidate who in 1993 called for all AIDs victims to be quarantined). It was an historically low poll for New Zealand: 77% voted. It is likely the left lost more due to the low vote than to the loopy centre parties. In the meantime, the deputy leader of New Zealand First has made a speech echoing Enoch Powell (the English racist anti-immigration politician of the 1960's) and expressing his admiration for him. Fortunately New Zealand First does not hold the balance of power, despite being the third largest party. Bill Bill Rosenberg wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill, Could you give us the lowdown on the recent election results. From the paltry news we get here I understand Labour was just short of a majority and was expected to form a coalition with the Greens and one other party which I had not heard of. It is interesting. When NZ was doing its neoliberal dance, the media here gave it almost daily coverage of the triumph of the right. Now that Labour is back (more or less) in the saddle, we get one inch of copy in the national press, nothing in the local press, and complete silence on the electronic media. So what's up, Bill? It's messy (hence my time to reply). New Zealand-watchers may recall that in 1999 fifteen years of purist but increasingly moribund neo-liberal governments (starting with a Labour government in 1984) were voted out in favour of a Labour-Alliance coalition government. The new government relied on the Green Party (which has progressive social policies as well as its environmental core) for a majority in votes of confidence and supply. Labour, led by Helen Clark, had reinvented itself during the 90's a little to the left of Tony Blair. The Alliance had been formed by left social democrat deserters from Labour led by former Labour Party president and Member of Parliament (MP), Jim Anderton. They formed a left grouping of several parties, including initially the Greens, but also the Democrats (former Social Credit) and Mana Motuhake (a Maori party). The coalition government was dominated by the Labour party (49 seats in the 120 seat Parliament), the Alliance having 10 and Greens 7 in a proportional representation system. It continued fiscal policies which differed very little from the previous 15 years - an independent Reserve Bank, budget surpluses, reducing government expenditure as a proportion of GDP, no new taxes (other than a small rise on the top tax rates). It did some good things - some planned (re-nationalisation of the accident compensation system, paid parental leave, repeal of the anti-union and anti-collectivist Employment Contracts Act, increased investment in state-owned housing and income-related rents, elected district health boards, creation of people's bank, economic development programmes), some unplanned (for example renationalising the national airline when it was on the point of bankruptcy). However the Alliance membership, and some of its MPs became increasingly frustrated at the slow progress and the unwillingness of Anderton to publicly claim responsibility for some of the gains forced by the Alliance (such as more generous parental leave and a higher minimum wage) and to publicly put pressure on Labour to move further. The Alliance was losing support electorally (down from 8% in 1999 to around 4% in opinion polls, losing votes to Labour and the Greens. Note that 5% is a crucial benchmark; below that a party does not get representation in the New Zealand Parliament unless they win an electorate MP). They felt imprisoned by Labour's unwillingness to raise taxes to finance new social programmes, and increasingly aghast at its enthusiastic pursuit of free trade agreements with Singapore (signed), Hong Kong (in negotiation), the US (dreamed of) and others. Finally, the war against Afghanistan was the breaking point. Anderton pressured the caucus at short notice to support Labour in sending New Zealand SAS (commando) troops. That brought a furious reaction from rank and file members, many of whom are long standing members of New Zealand's strong peace movement. The result was a split in the Alliance with six MPs following Anderton into a new Jim Anderton's Progressive Coalition Party, whose membership comes largely from the Democrats, and three continuing the Alliance led by the very able Laila Harre
New Zealand election
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill, Could you give us the lowdown on the recent election results. From the paltry news we get here I understand Labour was just short of a majority and was expected to form a coalition with the Greens and one other party which I had not heard of. It is interesting. When NZ was doing its neoliberal dance, the media here gave it almost daily coverage of the triumph of the right. Now that Labour is back (more or less) in the saddle, we get one inch of copy in the national press, nothing in the local press, and complete silence on the electronic media. So what's up, Bill? It's messy (hence my time to reply). New Zealand-watchers may recall that in 1999 fifteen years of purist but increasingly moribund neo-liberal governments (starting with a Labour government in 1984) were voted out in favour of a Labour-Alliance coalition government. The new government relied on the Green Party (which has progressive social policies as well as its environmental core) for a majority in votes of confidence and supply. Labour, led by Helen Clark, had reinvented itself during the 90's a little to the left of Tony Blair. The Alliance had been formed by left social democrat deserters from Labour led by former Labour Party president and Member of Parliament (MP), Jim Anderton. They formed a left grouping of several parties, including initially the Greens, but also the Democrats (former Social Credit) and Mana Motuhake (a Maori party). The coalition government was dominated by the Labour party (49 seats in the 120 seat Parliament), the Alliance having 10 and Greens 7 in a proportional representation system. It continued fiscal policies which differed very little from the previous 15 years - an independent Reserve Bank, budget surpluses, reducing government expenditure as a proportion of GDP, no new taxes (other than a small rise on the top tax rates). It did some good things - some planned (re-nationalisation of the accident compensation system, paid parental leave, repeal of the anti-union and anti-collectivist Employment Contracts Act, increased investment in state-owned housing and income-related rents, elected district health boards, creation of people's bank, economic development programmes), some unplanned (for example renationalising the national airline when it was on the point of bankruptcy). However the Alliance membership, and some of its MPs became increasingly frustrated at the slow progress and the unwillingness of Anderton to publicly claim responsibility for some of the gains forced by the Alliance (such as more generous parental leave and a higher minimum wage) and to publicly put pressure on Labour to move further. The Alliance was losing support electorally (down from 8% in 1999 to around 4% in opinion polls, losing votes to Labour and the Greens. Note that 5% is a crucial benchmark; below that a party does not get representation in the New Zealand Parliament unless they win an electorate MP). They felt imprisoned by Labour's unwillingness to raise taxes to finance new social programmes, and increasingly aghast at its enthusiastic pursuit of free trade agreements with Singapore (signed), Hong Kong (in negotiation), the US (dreamed of) and others. Finally, the war against Afghanistan was the breaking point. Anderton pressured the caucus at short notice to support Labour in sending New Zealand SAS (commando) troops. That brought a furious reaction from rank and file members, many of whom are long standing members of New Zealand's strong peace movement. The result was a split in the Alliance with six MPs following Anderton into a new Jim Anderton's Progressive Coalition Party, whose membership comes largely from the Democrats, and three continuing the Alliance led by the very able Laila Harre with a programme somewhat more to the left. Despite this, the coalition government was a very popular one. Polls in early 2002 showed over 50% of voters supporting Labour, with the Greens over 10%, but the Alliance being punished for its self-destruction with less than 3% between the two splinter parties. An early election was called in July, Clark using the Alliance split as an excuse. Labour increased its vote from 39% to 41% (but well below the absolute majority it campaigned for). Good economic times (a low New Zealand dollar, high commodity prices and good growing weather for our important agricultural sector) and a disastrously inept performance by the main conservative party, the National Party meant that major issues such as the economy were barely debated. Instead the biggest single issue was whether a moratorium preventing field trials of genetic engineering should be extended. Labour vehemently opposed it, but the Greens made it a bottom line issue required for their support of a new government. A GE cover-up scandal exposed during the campaign bruised both parties however. The Greens gained only one seat (rising
Re: Question on US local government revenues
I know nothing about the US, but in New Zealand our centre-left Labour-led government is proposing to give local government considerably wider powers. I'm not sure how that effects the ability to tax, but it seems to be modelled on the activities of the City Council in Christchurch (where I live) which was dubbed The People's Republic of Christchurch by the right-wing Business Roundtable (which has been worn as a badge of honour by the city since then). That was because, while other councils were going the way of the neoliberal central government of the 80's and 90's, cutting back services and privatising everything else, Christchurch was a haven of relative enlightenment, compensating for the cutbacks to some degree, preserving (and enhancing) council-owned services and firms, becoming the largest landlord in the country with low-cost housing, initiating local economic development programmes, financing art festivals, etc. To do this it had to stretch the rules and the new laws legitimise such behaviour. The widened powers are being strongly opposed by business interests such as the Roundtable because they are worried that they will be used by local government to back out of the neoliberalism of the past two decades and expand the role of local government. So much so good. There are some flies in the ointment. Firstly, while the new law bans privatisation of many services (such as water), it still allows public-private partnerships for up to 15 years, which is the cause of considerable opposition, based on experience here and abroad. Secondly, the minister responsible for the bill, Sandra Lee, stepped down before the election that was held last weekend. That is part of a much messier story about the bust-up of the left party, the Alliance, which was in the governing coalition. Bill Bill Burgess wrote: I've scanned the footnotes and definitions for data for US local government finances, but can't figure out: Do state and the federal govt. pay property taxes to local governments in the US? Or, do they pay a grant in lieu of property taxes (as in Canada), and if so, is it included under property tax revenues (as in Canada), or under intergovernmental transfer revenue? (I'm aware that District of Columbia is a special case.) There is currently a big campaign underway in Canada to give municipal governments more fiscal (and even constitutional!) power. It is usually motivated as necessary for cities to become more 'competitive' locations in the world market, especially as federal and provincial governments withdraw or download service responsibilities to local governments. The US is being cited as a **positive example** of the ability of (some) local governments to tax local income, sales, payroll, hotel rooms, etc., while in Canada local governments are (generally) restricted to taxing only real property. I'm trying the show that more fiscal power for individual local governments generally means more disparity in the public goods and services local governments provide. Thanks in advance to anyone who can help. Bill Burgess
Re: RE: Expertise
Gar Lipow wrote: There are political technicians--Lydons Johnsons, Dick Morrises, Karl Roves, who are political machers, who can make the system work to attain particular ends. Thoise people need to be used and kept on a short leash. Why not take that attitude to experts in general? My motto with experts is: use them, don't trust them. Except of course if the expert is me (;-). Bill
Brian Easton website
For those who are aware of New Zealand economist Brian Easton, or are interested in a leftish economist and social commentator's view of New Zealand in the world, he now has a website at www.eastonbh.ac.nz. Bill
[Fwd: Venezuela and Argentina: A Tale of Two Coups]
Venezuela and Argentina: A Tale of Two Coups by Greg Palast New Internationalist Magazine - July 2002 The big business-led coup in Venezuela failed, where international finance's coup in Argentina has succeeded. Greg Palast gives us the inside track on two very different power-grabs. ** Come see Greg Palast at Politics Prose July 17 or at Border's July 18th at 7 PM Details below ** Blondes in revolt On May Day, starting out from the Hilton Hotel, 200,000 blondes marched East through Caracas' shopping corridor along Casanova Avenue. At the same time, half a million brunettes converged on them from the West. It would all seem like a comic shampoo commercial if 16 people hadn't been shot dead two weeks earlier when the two groups crossed paths. The May Day brunettes support Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. They funnelled down from the ranchos, the pustules of crude red-brick bungalows, stacked one on the other, that erupt on the steep, unstable hillsides surrounding this city of five million. The bricks in some ranchos are new, a recent improvement in these fetid, impromptu slums where many previously sheltered behind cardboard walls. 'Chávez gives them bricks and milk,' a local TV reporter told me, 'and so they vote for him.' Chávez is dark and round as a cola nut. Like his followers, Chávez is an 'Indian'. But the blondes, the 'Spanish', are the owners of Venezuela. A group near me on the blonde march screamed 'Out! Out!' in English, demanding the removal of the President. One edible-oils executive, in high heels, designer glasses and push-up bra had turned out, she said: 'To fight for democracy.' She added: 'We'll try to do it institutionally,' a phrase that meant nothing to me until a banker in pale pink lipstick explained that to remove Chávez, 'we can't wait until the next election'. The anti-Chavistas don't equate democracy with voting. With 80 per cent of Venezuela's population at or below the poverty level, elections are not attractive to the protesting financiers. Chávez had won the election in 1998 with a crushing 58 per cent of the popular vote and that was unlikely to change except at gunpoint. And so on 12 April the business leadership of Venezuela, backed by a few 'Spanish' generals, turned their guns on the Presidential Palace and kidnapped Chávez. Pedro Carmona, the chief of Fedecamaras, the nation's confederation of business and industry, declared himself President. This coup, one might say, was the ultimate in corporate lobbying. Within hours, he set about voiding the 49 Chávez laws that had so annoyed the captains of industry, executives of the foreign oil companies and latifundistas, the big plantation owners. The banker's embrace Carmona had dressed himself in impressive ribbons and braids for the inauguration. In the Miraflores ballroom, filled with the Venezuelan élite, Ignazio Salvatierra, president of the Banker's Association, signed his name to Carmona's self-election with a grand flourish. The two hugged emotionally as the audience applauded. Carmona then decreed the dissolution of his nation's congress and supreme court while the business peopled clapped and chanted, 'Democracia! Democracia!' I later learned the Cardinal of Caracas had led Carmona into the Presidential Palace, a final Genet-esque touch to this delusional drama. This fantasy would evaporate ?by the crowing of the cock,? as Chávez told me in his poetic way. Chávez minister Miguel Bustamante-Madriz, who had escaped the coup, led 60,000 brunettes down from Barrio Petare to Miraflores. As thousands marched against the coup, Caracas television stations, owned by media barons who supported (and possibly planned the coup) played soap operas. The station owned hoped their lack of coverage would keep the Chavista crowd from swelling; but it doubled and doubled and doubled. On l3 April, they were ready to die for Chávez. They did not have to. Carmona, fresh from his fantasy inaugural, received a call from the head of a pro-Chávez paratroop regiment stationed in Maracay, outside the capital. To avoid bloodshed, Chávez had agreed to his own 'arrest' and removal by the putschists, but did not mention to the plotters that several hundred loyal troops had entered secret corridors under the Palace. Carmona, surrounded, could choose his method of death: bullets from the inside, rockets from above, or dismemberment by the encircling 'bricks and milk' crowd. Carmona took off his costume ribbons and surrendered. Taking on the oil giants I interviewed Carmona while I leaned out the fourth floor window of an apartment in La Alombra, a high-rise building complex. I spoke my pidgin Spanish across to his balcony on the building a few yards away. The one-time petrochemical mogul was under house arrest - the lucky bastard. If he had attempted to overthrow the President of
Re: Re: Global unequal exchange
Yes, a beaut. You might be interested in what I wrote last November about the proposed parallel FTA between New Zealand and the US. Wonder if Davidson had read it? Bill Rob Schaap wrote: G'day Penpals, This beaut bleat from the Melbourne AGE: Howard is sacrificing our interests By Kenneth Davidson June 13 2002 Is John Howard mad, or is he just looking for an excuse during his visit to Washington to bask in the reflected glory of George Bush and his unilateral war on terror? What price free trade with the U.S? Bill Rosenberg It looks like we're back to trade access for troops diplomacy. [Tory Prime Minister in 1970s to 84, Robert] Muldoon used to claim (with scant evidence) that military ties to the U.S. improved access for our agricultural exports. [Current Labour Prime Minister] Helen Clark hints that her government's offer of SAS troops to the war in Afghanistan has eased the way for a Free Trade Agreement with the U.S. Morality aside, is such an agreement worth pursuing? New Zealand's main target would be increased agricultural exports. That is chasing rainbows. Despite urging free trade on the rest of the world, the U.S. is deeply hypocritical with regard to protection of its agriculture. Like chastity, free trade is good for anyone but yourself. The hypocrisy reflects U.S. agriculture. The huge agribusiness corporations which write U.S. agricultural trade policy dominate international markets and want to expand further. Meanwhile they accept huge subsidies at home. But only a quarter of U.S. agricultural production is exported. U.S. family farmers produce mainly for domestic consumption. They see trade as more a threat than an opportunity. Farms are failing due to falling and unstable prices, despite government support of $70 billion in 2000, and a further rise expected in 2002. When the WTO over-ruled protective U.S. tariffs on Australasian lamb, the U.S. gave its farmers a further $100 million. It is unbelievable that the U.S. would dismantle all this in return for anything New Zealand could offer. To obtain even small concessions, the U.S. will be demanding concessions in return. Some can be deduced from existing agreements and official publications. The U.S. government publishes an annual report on Foreign Trade Barriers. The 2001 report lists what it regards as New Zealand trade barriers that it wants modified or removed. These include the moratorium on releasing genetically modified organisms, the requirement for approval before food with genetically modified content can be sold, and the labelling requirements for such food. New Zealand is on special watch for parallel importing of software, films, videos and music. Local content requirements in radio and TV are also listed, as is Telecom's dominance of telecommunications, especially its local loop monopoly. So are Pharmac's actions to hold down medicine prices, intensely disliked by pharmaceutical companies. Government procurement and our overseas investment regulations are also listed. Services will be a primary focus of negotiations, as they were in the agreement with Singapore, and are in the current negotiations with Hong Kong. The U.S. has powerful transnational companies interested in further commercialisation of our public services such as education, health, and environmental services. A sure target (and listed as a tariff barrier) will be our highly effective agricultural marketing companies such as Fonterra, ENZA and Zespri and remaining producer boards. The U.S. has declared war internationally on what it calls State Trading Enterprises. Yet our incomprehensible bargaining tactics have given it most of what it wants before the hard talking has even begun. Instead, aim will be taken against the remaining regulations and statutory boards. U.S. food corporations, such as Kraft which has 57% of the U.S. cheese market, would love a leading place in our dairy, horticultural and meat industries. Despite recent massive mergers of its own dairy processors at home, the U.S. will want to force change in our competition rules to remove Fonterra's dominant status. It would be a sour victory if minimal agricultural access to the U.S. was bought at the expense of New Zealand farmers' control of their industry, with resulting lower returns to producers. Perhaps most disturbing are NAFTA's investment rules, which the U.S. has insisted on incorporating into the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas currently under negotiation. Similar provisions are in agreements New Zealand has with Hong Kong and China. NAFTA's investment chapter allows corporations to sue governments for compensation or reversal of laws when their profits are threatened. Hearings take place in secret, before private tribunals. Under it, Canada was forced to revoke a ban on a toxic petrol
Re: post-MAI blowback
The Freshfields law firm's briefing note mentioned in the Guardian article can be found at http://www.freshfields.com/practice/corporate/publications/pdfs/2431.pdf It contains the following which graphically illustrate the power of bilateral investment treaties (BITs)to undermine government actions: The Emergency Law has many more far-reaching implications, not only for financial institutions, but also for investors in the public services: viz oil and gas, electricity, water, transport and telecommunications. * The 25 per cent tax imposed on the exportation of oil and gas has serious immediate implications for investors in that industry. The tax appears discriminatory and in breach of the regulations under which the exploration and production rights were awarded, and could infringe rights under applicable BITs. * The elimination of the peso/dollar parity affects investors in Argentina across the board. Many of these investors were promised dollar denominated prices and tariffs (and the real return on invest-ment that this implied) as an incentive to invest in Argentina in the boom years of the 1990s. The breach of this promise may amount to a breach of Argentina's obligations under applicable BITs, for which the investor may be entitled to compensation. * The repeal of adjustment and indexation clauses in government contracts (generally clauses linking prices and tariffs to the US Consumers Price Index (CPl) or PPl) affects many investors in public utility sectors. Such automatic adjustment served as a guarantee that prices and tariffs would remain pegged to international standards in the event of a downturn. The renunciation of this guarantee may also furnish the investors with a claim under international law. Of course it could be argued that this is just a law firm whetting its clients' appetites to create business. But NAFTA Chapter 11 shows such claims have some hope of success, and the threat of such litigation may be enough to undermine some governments' wills to regulate. Bill Ian Murray wrote: Dusted-off trade treaties ensure there is no such thing as a free riot Luke Eric Peterson Monday May 6, 2002 The Guardian For years the so-called anti-globalisation movement has had at least one scalp to brag about - the multilateral agreement on investment, or MAI. This treaty, which would have granted a broad package of rights to foreign investors, was aborted in 1998 following worldwide protest. While protesters were dancing on the MAI's grave, few noticed that the agreement's genetic code was being passed along in a series of bilateral treaties. The UK, for example, continued to negotiate investment promotion and protection agreements with various developing countries, in pointed disregard of a 1998 parliamentary inquiry which warned of the potential for conflict between such treaties and government policy. These investment treaties were designed to protect foreign investors from arbitrary interference or expropriation of their property, particularly in developing nations. They gave foreign investors the ability to avoid potentially dodgy local courts and take their disputes directly to international arbitration tribunals. When similar investor rights were written into the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, Nafta, entrepreneurial lawyers discovered something else. These rights could be used to challenge a range of government policies, including environmental and health regulations affecting foreign investors. Investors could take the host state to an arbitration panel composed of three trade lawyers and sue for tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. Whatever their public interest, these deliberations are closed to the media and the public. When the US-based Ethyl Corporation hit the Canadian government with an arbitration claim in 1998, Canada quickly lost its nerve, repealed its trade ban on a controversial Ethyl Corp petrol additive, offered a $13m settlement package and a grovelling apology. Thus began the corporate version of Who Wants to a Be a Millionaire? Thanks to a surge of investor claims under Nafta, investors are now dusting off nearly 2,000 bilateral treaties signed worldwide since the 50s. According to Freshfields, the City law firm, these treaties contain investor rights which are not theoretical. In a briefing note to clients in January, Freshfields said: Their application in the context of the Argentine crisis could prove a most powerful weapon. Sure enough, foreign investors such as Enron, Vivendi and Mobil are queuing to use these treaties to sue governments in the developing world, targeting everything from new taxes to regulation of privatised public services. Argentina has been particularly hard hit. While the government struggles to right a sinking economic ship, at least nine hefty arbitration claims have been tossed on to the ship's listing bow. These are heard behind closed
Re: Union education in economics
Jurriaan I can't locate any official stats on union membership in New Zealand. The abstract below gives some idea. It looks like the full paper is not on the internet, but you can order it from the Industrial Relations Centre at Victoria University - see http://sbpm.fca.vuw.ac.nz/vuw/content/display_content.cfm?id=412 The Industrial Relations Centre probably provides the only useful stats on unions, but they don't seem to have the results of their annual surveys on the internet. See also http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PO0204/S00197.htm Table 4 in www.globalpolicynetwork.org/data/ newzealand/nz-analysis.doc goes to 1998. Regards Bill WORKING PAPER # 2/01 Industrial Relations Centre Victoria University of Wellington New Zealand http://www.vuw.ac.nz/sbpm Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unions and Union Membership in New Zealand: Annual Review for 2000 Robyn May, Pat Walsh, Glen Thickett Raymond Harbridge* This paper reports the results of Victoria Universitys Industrial Relations Centres most recent survey of trade union membership in New Zealand. The survey carries on from our earlier surveys of trade union membership under the Employment Contracts Act 1991, for the years 1991 to 1999. The data reported covers the first three months of the new Employment Relations Act (enacted on 2 October 2000), to 31 December 2000, and records the first increase in trade union density since the mid-1980s. The unions identified in our survey had a combined membership of 318,519. This represents an increase of 16,114 or 5.3 percent over the course of the year. The data also report a substantial increase in the number of trade unions. As at 31 December 2000, the 134 trade unions identified for the survey represent a jump of 63 percent in the number of unions, up from 82 identified by last years survey. This paper reviews the effects of the new legislative environment on union membership and highlights the long-term implications of industry concentration for trade unions. * Robyn May is Senior Research Fellow, Pat Walsh is Professor of Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations and Glen Thickett is a Research Fellow, at the Industrial Relations Centre, Victoria University of Wellington; and Raymond Harbridge is Professor of Management and Head of School, Graduate School of Management, La Trobe University, Melbourne, respectively. This study is part of a larger project which receives funding from the Public Good Science Fund administered by the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology (Contract no. VIC903). The authors are grateful to Catherine Otto for research assistance and would like to thank all the union officials who assisted with this research. Jurriaan Bendien wrote: Bill, Do you have available the current percentage of unionised workers in the total number of wage and salary earners in New Zealand ? In 1985 it stood at about 44 percent and in 1995 it was about 23 percent. I just want to know if this decline has continued (at least in some countries the decline appears to have been halted or even reversed). The PSA library site has some relevant documents but somehow I couldn't access them (?). Thanks Jurriaan
The Kyoto belch
Given the previous interest in the list on the contribution of sheep and cows to greenhouse gases, I thought it my comradely duty to relay the following. Bill Motoring to Kyoto - on a tank full of cow Press 2 May 02, p.2 (Christchurch, New Zealand) Belching and farting are considered the height of bad manners in most social circles - but they could be a major boost for the family budget. Experts say regurgitation by cows, sheep and deer, produces one hell of a lot of methane - and that could be used to power the family car if only it could be harnessed. The average dairy cow produces about 90kg of methane a year, which is equivalent in energy to 120 litres of petrol. Sheep produce only about a tenth of this, but there are a lot more of them. Agricultural scientists say for a 200-cow dairy herd, the petrol equivalent to its methane emissions is 24,000 litres a year, enough to drive the family car 200,000km. Yesterday, the Government proposed a carbon tax to meet its obligations under the Kyoto protocol to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, but said it would exempt farmers from tax on methane emissions from belching livestock. Because farmers had no way to reduce methane from deer, sheep, and cattle, they would instead be expected to help fund research on cutting methane and nitrous oxide emissions, at a level equivalent to 20c a sheep. Agresearch scientists Gamy Waghorn and Michael Tavendale said grasslands scientists already working on the problem had proved for the first time condensed tannins found in some pasture species can directly reduce methane emissions by as much as 16 per cent. Research on reducing methane emissions is following three main pathways - changing animals' feed to fodder more easily digested, using a vaccine or spray to alter the stomach organisms to better help animals digest their feed, and breeding to find animals that are naturally more efficient digesters. -NZPA
Request: Union education in economics
Hi I've been asked by a union to spend a day with its senior delegates to give them some basic economics (what's capitalism, how does it work/fail to work, the financial system, surplus value); a background to the New Zealand economy; and the impact of globalisation. I can get together material on the latter two (NZ, globalisation), but wondered if anyone on the list had some basic ready-made material on the basic economics (with a marxist flavour) that could be used in this context. It needs to be very simple in the sense of being brief (1-2 hours) and non-technical, but that of course doesn't mean it can't be challenging intellectually. All assistance gratefully received. Bill --- The content of this message is provided in my private capacity and does not purport to represent the University of Canterbury.
RE: Union education in economics
Thanks Jurriaan. This sounds interesting, and I vaguely remember being aware you were working on this (now you mention it). Unfortunately I don't have time to digest useful stuff like this in this case, which is the problem I was trying to address by asking on the list. But I'll keep your message so I can look it up some time. Geoff Pearce's early death was a great loss to the left in New Zealand. Thanks also to Mike Yates who sent me material off-list. Bill -Original Message- From: Jurriaan Bendien [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 2 May 2002 9:57 am To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:25601] Union education in economics Bill, You could check out a Phd Thesis completed at Canterbury University by G. R. Pearce with help from myself. It's called Where is New Zealand Going ? (1986), available from UCL, and includes a data set for basic Marxian variables (s/v, c/v, s/c+v and various derivatives) applying to NZ manufacturing 1923-1970. So it can be handy for empirical illustrations for the Marxian argument in a NZ setting. The second volume provides a full data set some of which can be updated from official statistics (but others cannot because of definitional changes), including also for example long-range time-series data on strike activity, and other social statistics. The third volume contains a full bibliography and notes. Also, the first volume contains a simplified discussion of supply-side and demand-side economics, framing the different permutations of orthodox economics in one simple model which anybody could understand. Geof Pearce later worked as organiser for the PSA with John McKenzie and was subsequently invited by dissident PSA members to set up another union, NUPE. He didn't have time to publish stuff from his thesis before his untimely death. However Brian Roper published some in an article. Bruce Cronin criticised Geof's thesis, but his criticism is rather flimsy and his own work on NZSNA data is, at least in my opinion, flawed.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Regional planning and property rights
Greider (The Right and US Trade Law: Invalidating the 20th Century, The Nation, October 15, 2001) clarified all this very nicely. Bill Ian Murray wrote: - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 8:02 PM Subject: [PEN-L:25390] Re: Re: Regional planning and property rights The American Law on takings is a Frankinsteinian abortion of distorted thinking that is spreading its tentacles beyond the US into other countries by the extraterritoriality of US law. The idea that property rights extends to the incorporation of expected profits in perpetuity is a US phantamasma born only in the minds of US perverted judges appointed by special interest property rights owners. It has little (actually no) basis in historic economic thought and the thought that the US could unilitaterally impose this stupid interpretation of property law not only on its close economic partners, such as Canada, but on the world, is obscene. That of course, does not suggest that the US will not inflict its obscene ideology on the rest of us. So what do we do? say? Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba Blame Thomas Cooley. The limit...in these cases must be this: the regulations must have reference to the comfort, safety or welfare of society;...they must not, under pretence of regulation, take from the corporation any of the essential rights and privileges which the charter confers. In short, they must be police regulations in fact, and not amendments of the charter in curtailment of the corporate franchise. ['Constitutional Limitations', 1868] For a detailed look at how the doctrine was woven into economic thought and the shaping of the Institutionalist critiques of same one need only have a look at John Commons' 'The Legal Foundations of Capitalism.' International trade law has yet to have it's Morris Cohen and Robert Hale. Ian
Re: Argentina, Australia and Canada (and US foreign investment)
Charles Brown wrote: Profits aside, two features of FDI which seem to clearly differentiate developed and developing countries (in the context of the US foreign investment thread, imperial vs neo-colonies) appear to be the balance between inward and outward investment stock (biased towards outward for developed countries; overwhelmingly inward for developing CB: Might this be termed export of capital ? It could be expressed as net export of capital, but that would cover up the fact that most capital exports are from one developed country to another. Bill
Re: Re: Argentina, Australia and Canada
Grant Lee wrote: HK and Singapore are entrepots, and they are city-economies, which indicates the need to qualify the significance of their numbers It seems to me that if no western state is very similar --- and I'm not convinced this is the case --- to HK and Singapore it would have a lot to do with the latter being extremely small, densely populated city states and therefore more focused on foreign trade. The international stats (e.g. World Bank, WTO) seem to highlight only Singapore and Hong Kong as being major re-exporters. This is presumably due to historical, colonial and geographical factors as much as their size. If you want a fascinating glimpse into how it works in Hong Kong (the tolling operations, rundown of manufacturing, use by transnationals etc) have a look at Intermediaries in Entrepôt Trade: Hong Kong Re-Exports of Chinese Goods, by Robert C. Feenstra Department of Economics, University of California, Davis and National Bureau of Economic Research, and Gordon H. Hanson, Department of Economics and School of Business Administration, University of Michigan and NBER, December 2000. Also published as NBER paper W8088. It's on both Hanson's (http://webuser.bus.umich.edu/gohanson/gohanson.html#WorkingPapers) and the NBER web sites. I wrote up some of this when looking at the consequences for New Zealand of a FTA with HK (currently under negotiation but faltering) - see http://canterbury.cyberplace.org.nz/community/CAFCA/publications/Trade/GlobalisationByStealth.pdf The best recent candidate for the 'imperial' club is probably s. Korea, but, hello, this country is divided in half, occupied by US nukes... Forces which, some would argue, have assisted the South Korean national bourgeoisie in the same way that the capitalist economies of Japan, Taiwan and the old West Germany grew significantly as armed camps. Though what is happening to the S Korean national bourgeoisie post-1997 financial crisis, with many of the most powerful corporations being wound up or sold to European and US TNCs? I think the difference between presenting a NZ passport and a Malaysian passport helps clarify the social relationships in world imperialism. That would depend on where they travelled to I think. What do social relationships mean when discussing imperialism? New Zealand (along with Australia) takes an imperialist position in the South Pacific, where it is a relatively big fish amongst tiny ones. But that is hardly a fertile source of resources: New Zealand's income and living standards would barely change if that role disappeared. New Zealand's main role is as a footman to the imperialists, and its role in the S Pacific reflects that - carrying the good words of neoliberalism to the governments there, acting as policeman when needs be. But as footman, it mainly gets crumbs from the imperial table in terms of trade access and dependence on their capital. Australia has a stronger imperial role (especially north of it in PNG, E Timor, etc) but in reality is not much different in the pecking order to New Zealand. I note that the HK and Singaporean outward FDI figures cited are higher than any of the European states you have cited, except Switzerland. Again, I suspect a large part of their outward FDI is in fact from branches of companies from other countries. In Hong Kong's case that is esp mainland China, but also all the usual suspects. I looked at that in New Zealand's case: In 12 of the 72 cases I listed from statutory approvals over the last decade, no genuine Hong Kong investment was involved, and an additional five included Hong Kong investors among third country investors. Countries represented whose investors were using Hong Kong as a base to invest in New Zealand (in addition to investors from Hong Kong itself) include Australia, Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Monaco, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Switzerland, the U.K., and the U.S.A. In addition, in two instances, New Zealand investors were using Hong Kong companies to invest here. In addition, a large part of HK businesses' time seems to be spent circulating their capital through tax havens (see the info I gave in my previous post). Even 15-16% corporate tax rates still provide incentives for tax avoidance apparently. But that certainly does not mean all, or even the majority of their outward FDI is sourced elsewhere - both HK and Singapore (in that case, often the Singapore government) now have very strong national capital. Bill
Re: Re: Argentina, Australia and Canada (and US foreign investment)
Ratios of inward and outward FDI stock to GDP, and FDI flows to gross fixed capital formation are tabulated for most countries in the various World Investment Reports of UNCTAD. They also calculate a transnationality index of FDI host countries, which averages the four shares: FDI flows (as a percentage of GFCF), FDI inward stocks as a percentage of GDP, value added of foreign affiliates as a percentage of GDP, and employment of foreign affiliates as a precentage of total employment. The developed countries which the 2000 report tabulates (with New Zealand at the top!) average around 13%, and the tabulated developing countries 14%. Unfortunately they don't seem interested in tabulating profits! It's difficult to say what profit figures would show. The ability of TNCs to transfer their profits from one country another for tax, political or internal reasons must make the profit attributed to their operations in any one country arbitrary to a degree. Even without deliberate transfer pricing, it is conceivable that (say) Nike would put up with lower rates of profit in Indonesia because the manufacture of its shoes is such a small part of the cost. Most of the profits may well be made elsewhere in the chain of distribution and sale. I'm not saying that it necessarily happens like that, but it is quite conceivable. To say TNCs chase cheap labour is to oversimplify. Certainly that is an important part of their motivation, but since around 76% of FDI was to developed countries (in 1999) - and 90% of mergers and acquisitions - it isn't the whole story. Other motivations include domination of their selected markets, increasing scale for competitive reasons, and security of investment. Profits aside, two features of FDI which seem to clearly differentiate developed and developing countries (in the context of the US foreign investment thread, imperial vs neo-colonies) appear to be the balance between inward and outward investment stock (biased towards outward for developed countries; overwhelmingly inward for developing); and greenfield vs mergers/acquisition investment (over 80% of FDI was MAs for all countries in 1999; but about one third of FDI to developing countries). Grant Lee remarks below that Singapore's inward FDI is still well above outward FDI in this city-state where annual trade is also 160% !!! of GDP. Singapore has unusually high FDI, but its high level of trade is no mystery. Like Hong Kong, it has a huge entrepot function, with high levels of re-exports - importing for the purpose of re-exporting with little or no work done on the goods on the way through. In 1999 Hong Kong (popn about 6 million) had the world's 10th largest international trading volume (mainland China was 9th). In 2000 88.5% of its exports were re-exports, a third of these to mainland China. Its foreign investment is even more remarkable (and statistics-distorting!): with the exceptions of China and its former colonial master, the U.K., the top-ranked sources and destinations of Hong Kong investment are the tax havens of the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, and Bermuda (1998 figures). The ownership of this investment is certainly elsewhere, including the U.S., Europe, Hong Kong itself, and China. Bill Grant Lee wrote: Bill Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: country inward FDI stock/GDPoutward FDI stock/GDP Canada 23.9% 26.9% Australia 28.117.1 UK 23.335.9 France 11.715.9 Singapore 85.856.1 Malaysia67.022.7 Indonesia 73.32.4 Argentina 13.95.4 Brazil 17.11.4 Interesting figures. I haven't had time to look at the comparable figures for other countries. In any case they don't prove a permanent/structural exclusion from imperial activity. For example, what about Hong Kong (pre-1997, not that it is yet a homogenous part of China)? The last I heard there was hardly any manufacturing left in Hong Kong because proprietors had shifted operations to the mainland. South Africa? Saudi Arabia? Note the obvious difference in rates of outward FDI, plus the fact that most FDI by Canada, France, etc. is in other imperialist countries while most FDI by Indonesia, Argentina, etc. is in fellow semi-colonies. Every bourgeoisie has to start somewhere. For example --- and I'm not going to revisit the complexities and vitriol of the Kenya Debate --- but I just came across this on the web: Andrea Goldstein and Njuguna S. Ndung'u, OECD Development Centre Technical Paper No. 171: New Forms Of Co-Operation And Integration In Emerging Africa Regional Integration Experience, March 2001. quote: (p. 16) Table 5. Import Sources (1997)* (From)Kenya Tanzania Uganda (To)Kenya-0**
Translation of document written by the legal Ministry of Venezuela
Translation of document written by the legal Ministry of Venezuela Caracas, April 12, 2002 PRESS RELEASE The Ministers denounce the coup against Chavez and warn that the President has not resigned. The ministers called on the Governors and on the Federal Councils of the Government to defend the constitutionality. The de facto Junta "is violating the constitutional framework of the country." Two ministers of the President, Hugo Chavez Frias Cabinet denounced that the national power has launched a coup against the State with the President of Fedecameras, Pedro Carmona Estanga at the head. The titular [leaders] of Labor, Mara Cristina Iglesias, and Education, Aristbulo Istriz, explained that the elected President was [forcefully] removed from the Palace of Miraflores at approximately 4:00 a.m. today by a group of Generals, and taken by force to the Tiuna Fortress. "They wanted to convince President Chavez to resign, but he refused consistently. Chavez did not renounce. Chavez does not want to leave the country; if they say he left, its because they removed him by force from Venezuela," Iglesias warned. "To say he is going to renounce is the game that those who have carried out the coup enact in order to pretend that there was no coup. "The President has shown that he was incapable of using armed forces against the people." The Cabinet "wants to inform the people what happened: there is a de facto "junta" that has violated the constitutional framework of the country. This is a step backward, toward the past, with the complicity of the High Command of the IPSO which was not named by the President." What happened to the President, they reiterated, "is the responsibility of those who took him prisoner. The Authority of the Peoples Defense was not present, nor were the tribunals." Iglesias and Istriz emphasized that the military, which is loyal to the constitutional government are under arrest in the military bases of the armed forces. "They are not allowed to leave," they added. "We think that the Vice-President, Diosdado Cabello, is imprisoned or being pursued." They also urge the Attorney General of the People to initiate the action "which will help the people to reinstate the State of Rights." They requested those who make up the remainder of the powers to guarantee the life of Chavez, the detained officers and of the Ministers. The members of the Executive called upon all the Governors, and called for the installation of the Federal Council of the Government. Istriz emphasized that the plot against the legitimately constituted government linked the coup to the demonstration carried on yesterday in the Parque del Este. The makers of the coup "took the buildings that are [situated] around Miraflores, and placed Alfredo Peas sharpshooters with the Metropolitan [Police] and Bandera Roja (Red Flag). In addition there were the Police of Chacao and Baruta out of uniform." The Ministers also accuse that the command directed by Carlos Melo (From the alliance Bravo Pueblo) and Gabriel Puerta (of Bandera Roja) attempted to attack the Miraflores Palace. The Minister of Education pledged that the victims of the repression were shot in the head and that the Honor Guard was able to capture the sharpshooters who fired on the demonstrators and that they carried credentials of the police of Chacao and Baruta. "The majority of the shots came from the Metropolitan Police, functionaries who fired against the people who were demonstrating in favor of Chavez." According to Iglesias, the National Guard left once they discovered there were sharpshooters [present] and the Avila Plan was never put into effect. What happened yesterday "was an act that had been planed within a conspiracy," Istriz declared. "They needed an incident of this type to manipulate the National Armed Forces." Fdo. Poltica Urgente Translated by Lori Zett I have translated this document verbatim as it was sent to me for your information and judgment. Any words added are in brackets.
East Timor
The brutality in Palestine is unconscionable. When is the last time we heard about East Timor? Or has it fallen off the map? Even Colombia no longer merits a mention. Here's a couple of recent items on East Timor. I have a recent statement by Foreign Minister Dr Jose Ramos-Horta to the UN Security Council if anyone is interested. Bill - Original Message - From: Maggie Helwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 3:12 PM Subject: [Tapol-etimor-l] SMH/Hamish McDonald: Timor Gas Billions All At Sea Sydney Morning Herald March 27, 2002 Timor gas billions all at sea By Hamish McDonald, International Editor Australia yesterday announced it would no longer submit to international legal rulings on maritime boundaries - after leading lawyers advised East Timor that Canberra was poised to rob it of tens of billions of dollars in oil and gas revenue. The Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, and the Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, said Australia would henceforth exclude maritime boundaries from compulsory dispute settlements in the International Court of Justice - the World Court sitting at The Hague - and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The statement came after a weekend seminar in Dili heard expert legal advice that East Timor should own most of the biggest natural gas fields so far discovered in the sea, including the huge Greater Sunrise resource being developed by Woodside, Shell, Phillips and Osaka Gas. The former head of the United States oil company Unocal, John Imle, also disputed the widely accepted view that the deep Timor Trench, north of these fields, blocked a pipeline to East Timor. This view has been the basis of plans to land the gas near Darwin, giving billions of dollars in industrial spin-offs to Australia. East Timor may be offered the funds to mount a case at the World Court by a US oil company, PetroTimor, which has a separate dispute with Canberra over offshore oil concessions. The prospect has rung alarm bells in the Federal and Northern Territory governments, although the offices of Mr Williams and Mr Downer denied yesterday's decision was linked to the Timor Sea issue, and had been considered for quite some time. The ministers said Australia's strong view is that any maritime boundary dispute is best settled by negotiation rather than litigation. It is not clear, however, that Canberra has evaded a World Court case. A lawyer advising PetroTimor, Ron Nathans of the Sydney law firm Deacons, said the announcement did not mean Australia was immediately out of the court's ambit. Australia is not out of it today, Mr Nathans said. Australia cannot just walk away. The advice has also caused consternation in East Timor, which has been getting ready to sign a petroleum development treaty with Australia, based on current boundaries and giving a revenue split in the joint zone of 90:10 in Dili's favour, almost as soon as it attains independence. East Timor's chief negotiator, Mari Alkatiri, who is likely to be the new nation's first prime minister, has flown hurriedly to London with a UN legal officer to seek urgent advice. Mr Nathan said although the draft treaty with Australia, agreed by negotiators last July, set aside any boundary disputes, it could be seen as acquiescence in claims by parties affected by a future attempt to change the boundaries. The Dili seminar heard advice from two international law experts, Professor Vaughan Lowe of Oxford University and the Sydney barrister Christopher Ward, that current maritime law would swing the lateral boundaries of East Timor's offshore zone to the east and west, giving it at least 80 per cent of the Greater Sunrise fields and potentially 100 per cent - as opposed to the 20 per cent under present boundaries. A leading oil and gas engineer, Geoffrey McKee, said that over the economic life of Greater Sunrise - 2009 to 2050 - such changed boundaries would give East Timor up to $US36 billion ($68 billion) more in government revenue than the $US8 billion it can now expect. Australia's share would shrink from $US28 billion to nothing. East Timor could expect to add almost $US4 billion more from the small Laminaria/Corallina oil fields on the western side of the joint zone, and from the Bayu-Undan field inside the zone. ___ Tapol-etimor-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/tapol-etimor-l Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~ - Access Your PC from Anywhere It's Easy. It's Fun. - Free Download. http://us.click.yahoo.com/v7DM_D/7XkDAA/JLMGAA/6xSolB/TM -~- Indonesia Human Rights Committee is a solidarity organization which aims to build links between the people of New Zealand and Indonesia by developing network with the groups in
Parody against IP or IP against parody?
CAN FALWELL'S NAME BE TRADEMARKED TO PROTECT HIM AGAINST PARODY? The Reverend Jerry Falwell has lodged a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) charging that a Web site that parodies him is violating his common-law trademark of his name. The operator of the parody Web site says Falwell's name is not entitled to trademark protection because he hasn't used it for the purpose of identifying goods and services. WIPO is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland. (AP/San Jose Mercury News 4 Apr 2002) http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/3000509.htm Copyright 2002. NewsScan Daily (R) is a publication of NewsScan.com Inc. ***
Re: Let 100 apologists bloom
Where does this come from Ken? Bill Ken Hanly wrote: Struggling to get a handle on U.S. foreign policy? For starters, try dusting off your Livy and boning up on the Second Punic War. Or dip into a good history of 19th-century Britain, paying close attention to those dazzling military campaigns in the Middle East - the Battle of Omdurman, say, or the Second Afghan War. . Today, America is no mere superpower or hegemon but a full-blown empire in the Roman and British sense. That, at any rate, is the consensus of some of the most notable U.S. commentators and scholars. . People are now coming out of the closet on the word 'empire,' said the conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer. The fact is no country has been as dominant culturally, economically, technologically and militarily in the history of the world since the Roman Empire. . Americans are used to being told - typically by resentful foreigners - that they are imperialists. But lately some of the nation's own eminent thinkers are embracing the idea. More astonishing, they are using the term with approval. From the isolationist right to the imperialist-bashing left, a growing number of experts are issuing stirring paeans to American empire. . The Weekly Standard kicked off the parade early last fall with The Case for American Empire, by The Wall Street Journal's editorial features editor, Max Boot. Quoting the title of Patrick Buchanan's last book, America: A Republic, not an Empire, Boot said, This analysis is exactly backward: the Sept. 11 attack was a result of insufficient American involvement and ambition; the solution is to be more expansive in our goals and more assertive in their implementation. . Calling for the military occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, Boot cited the stabilizing effect of 19th-century British rule in the region. Afghanistan and other troubled lands today, he wrote, cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident Englishmen in jodphurs and pith helmets. . Since then, the empire idea has caught on. In January, Charles Fairbanks, a foreign policy expert at Johns Hopkins University, told an audience at Michigan State University that America was an empire in formation. Last month, a Yale University professor, Paul Kennedy - who 10 years ago was predicting America's ruin from imperial overreach - went further. . Nothing has ever existed like this disparity of power, Kennedy wrote in the Financial Times of London. The Pax Britannica was run on the cheap, Britain's army was much smaller than European armies and even the Royal Navy was equal only to the next two navies - right now all the other navies in the world combined could not dent American maritime supremacy. Napoleon's France and Philip II's Spain had powerful foes and were part of a multipolar system. Charlemagne's empire was merely western European in its stretch. The Roman Empire stretched further afield, but there was another great empire in Persia and a larger one in China. There is no comparison. . The most extended statement from the empire camp to date is Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos (Random House, 2001), a recent book by the journalist Robert Kaplan. . Arguing that times have changed less than we think, Kaplan suggests the nation's leaders turn to ancient Greek and Roman chroniclers - as well as Winston Churchill's 1899 account of the British conquest of the Sudan - for helpful hints about how to navigate today's world. He devotes a chapter to the Second Punic War (Rome's victory in the Second Punic War, like America's in World War II, made it a universal power) and one to the cunning Emperor Tiberius. Granted, the emperor was something of a despot, writes Kaplan. Still, he combined diplomacy with the threat of force to preserve a peace that was favorable to Rome. . If that sounds familiar, you've got the right idea. Our future leaders could do worse than be praised for their tenacity, their penetrating intellects and their ability to bring prosperity to distant parts of the world under America's soft imperial influence, Kaplan writes. The more successful our foreign policy, the more leverage America will have in the world. Thus, the more likely that future historians will look back on 21st-century United States as an empire as well as a republic, however different from that of Rome and every other empire throughout history. . Classicists may scoff at the idea that democratic America has much in common with the tyrannical Rome of Augustus or Nero. But the empire camp points out that however unlikely the comparison, America has often behaved like a conquering empire. As Kennedy put it, From the time the first settlers arrived in Virginia from England and started moving westward, this was an imperial nation, a conquering nation. . America's imperial behavior continues today. The United States has bases or base
Re: Kiwi Fart Tax
I think this is most unfair. The methane in fact comes from belching, not farting. Accordingly, no fart tax has been passed. (;-) Actually, the only thing I've seen on this particular issue is proposals for research to breed animals that have lower methane output. For example at http://www.niwa.cri.nz/pubs/an/archived/aniwaniwa15_kyoto.html we're told that NIWA is working with a number of scientific research organisations on issues relating directly to the Kyoto Protocol. A collaborative project with AgResearch has shown that some sheep produce more methane than others and this finding begs questions that cross into areas of animal genetics. Perhaps the answer to our high level of methane gas discharge could be to breed sheep that produce less methane. (NIWA = National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research; both it and AgResearch are Crown Research Institutes, our commercialised form of government research institutions.) Bill Ken Hanly wrote: Maybe some of the New Zealanders on the list can inform us whether there has been passage of the wind tax in N.Z. or if it has been deflated. It was suggested around last May that as a means of meeting obligations under the Koyoto agreement that New Zealand might pass a tax on livestock from 3 dollars to 40 dollars a head. A sheep produces 11.9 kg of methane per year; beef cattle, 76.2; and dairy cattle 85.7. Methane is New Zealands primary greenhouse gas not carbon dioxide. Many worry that the gas taxes will balloon out of control. Vegetarians would be an obvious target since they are known to produce more gas than meat eaters. And beer would be another obvious choice. Some commentators, probably one Pugliese among them, see the whole issue as a plot by GlaxoSmithKline the manufacturers of Beano to extend their business into the lucrative livestock industry. Beano yes. Antibiotics no. Cheers, Ken Hanly PS. The factual data is taken from a recent article by Ryan Kennedy in the Journal ALTERNATIVES ( U of Waterloo)
Venezuela: Next Chile?
Venezuela: Next Chile? By John Pilger He has won two elections, and he has made a start on relieving poverty. So now the US wants to get rid of Venezuela's president Chavez. Almost 30 years after the violent destruction of the reformist government of Salvador Allende in Chile, a repeat performance is being planned in Venezuela. Little of this has been reported in Britain. Indeed, little is known of the achievements of the government of Hugo Chavez, who won presidential elections in 1998 and again in 2000 by the largest majority in 40 years. Following the principles of a movement called Bolivarism, named after the South American independence hero Simon Bolivar, Chavez has implemented reforms that have begun to shift the great wealth of Venezuela, principally from its oil, towards the 80 per cent of his people who live in poverty. In 49 laws adopted by the Venezuelan Congress last November, Chavez began serious land reform, and guaranteed indigenous and women's rights and free healthcare and education up to university level. Chavez faces enemies that Allende would recognise. The oligarchies, which held power since the 1950s during the corrupt bipartisan reign of the Social Christians and Democratic Action, have declared war on the reforming president, backed by the Catholic Church and a trade union hierarchy and the media, both controlled by the right. What has enraged them is a modest agrarian reform that allows the state to expropriate and redistribute idle land; and a law that limits the exploitation of oil reserves, reinforcing a constitutional ban on the privatisation of the state oil company. Allied with Chavez's domestic enemies is the Bush administration. Defying Washington, Chavez has sold oil to Cuba and refused overflying rights to American military aircraft supplying Plan Colombia, the US campaign in support of the murderous regime in neighbouring Colombia. Worse, although he condemned the attacks of 11 September, he questioned the right of the United States to fight terrorism with terrorism. For this, he is unforgiven. On 5-7 November, the State Department, Pentagon and National Security Agency held a two-day meeting to discuss the problem of Venezuela. The State Department has since accused the Chavez government of supporting terrorism in Colombia, Bolivia and Ecuador. In fact, Venezuela opposes American-funded terrorism in those three countries. The US says it will put Venezuela in diplomatic isolation; Colin Powell has warned Chavez to correct his understanding of what a democracy is all about. Familiar events are unfolding. The International Monetary Fund has indicated it supports a transitional government for Venezuela. The Caracas daily El Nacional says the IMF is willing to bankroll those who remove Chavez from office. James Petras, a professor at New York State University, who was in Chile in the early 1970s and has studied the subversion of the Allende government, says that the IMF and financial institutions are fabricating a familiar crisis. The tactics used are very similar to those used in Chile. Civilians are used to create a feeling of chaos, and a false picture of Chavez as a dictator is established, then the military is incited to make a coup for the sake of the country. A former paratrooper, Chavez apparently still has the army behind him (as Allende did, until the CIA murdered his loyal military chief, opening the way to Pinochet). However, several senior officers have denounced Chavez as a tyrant and have called for his resignation. It is difficult to assess this; in its rumour-mongering, the hostile Caracas press plays a role reminiscent of Chile's right-wing press, with poisonous stories questioning Chavez's sanity. The most worrying threat comes from a reactionary trade union hierarchy, the Confederation of Venezuelan Workers (CTV), led by Carlos Ortega, a hack of the anti-Chavez Democratic Action Party. The CTV maintains a black list of disloyal and disruptive members, which it supplies to employers. According to Dick Nichols, writing from Caracas, Chavez's most serious mistake has been his failure to move against the union old guard, following a national referendum in which a majority gave him a mandate to reform the CTV. The crime of Hugo Chavez is that he has set out to keep his electoral promises, redistributing the wealth of his country and subordinating the principle of private property to that of the common good. Having underestimated the power of his enemies, his current counter-offensive is imaginative but also hints of desperation. He has set up what are called Bolivarian circles, of which 8,000 are being established in communities and workplaces across the country. Based on the revolutionary heritage of Simon BolIvar's triumph in the war against Spain, their job is to ... raise the consciousness of citizens and develop all forms of participatory organisations in the community, releasing projects in health, education,
New twin towers
People might appreciate Garrick Tremain's New twin towers cartoon at http://www.stuff.co.nz/inl/index/0,1008,0a1863,FF.html Bill
Re: Re: Systems of innovation
Charles Jannuzi wrote: However I certainly believe that it does happen - judging by the rapidity with which successful technology firms in New Zealand have been bought out by transnationals as soon as the success became apparent. What's the basis of their success other than high tech hype? Could you give one example? And who bought it out? In telecoms there was a period where stuff just got bought up high prices and all without much real evaluation of the true value of the acquisition. Here's some: · Allflex Holdings Ltd, was the innovator export success story of the late 70's and 80's in New Zealand. It virtually created a world market for plastic and electronic animal ear tags. It set up factories around the world, including one in New Zealand with 200 employees, including Europe and in Latin America (because of Brazilian import restrictions). Sold first to Goodman Fielder Wattie, Australia, then Societé Française D'Innovations Pour L'Élevage, France, then resold to Goldman Sachs U.S.A. Its operation in New Zealand was closed down in favour of plants elsewhere in the world. · Unisys (U.S.A.), bought out the Christchurch developers of the LINC 4th generation software development system in the early 1980's (Unisys's main 4th generation software offering at the time) and then contracted them to develop it further, in 1992 moved the development operation to Australia contributing to the loss of 96 jobs, including many skilled computer professionals. . In the last 4-5 years there have been a series of transnational takeovers of companies which had developed software, network routers, power supplies, electric wheel chairs, and other electronic instruments. Some development has remained in New Zealand; one wonders for how long. Bill
Re: Systems of innovation
Thanks to those who replied to my query, esp Peter. Rob's message below is perhaps a symptom of a central point of Peter's article: Under the new conditions of global technological convergence, governments have lost their traditional instruments for technology policy. The very characteristics that enable corporate entities to participate in the global systemtheir statelessness and permeable boundariespreclude a role for government ministries. Moreover, the rapid dissemination and transplantability of innovation removes the traditional incentive for technology policy: the spillover effects that state intervention was intended to internalize at a national level now reappear internationally. Not surprisingly, governments have increasingly ceded the field of technological innovation to private actors. (p.11) How true is this for any given innovation: the rapid dissemination probably doesn't happen as quickly as implied, does it? However I certainly believe that it does happen - judging by the rapidity with which successful technology firms in New Zealand have been bought out by transnationals as soon as the success became apparent. To the extent that it does happen, is preserving some of the spillover not then a policy target? For example by controls on capital, FDI, IP rights? Peter's article also suggests that the value of clusters of firms as technology developers (e.g. Silicon Valley) is dissipating. Is that seen in practice? Or does it just mean that the clusters focus on a more specialised area of innovation? Bill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: G'day Peter, You write: Right. I argued in Actually Existing Globalization (published in a collection a few years ago) that industrial policy is ultimately understandable only as technology policy, but that the era of national technology (or innovation) systems is largely over. At the time I reviewed some of the literature pro and con; I think there are some references in my article. I'll be glad to send an electronic copy to anyone interested. Peter I've not seen the paper (and I'd really like to ... ), but I'd argue the US has exhibited many signs of an almost mercantilist corporatist policy approach to optimising intial advantage in IT - pushing TRIPs into the Uruguay Round, allowing anti-competitive mergers and such to ensure world-beating economies of scope and scale, pressuring the rest of the world into abandoning public telecommunications backbones - in fact - policy timing, from the ATT transformation, to fighting off Japanese HDTV standards, to the shift of the public/private internet debate in the early nineties, to letting the money-rich but opportunity-poor BabyBells off the leash in '96, to allowing media monoliths to consolidate across media in '02 - well, it all looks like a technology policy of sorts - perhaps at a structural (diffusion and control) rather than technical (invention and innovation) level (the DoD drove a lot of the latter before the end of the space race and Vietnam War occasioned a need for civvie market opportunities, in the context of the post '73 dip in national competitiveness and national accounts all 'round), but arguably a technology policy nevertheless. Or not? Cheers, Rob.
A Cold War monster Jonas Savimbi is dead.
Desi is a South African student in New Zealand. Bill -Original Message- From: Desigin Thulkanam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2002 2:13 pm Subject: In case you missed this: A Cold War monster Jonas Savimbi is dead. Hi People There has been little coverage about this in the media, Morning Report ran a few minutes. A few reminders about that history. The implications of Savimbi's death are major for the region. For decades, the mineral wealth, oil and diamonds, was pillaged and used to finance the cold war efforts in Angola. First financed by the CIA and then later on a management contract from the CIA to the South African army and finally support was taken over by the SADF as the destabilisation of frontline states efforts, UNITA was very much the a creature of imperialism. Savimbi's campaign with South African military support was part of the secret war which prevented a socialist Angolan state from developing. This brought the apartheid- state violence for whites, from the screen to the their homes when their own children came home in body bags from classified locations in the African hinterland. This jolted settler confidence in their state apparatus. All this changed with the fall of the Soviet Union but not Savimbi. Savimbi was supported right until Bush Snr was in power and was even given a state leader's welcome by the Rea-gun. Sounds familiar? desi Unita to die with Savimbi The rebel Angolan leader Jonas Savimbi, shot dead last week, was a secretive, dangerous tyrant, writes Peter Beaumont Sunday February 24, 2002 The Observer Thet will be burying Jonas Savimbi's body in the village of Lucusse. But yesterday the body of the veteran Unita guerrilla leader, once the favourite of America and the West, was displayed for all the world to see - to prove that Savimbi's 30-year insurgency is over. The elusive guerrilla died in a clash not far from the village in Moxico province on Friday when his column was surrounded by government troops. Shot 15 times, a bullet through his throat, Savimbi's ambition to lead his fighters into the country's capital - in a war that has claimed 500,000 lives - is finally over. His fighters laid siege to a country's cities, starved and enslaved its people, and sowed its fields with mines. In 30 years they drove a third of the population from their homes in their battle with the government. Last night Angolan television broadcast images of his body to prove it was 67-year-old Savimbi. Dressed in blood-stained combat fatigues, his body was shown laid out on a makeshift table on grass beneath a tree. A gunshot wound was visible on Savimbi's neck, but otherwise his face was undamaged. Flies crawled across his face and his eyes were half-open. Army soldiers were shown looking on. Yesterday Angolan army sources described Savimbi's last few hours, detailing how they chased him and a group of rebel soldiers across two rivers. The army cornered Savimbi next to the second river and targeted him with heavy fire. The report said 21 other Unita soldiers were killed with Savimbi, including two generals. Among the wounded was one of Savimbi's wives, identified as Catarina, who was wounded in the clash and was taken to a nearby hospital. With Savimbi's death Angola's government yesterday urged the fighters of Unita to come in from the long war in the forests and the bush. Last August I went in search of Jonas Savimbi, interviewing the men who knew the most about him and his methods - deserters from his Unita organisation being held at the town of Kamacupa, half a day's drive from Kuito, the regional capital. We were led to a half-ruined compound where 50 Unita soldiers, police and political cadres had been housed since crossing the lines a few months before. Their spokesman was a tall, lean man of almost 50, Bernardo Antoni. He said he had spent 27 years fighting for Savimbi, as a soldier between 1974 and 1994 and later as a member of the Unita police. 'I was obliged to do active service since 1974 without pay or any benefits,' he told me. 'I could not continue. People who live with Unita simply live from lie to lie. Our commanders told us Tomorrow you shall have this or that. They tell us what we will achieve, but it never came. They are lies that last for years. 'I am happy now because now I have a shirt and trousers and somewhere to live. When I was in the bush I had only rags to wear.' When I asked for news of Savimbi, the men seem surprised. 'I never saw him once in 27 years,' said Antoni. 'I only had contact with my own commanders. Savimbi does not like to be seen by everyone. He stays in the background and gives orders. Whoever does not follow them is killed.' I asked if they had seen this happen. They all clamoured in assent. I heard stories of the summary murder of anyone who stood in his way, of the immolation of opponents and their families on bonfires as 'witches'. I heard, too, of a man who was run
The twin debacles of globalisation - Bello
Philippine Daily Inquirer, 25/1/02 this story was taken from www.inq7.net URL: http://www.inq7.net/vwp/2002/jan/23/text/vwp_1-1-p.htm The twin debacles of globalization Posted:0:24 AM (Manila Time) | January 24, 2002 By Walden Bello Inquirer News Service IT is said that in politics and in war, fortune smiles all too briefly. After allowing it to briefly savor the success of its Afghanistan campaign, history, cunning and inscrutable as usual, has suddenly dealt the Bush administration two massive body blows: the Enron implosion and the Argentine collapse. These towering twin disasters threaten to push the global elite back to the crisis of legitimacy that was shaking its hegemony globally prior to September 11. Enron forcefully reminds us that free market rhetoric is a corporate con game. Neoliberalism loves to couch itself in the language of efficiency and the ethics of the greatest good for the greatest number, but it is really about promoting corporate power. Enron loved to extol the so-called merits of the market to explain its success, but in fact, its path to becoming the US seventh largest corporation was paved not by following the discipline imposed by the market but by strategically deploying cold cash, lots of it. Enron literally bought its way to the top, throwing around hundreds of millions of dollars in less than a decade to create what one businessman described to the New York Times as the black hole of deregulated energy markets in which its financial shenanigans could thrive unchecked. To make sure government would look the other way and allow the market to have its way, Enron was generous with those willing to serve it, and few earned more Enron dollars than George W. Bush, who received some 623,000 dollars for his political campaigns in both Texas and nationally from his friend Kenneth Lay, CEO of Enron. The deep enmeshing of Bush and a number of his key lieutenantsVice President Dick Cheney, Attorney General John Ashcroft, US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, top presidential economic adviser Larry Lindsey, to name just the most prominent--in Enron's corporate web has shaken off George Ws post-September 11 image of being President of all Americans and brought back the reality of his being the chief executive officer of corporate America. The Enron scandal pulls Americans right back to the bitter sozialepolitik of the nineties when, as Bush himself put it in his inaugural speech, it [seemed] we share a continent but not a country. It brings back the ideological context of the landmark electoral campaign of 2000, when Bushs fellow Republican, John McCain, made an almost successful bid to become the presidential standard bearer by focusing on one issue: that the massive corporate financing of elections that had transformed US democracy into a plutocracy was gravely undermining its legitimacy. Corporate-driven globalization, we have always held, is a process that is marked by massive corruption, and one that is deeply subversive of democracy. Shell was a good case study in Nigeria. Scores of TNCs and the World Bank were implicated with the Suharto political economy in Indonesia. Now Enron strips the veil from what Wall Street used to call the New Economy, which showered rewards on sleazy financial operators like Enron while sticking the rest of the world with the costs, not least of which is what is shaping up to be the worst global downturn since the 1930s. Which is why we have always told World Bank types who want to lecture us on good governance that they should first tell Washington to get its house in order. Corporate corruption is central to the US political system, and the fact that it is legal and assumes the form of campaign finance funneled to pols by political action committees does not somehow make it less immoral than crony capitalism of the Asian variety. Indeed, corruption of the Washington variety is much more damaging, because momentous decisions purchased with massive cash outlays have not only national but global consequences. Corrupt Third World politicians ought to be hung, drawn, and quartered, but let's face it, the amounts of cash and the quotient of power they deal in are peanuts compared to the scale and impact of influence peddling in Washington. If Enron illustrates the folly of deregulation cum corruption, Argentina underlines that of another facet of the corporate globalist project: the liberalization of trade and capital flows. With 140 billion dollars in debt to international institutions, its industry in chaos, and an estimated 2000 people daily falling below the poverty line, Argentina is in a truly pitiable state. Argentina brought down its trade barriers faster than most other countries in Latin America. It liberalized its capital account more radically. And in the most touching gesture of neoliberal faith, the Argentine government voluntarily gave up any meaningful control over the domestic impact of a volatile global
Re: Re: textiles
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Can't we make an argument that New Zealand spends millions of dollars on protecting 1% of the labor force by paying import duties on textile, and NZ also spends $279 million in foreign aid to developing nations who would need less of it if they could develop their domestic industries (first of all textile) by gaining a better market access to NZ and other rich markets. Let us cut tariffs and foreign aid and spend the savings on education, job creation, and income maintenance for displaced workers, as well as on development of sustainable industrial policy. At the same time, let us take global leadership in debt cancellation for Third World nations (as we did in nuclear disarmament), so they may re-develop their economies and buy what we could sell them? -- Yoshie In general the principle that if tariff reductions/elimination makes for a more efficient economy then workers should see the proceeds of that, is a useful one. That of course begs the question which the list has been debating as to when that course of action _is_ more efficient. However, from the experience of about 15 years of tariff cutting, as I alluded to previously, education, job creation, and income maintenance for displaced workers still leaves many workers worse off than before. Laid off car assembly workers for example often ended up in low paid service jobs - or no jobs - despite such measures supposedly being in place. In addition, provincial communities and minority groups have been badly afected. That is why something more concrete and positive is required. If by development of sustainable industrial policy you mean the development of industry that will ensure that workers see the proceeds of the more efficient economy, and that it is where it is needed, then that's good. I'd like to see more on how that might be done. By the way, just to fill in a few gaps - the NZ Herald report was dated before the change to the current government. Protests from unions, local governments, and manufacturers stopped the right-wing govt in power in 1997 from implementing its cuts to TCF tariffs (though it did remove all tariffs on the car assembly industry, which has now completely disappeared, losing several thousand jobs). The new centre-left Labour/Alliance govt in 1999 had a policy of a tariff freeze on TCF until 2005 - but is now compromising that in two ways. The first is in signing free trade agreements with whoever is willing (Singapore signed, Hong Kong in negotiation). The second is relevant to your suggestion. Last year the new government (without any consultation) removed all tariffs on all imports from the 48 least developed countries, taking effect from 1 July 2001. There has been a strong campaign in New Zealand for it to support debt cancellation, which has been unsuccessful, and given this govt's generally neo-liberal international economic policies (which contrast somewhat with its domestic policies) it is unlikely to support debt cancellation. We keep on trying. Cutting foreign aid? Except that about half the aid goes to the Pacific, which already has preferential trade access to New Zealand, including for example garments made in free trade zones in Fiji. (Of course, some that aid has been advising them on how to implement neoliberal policies...) This opens up the question as to what aid is really about, and whom it benefits. Bill Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Bill R. says: Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Protecting a severely uncompetitive industry must cost money. If you mean it costs the government money - not in the short run anyway. On the contrary, it provides a few hundred million dollars in tariff income, plus income taxes and the like. The standard trade analysis says it costs consumers money (assuming retailers will reduce prices when tariffs are cut), but ignores workers' loss of income if their jobs go and they can't find other work at similar pay. In the long run, IF there were more productive industry that could replace it, then there is an opportunity cost in maintaining TCF, but that is the crucial if which we are debating when we debate trade theory, isn't it? Can't you abolish tariffs on textile, clothing, and footwear and spend the saving on education, income maintenance, job creation for displaced workers? If the saving is not enough, you can cut foreign aid also. There are large amounts spent on education, income maintenance, and job creation for displaced workers (there could always be more of course), but it doesn't create sufficient permanent jobs, even less does it create well paying ones in the right regions. I got the following info from the Internet: * TEXTILE WORKERS WARY OF TARIFF-CUT OUTLOOK While all eyes before Christmas were on the tariff cuts affecting the car assembly industry, hundreds of employees in the clothing, textile, footwear and carpet industries were also watching the tariff axe
Re: Re: textiles
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Protecting a severely uncompetitive industry must cost money. If you mean it costs the government money - not in the short run anyway. On the contrary, it provides a few hundred million dollars in tariff income, plus income taxes and the like. The standard trade analysis says it costs consumers money (assuming retailers will reduce prices when tariffs are cut), but ignores workers' loss of income if their jobs go and they can't find other work at similar pay. In the long run, IF there were more productive industry that could replace it, then there is an opportunity cost in maintaining TCF, but that is the crucial if which we are debating when we debate trade theory, isn't it? Can't you abolish tariffs on textile, clothing, and footwear and spend the saving on education, income maintenance, job creation for displaced workers? If the saving is not enough, you can cut foreign aid also. There are large amounts spent on education, income maintenance, and job creation for displaced workers (there could always be more of course), but it doesn't create sufficient permanent jobs, even less does it create well paying ones in the right regions. That's why I suggest that to be serious about removing protection from TCF, there has to be a conscious industrial development policy to suitably replace those industries. On the other hand, there is no assurance that sufficient industry will survive without protection to provide enough jobs, so somehow decisions have to be made on what mix of industry should be maintained (and how to maintain it) to create full employment. Bill This is a very relevant question for New Zealand. Our textile, clothing and footwear (TCF) industry has been reduced from 40,000 to 20,000 workers over a decade, largely as a result of tariff cuts. Many of the remainder are at risk of being sacrificed to a FTA currently being negotiated with Hong Kong. This is jobs issue, but more than that: most of those employed are women, Maori and Pacific Islanders, and people in small provincial towns, for whom there is little hope of other employment (leave alone relatively skilled employment) if/when the TCF manufacturers close down. On the other hand the unions representing those workers - among them one the best organising unions in the country - recognise the significance of TCF to developing countries, and maintain strong relationships with representatives of workers in many of those countries. So their advocacy of continued tariff protection is not one-eyed. (Incidentally, TCF tariffs are for practical purposes about the only remaining tariffs New Zealand has.) What would a progressive strategy be? Protecting a severely uncompetitive industry must cost money. Can't you abolish tariffs on textile, clothing, and footwear and spend the saving on education, income maintenance, job creation for displaced workers? If the saving is not enough, you can cut foreign aid also. -- Yoshie * Calendar of Anti-War Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html * Anti-War Activist Resources: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: textiles
This is a very relevant question for New Zealand. Our textile, clothing and footwear (TCF) industry has been reduced from 40,000 to 20,000 workers over a decade, largely as a result of tariff cuts. Many of the remainder are at risk of being sacrificed to a FTA currently being negotiated with Hong Kong. This is jobs issue, but more than that: most of those employed are women, Maori and Pacific Islanders, and people in small provincial towns, for whom there is little hope of other employment (leave alone relatively skilled employment) if/when the TCF manufacturers close down. On the other hand the unions representing those workers - among them one the best organising unions in the country - recognise the significance of TCF to developing countries, and maintain strong relationships with representatives of workers in many of those countries. So their advocacy of continued tariff protection is not one-eyed. (Incidentally, TCF tariffs are for practical purposes about the only remaining tariffs New Zealand has.) What would a progressive strategy be? While, as Bill Lear suggests, general economic policies to reclaim full employment (which New Zealand had until the mid-70's) are of course the basis for any sensible social policy, isn't that begging the question? For example, I suggest that a full employment policy must include (at least for New Zealand) some mechanism to ensure current account balance, such as by use of tariffs, quotas and foreign investment controls. Otherwise the deficit is managed by means that translate into reducing wages or employment. But to take particular industries, such as the TCF industry, even a full employment policy won't assure those workers of jobs of the right kind in the right places. Don't we need an active industrial development strategy that addresses both such particulars as well as general development needs - even in developed economies? Bill Michael Perelman wrote: Part of the question seems to be how do you organize in the absence of international solidarity? In short, how do you make Cambodian wages move up instead of US wages moving down? Wouldn't the center of gravity of a competitive international wage be close to China? The intellectually easy, but practically hard strategy -- within the bounds of capitalism -- would be to find ways to create high wage jobs in the US, but in doing that say by building high tech textile equipment would still destroy jobs in the 3rd world. Without getting into rancorous exchanges, what would a progressive strategy be. Of course, socialism would be desirable, but -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Value of lives
All sympathy for this 8 year old, but it says a volume about the relative values put on lives by the US. Bill Afghanistan bombing stopped for rescue of New Zealand boy NZ Herald 30.11.2001 - 12:30 pm - By DOUG LAING Bombing of the Taleban in Afghanistan was halted for an hour last month to allow the evacuation of a badly-injured New Zealand boy from neighbouring Kazakhstan. Eight-year-old Ethan Knezovich, from Hastings, suffered serious head and jaw injuries when he was knocked down by a car in the once-wealthy former Kazakhstan capital of Almaty, a few hours before bombing started on October 7. The following day, the Americans stopped the air raids for one hour so an air ambulance could use Afghanistan air space to evacuate him to Helsinki for urgent medical treatment. At the time international media reported a one-hour window had been created for humanitarian reasons. and footage emerged of the evacuation of a foreign boy. But the boy's identity has been revealed publicly only this week, upon his arrival back in Hastings with parents Mark and Natasha and sister Eleisha, 10, a premature end to an intended two years of humanitarian aid in Central Asia. His parents, members of the Hastings Assembly of God Church, said it was miraculous that Ethan survived his accident. He had serious injuries and it was 36 hours before his evacuation plane arrived. The boy then had to endure the flight to Helsinki and was unconcious for the next 10 days. Surgeons in Helsinki said the fracture to his jaw was one of the worst they had seen. But, said Mrs Knezovich as the family relaxed at the home of friends in Hastings yesterday, the doctors have told us he can expect a 100 per cent recovery. Four titanium plates remain in his jaw, triggering alarms airport-by-airport in a transglobal security panic as the family made their way back to New Zealand. But Ethan still hopes to go back to Kazakhstan. I wish I had two bodies, he said ponderously when asked how he felt about the dramas of the 11 months since the family left Hastings, intending to spend two years dispensing humanitarian aid in the Central Asian region. It was his way of saying he would like to be both here and there and an indication of his concern for his young American mate Colin who dragged him out of the path of a second vehicle, and for the hundreds of children left behind in a plight he will probably always see as much worse than his own. It was a little bit embarrassing, our kid getting all the attention, leaving all the other children behind, just because we were from the West, said Mr Knezovich. Backed by medical insurance which will also enable the family to return when Ethan is cleared, they left behind hospitals and intensive care units which had almost nothing, a legacy of the poverty gripping the country in the post-USSR era. Dealing with consequences of poverty and focusing on orphaned children had dominated the family's lives in Almaty, a city of about 1.2 million at the foot of Tien Chan, a mountain range between Kazakhstan and Kyrgystan, near China. Formerly from West Auckland, the Knezovich family moved to Hastings when Ethan was about a month old. The children have attended Frimley School. Mr Knezovich was a diesel mechanic and automotive engineer, and his wife worked in the corporate office of Richmond Ltd. Original at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?thesection=newsthesubsection=storyID=230913reportID=61564
Re: Re: Re: RE:Re: what's the point?
Paul This is likely to be because those emails are written with something like Outlook or MS Word which doesn't put carriage returns at the end of lines. I see you're using Pegasus Mail (congratulations on using a New Zealand-made program). I think it used to have a toggle to wrap lines like that, but can't remember what it is now. At any rate, saving the messages as files, and then opening them with (e.g.) MS Word should allow you to read them. Or (strike me dead for suggesting it) use a different email program. Bill Rosenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know why but every post from Jim Devine, or response from Jim, spills over such that I can't read it on my e-mail. Can Jim correct this? (ps. there are several others on pen-l who have this problem though, since I have not been saving their collections on other issues, I have not had this problem. I have had to delete several posts from my email collection on trade because of this problem. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba.
RE: A project for Pen-L
Speaking as an activist in this area, what Paul is suggesting would be superb, and would be eagerly awaited. Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2001 5:41 pm To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:20054] A project for Pen-L Michael, (and others) have been lamenting the failure of Pen-l to look at the current economic problems etc. I have a practical (?) suggestion. I teach a course called Canadian Economic Problems and also am frequently called upon to lecture on free trade and its implications, etc. What I do not have is a comprehensive critique of so-called free trade, all the agreements etc. What I would like to see is pen-l put together a comprehensive critique of 'free trade' (sic) that we could use in classes, public protests, media, etc. with all the appropriate academic references to studies, reports, etc. I know of a number of studies (such as the excellent one by CEPR) on globalism and (the failure of) growth. But I don't know them all. Nor do I know of all of the studies on NAFTA and job destruction such as the one by EPI/CCPA. What I would like to see is a series of reports, not overly long, by interested pen-l members of the evils of 'free trade' and its effects. Something that we could put together and download (or get students to download) that would give a comprehensive theoretical and empirical critique of the 'free trade conspiracy' with all the appropriate footnotes/URLs to relevant studies/reports/websites. I am not suggesting whole articles. Indeed that would make the project useless -- but rather short 500-1000 word summaries of a group of empirical and/or theoretical literature. Is this a feasible project? Or is it academic wishthinking? I do think we need to give our young people in the trenches some theoretical and practical evidence to maintain their resolve, never mind our own. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
Re: Big bucks for Lockheed-Martin
Thanks to Ken Hanly for his posting on this subject. The following press release was made this afternoon - note the PS. Bill --- The content of this message is provided in my private capacity and does not purport to represent the University of Canterbury. Media Release 12 November 2001 Approved for immediate use The Package Deal: Paying For Trade Privileges With Body Bags? We have seen more wars since the formation of the WTO than before it. This belies the claims that by providing for a rule based trading system the WTO can prevent trade wars escalating into real wars, says Radha DSouza of the Action Research Education Network Aotearoa (ARENA). While trade negotiators argue about tariffs, agriculture subsidies and services and seek to level the playing field they forget that the engine that drives the big economies like the United States today is defence and oil production. The former is out of bounds from the WTO trading regime. The latter is so embroiled in political tensions and economic sanctions that it is beyond the WTOs brief. The US economy at least cannot revive without revival of the arms industry. The Bush administration recognizes this, says Radha DSouza. Economic recovery requires new markets for the huge stockpile of unused arms. War mongering therefore walks hand in hand with trade liberalization. It is hardly surprising that big defence contractors like Lockheed Martin have cut down civil production and expanded defence production this year. For 10 years now the US, European Union and Japan have coupled the pursuit of free trade with new defence treaties and military strategies, widening the scope for intervention in other countries and potential markets. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute reports a fall in defence and military spending after the Cold War ended, but rises since 1998. The largest increases were in the US: 37% or $280.6 billion in 2000 alone. Second is Russia at 6% of the world spending ($43.7 billion dollars). Between them, the powers of the US, France, Russia, Japan and UK account for 58% of the worlds military spending. Speaking to a public forum organized by ARENA and Asia Pacific Workers Solidarity Links (APWSL) in Auckland earlier this week, Radha DSouza drew the links between economic globalization and war. Twenty years of trade liberalization throughout the world had seen foreign direct investment circulate mainly between the US, EU and Japan. ILO figures showed at least 30% of youth between the ages of 15 to 24 in Asia, Africa and South America are now unemployed. The promised investment and jobs to poorer countries has simply not happened. Radha DSouza warned that such massive unemployment, together with the imperatives for war in the worlds most powerful economies, is a potent mix that could escalate into a crisis on a global scale. There were important parallels with the 1920s and 1930s and the driving forces behind the two World Wars, which people should reflect on. Globalization is a package deal, that will require us to pay for our trading privileges with body bags. Are we prepared to do this? Contact persons: Radha DSouza 07 8537006 Leigh Cookson (03) 339 6341; 025 662 7174 PS. Headline: Lockheed-Martin wins $200bn fighter contract (Financial Times, October 26, 2001) The US Gross Domestic Product is $10,202.6 billion ($10,202,600,000,000 or $10.202 trillion) (1). The cost of those fighters is almost 2% (1.96%) of the entire US GDP. It is 5 times the annual operating budget of New York City ($40.586 billion)(2). The cost of those fighters is almost 10 times the GDP of Afghanistan ($21 billion) (3). It is almost equal to the entire GDP of Pakistan ($282 billion). It is 3.5 times higher than the GDP of Iraq ($57 billion). The cost of those fighters is more than one-fourth of the GDP of Canada ($774.7 billion). It equals almost one-fifth of the annual GDP of Brazil, Latin America's largest economy ($1.13 trillion). It exceeds one- fifth of the annual GDP of Mexico ($915 billion). It exceeds the GDP of all the countries of Central America combined ($128 billion). The cost of those fighters is more than 10% of the entire GDP of every country of Africa combined ($1.921 trillion). (1) US Bureau of Economic Analysis, September 28, 2001 (2) NYC budget for 2001; Analysis of the Mayor's Preliminary Budget for 2002: New York City Independent Budget Office (3) All foreign GDP figures from Central Intelligence Agency World Factbook 2001; figures for year 2000 Bill Koehnlein NY Transfer News
Proponents of laissez faire are hand-waving propagandists
Apologies if this has already been posted. It gets better and better as it goes on. Bill BACK PAGE - WEEKEND FT: Self-serving bunk that backs the pay gap argument: PAUSE FOR THOUGHT: If common sense suggests chief executives are appallingly greedy, common sense is probably right, writes Michael Prowse Financial Times, Nov 3, 2001 By MICHAEL PROWSE They are at it again. The chief executives of Britain's top 100 companies have ignored calls for pay restraint and awarded themselves average increases of 18.3 per cent in the past year - nearly four times the rate of increase of average earnings. The top executives are now receiving annual packages of between Pounds 2m and Pounds 6m, once bonuses and other benefits are counted. When Britain's Labour government came into office, the prime minister, Tony Blair, and other cabinet ministers proclaimed their faith in free markets. They said they wanted to raise the living standards of the poor, but denied any interest in pay differentials. The idea that economic inequality matters - the idea that anybody should care about the relative wealth of different segments of society - was dismissed as socialist dogma. Not having disavowed its don't mind the gap philosophy, Labour thus remains committed to a view on income distribution that, only 20 years ago, was aggressively promoted by conservative thinkers such as Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. And yet, even Blairites now seem to be having second thoughts. Patricia Hewitt, the trade and industry secretary, has signalled that shareholders are to get the right to vote annually on directors' pay. She doubtless hopes they will veto the outrageous demands of a corporate elite that is now distinguished less by entrepreneurial talent than by an insatiable personal greed - a greed that apparently must be assuaged regardless of the performance of the companies they lead. I do not personally have much confidence that groups such as the National Association of Pension Funds can act effectively as the conscience of the nation. Chief executives have always been able to outmanoeuvre dispersed groups of timid shareholders, and, backed by a City of London culture that regards people's bank balances as a measure of their personal worth, they are likely to continue to do so. What interests me is how we reached a state of affairs in which even centre-left politicians regard gross economic inequality as an unchallengeable given. The answer, in part, is that a fable about the efficiency of the market was so cleverly popularised that people began to think of it as the Word of God. Markets are competitive, aren't they? But that means that chief executives are only paid their marginal products, or, in other words, only for what they add to the performance of their companies. We should not begrudge them their astronomical remuneration because it reflects a comparably astronomic contribution to social welfare. Chris Gent, of Vodafone, earns 300 times as much as a maths teacher, not because he wields power in an arbitrary fashion, but because his social contribution is 300 times as great. All hail Chris. We dare not, the argument runs, interfere with these blessed market outcomes because we ordinary mortals lack the knowledge to do so. If we were to intervene by, say, taxing Gent and his ilk far more heavily, we would upset the market's delicate equilibrating mechanisms, and put ourselves on a slippery slope that could lead in only one direction: to the horrors of socialism. It is a wonderful story. It sells books and newspapers. It most definitely serves the interests of the top few per cent of the population, because it gives them an apparently solid justification for seizing a disproportionate share of national wealth. It just happens to be an unsubstantiated fable. One of the best-kept secrets of economics is that one can prove that unfettered markets produce optimal outcomes only by making grotesquely improbable assumptions. Here are a few. Markets must be so perfectly competitive that nobody - not even Bill Gates at Microsoft - can exert even the tiniest power over prices. There must be no external-ities: everything that we desire must be a strictly private good in the sense that our consumption of it must have no impact - negative or positive - on others. We must, in short, live in enclosed bubbles and interact with others only by means of price signals. And, perhaps most fanciful of all, since we live in a world characterised by time and un-certainty, there must be markets in every possible contingent claim. This means, for instance, that somebody should be willing to quote me a price today for a mushroom pizza for delivery in three years on condition that it rains on August 10 next year. It is no wonder that economists bury these daft assumptions in the mathematical fine print and use slogans such as the invisible hand when engaging in public
Anti WTO protest in Mike Moore's home town
At midday on 9 Nov a protest against the WTO took place in WTO Director-general Mike Moore's home town, Christchurch, to coincide with the opening of the talks at Doha. It took the form of a tour of capitalist greed. You can see photos at http://www.interactive.orcon.net.nz/frontpage.html The press release describing the action follows. Bill NO TO WTO COALITION - CHRISTCHURCH Media Release For Immediate Use 7 November 2001 Anti-WTO Coalition Marks Qatar Meeting with Tour of Capitalist Greed in Mike Moore's Hometown - November 9th The Christchurch No To WTO Coalition, which includes GATT Watchdog, ARENA, Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa, the Anarchist Round Table, Socialist Workers Organization, the Young Greens and Staunch will hold a march and Tour of Capitalist Greed in WTO Director-General Mike Moore's hometown from 12 noon - 2pm on Friday November 9th. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) holds its 4th Ministerial meeting from 9-13 November, in Doha, Qatar. Free trade and unrestricted foreign investment are destroying people's lives and the environment. The Christchurch action is one of many being held throughout the world on Friday in opposition to the WTO. Other anti-WTO protests will be held in Auckland and Wellington. The 142-member WTO oversees 28 agreements which set the rules of global trade. The transnational corporations which dominate the local and global economy enjoy enormous influence in shaping these rules to advance their goals - more profits, not peoples' wellbeing. The action against the WTO starts with a rally in City Mall at the corner of Cashel and High Streets at 12pm. The Christchurch premises of four representative transnational corporations will be the focus of a Tour of Capitalist Greed to highlight both the takeover of New Zealand by transnationals and their power and influence in the WTO. The march will stop outside the Nike Shop in City Mall (Between Colombo St and Oxford Terrace); Telecom (Hereford St); Starbucks (Cathedral Square) before returning to the starting point outside the Westpac Trust head office. Along with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund the WTO works to set a single economic policy for the whole world. One which advances the needs of transnational capital - more profits, never mind the human and environmental costs. This means more freedom to exploit for global big business, widening inequalities between and within countries, more privatization of public assets, utilities and services, and more unemployment and low-paid, low quality, insecure jobs. WTO commitments help to lock in the crippling economic reforms which many countries have undergone as a condition of receiving IMF/World Bank loans, and which we have experienced here through Rogernomics. Barriers to free trade are dismantled and economies restructured to suit the whims of big business. Domestic environmental and social regulations, like export bans on rare native timbers, public health laws or food standards, if deemed by the WTO to be a barrier to free trade, must be scrapped or that country risk sanctions or other punitive trade measures. While they wage war against Afghanistan, George Bush, Helen Clark and other world leaders are brandishing free trade and investment as a weapon against terrorism. They cynically see the September 11 attacks as a way to try to revive a free market ideology that has been badly discredited and challenged around the world. We say no to the WTO! Oppose corporate globalisation! For further comment contact Aziz Choudry or Leigh Cookson (GATT Watchdog): Ph (03) 3662803: Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- The content of this message is provided in my private capacity and does not purport to represent the University of Canterbury. ---
Re: following the money..
For another view on the effectiveness of this method of tracking terrorists (not that I oppose much stronger controls on money-laundering!): The Independent (business weekly, New Zealand) 24 Oct 01 Bin Laden's bankers Jenni McManus A recent immigrant from Bangalore to London, Ravi wants to send £100 to his father endash; a peasant farmer back home in the tiny, remote village of Door Kutchapur. A bank draft is no use. There isn't a bank within 50 km of Kutchapur and, anyway, his father doesn't have a bank account. There are other problems. Ravi doesn't want to pay commission on the transaction. Nor does he want to pay official bank rates - not when the black market offers so much more. So, rather than heading to his local Barclays branch, Ravi walks instead to his corner grocer. He tells the proprietor, Manu Marwari, what he wants. Marwari, who has hundreds of contacts all over India - including one near Kutchapur - agrees to help. A few days later the money is safely delivered to Ravi's father. Welcome to the hawallah - the secret and complex underground banking system through which thousands of Indians at home and abroad do millions of dollars worth of business each year. Sometimes this business is legitimate; often it is not. But it's not only expatriate Indians who use these secret banking structures. The Chinese equivalent is the chop system, where the transaction and the funding are kept separate and tokens are the preferred currency. They are also used by terrorist groups, says Barry Rider, a law professor at the University of London, the director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies and a fellow of Jesus College at Cambridge. Unlike traditional organised crime, where proceeds are laundered largely through conventional structures, terrorist funding is moved underground, through secret, almost impenetrable, informal banking networks like the hawallah, Rider told an international law conference in Christchurch earlier this month. They're fast, the exchange rates are good and there's no audit trail. This makes it almost impossible for intelligence agencies to detect, let alone trace and disrupt the money flows. etc (Full article at http://www.theindependent.co.nz/index3.html) Bill Ian Murray wrote: [Financial Times; considering the author, once more we're seeing 'em be candid. Lord knows what would happen to the Republicrats if governments followed some of his recommendations ] Tracking down the dirty money Legislative activism triggered by current terrorist threats lacks the co-ordination to be effective, says Mark Pieth - Oct 24 2001 19:49:35 After a decade of struggling to combat organised criminals through the forfeiture of their ill-gotten gains and punishment of money-launderers, it seems obvious to seek to hit terrorists where they are most accessible: where they make use of the financial system for their money management. Alas, the prospects of finding traces of this common enemy may prove to be as remote as the Afghan mountains. Ways to hide money in offshore companies or by hiding behind lawyers and other holders of professional privilege are manifold. No wonder, then, that governments are rushing through measures to deal with terrorist funds. At the same time many must be astonished that existing laws seem so incomplete and inadequate. After all, the concept of combating money-laundering was first developed to frustrate hijackers, extremists and terrorists such as the Red Brigades, the IRA and Eta. So are we just experiencing a new form of government activism following a moral panic? The German, US or UK proposals may suggest significant developments but taken together they are unco-ordinated and patchy and can be fitted into one of two categories: they are either measures that are already part of international standards and should have been implemented long ago; or they are innovative but will not necessarily be effective - and contain the risk of overkill. Germany's suggestion to create a central notification body to report cases of suspected money-laundering is a measure adopted by the Financial Action Task Force, an intergovernmental body,10 years ago and has been part of worldwide standards since 1996. The US has rediscovered ideas such as the embracing of basic know your customer standards that were brushed aside by Republicans in the last years of the Clinton administration. The US focus is primarily on identification of foreign account-holders and on the position of foreign correspondent banking, as if terrorism were by definition a foreign problem and terrorists would abstain from using US citizens as stooges or deploying Delaware companies as fronts for their nefarious activities. The revised directive announced by the European Union as a new international benchmark in the fight against money-laundering was similarly foreshadowed by the FATF. Its implementation is long overdue. Other projects
Re: Strategy of tension
None of the New Zealand alerts have proved to have any basis. Bill Michael Keaney wrote: Anthrax scares hit postal centers in New Zealand and Australia Associated Press The Independent, 17 October 2001 Fresh anthrax alerts hit postal centers in New Zealand and Australia , forcing their closure after workers found mail carrying unidentified white powder. Staff at the South Auckland mail center in the city's Manukau suburb were evacuated when a worker noticed white powder on her hands. Ambulance spokesman Murray Bannister said the woman and one other person were taken to hospital for observation, and 30 workers were decontaminated in showers. The powder was being tested, he said. At the rural town of Linton, near an army camp and 180 kilometers (112 miles) north of the capital, Wellington, the post office was closed and secured by emergency services after a similar white powder alert. The two scares followed the closure Tuesday of a post office in the rural township of Eltham, with the discovery of a parcel containing a yellowish powder. Police said Wednesday the mail delivery center has reopened after initial analysis suggested anthrax was not contained in the mystery substance. Later Wednesday, police issued a nationwide public warning for people to use care when handling mail. Detective Superintendent Peter Marshall said there was no suggestion of a biochemical threat against New Zealand, but people needed to be careful in the current environment. Anyone may be exposed to a suspicious piece of mail at work or at home, Marshall said in a statement. In Australia, the main mail exchange in the southern city of Adelaide was evacuated overnight after a worker found white powder inside a mail bag. Metropolitan Fire Service spokesman Bill Dwyer said the Adelaide Exchange was evacuated and 73 workers were given nasal swabs as a precaution to check for anthrax contamination. The powder was removed for analysis. Australian Prime Minister John Howard on Tuesday promised tougher penalties of up to 10 years in jail for people behind the continuing spate of anthrax hoaxes that has forced building evacuations in several states. Full article at: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/australasia/story.jsp?story=99932 Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Prising Open The Pacific: New Trade Deals Reflect Old Agendas
At Nauru President Tebururo Tito of Kiribati warned: 'Globalisation and economic liberalisation ...may create untameable and unpredictable free market forces. These forces, in my view, steer the most powerful economies on earth in a direction that could take humankind back to the sociologists' adaptation of Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest where life for the weak and the poor in the family, village and society is more precarious than that for the strong and powerful. I believe that this is the most important ideological challenge for the leaders in our region over the next decade.' Original Message (Upcoming ZNet Commentary for September, www.zmag.org) Prising Open The Pacific: New Trade Deals Reflect Old Agendas By Aziz Choudry The winds of change, so the cliché goes, are blowing across the Pacific. Yet looking at the background to two regional trade agreements launched in August makes me think that sometimes the more things change, the more they stay the same. When the world's tiniest republic hosted the 32nd Leaders Summit of the Pacific Islands Forum (formerly the South Pacific Forum) last month, free trade was on the agenda. Facing imminent depletion of the high quality phosphate reserves on which its economy is based, most of Nauru resembles a mined-out moonscape. Many fear our entire planet may rapidly meet a similar fate due to the dominant model of development that has spread its tentacles far and wide. Sri Lankan jurist Christopher Weeramantry, who chaired a Commission of Inquiry on Nauru, 3000 km northeast of Australia, concluded that the island's wealth and very substance were scattered throughout the world in the form of cheap fertilisers which helped grow food not only for particular countries but through them for all the world. Nauru's history until independence in 1968 was one of colonial exploitation, social and environmental devastation, and great profits for the British, Australian and New Zealand governments which jointly administered the island after a period of German rule. It now faces being wiped off the map by rising sea levels due to global warming, rising unemployment after the downsizing of the Government and Nauru Phosphate Corporation which provided 95% of all employment, and threats of financial sanctions because of European crackdowns on money laundering and tax haven operations. Coca-colonisation has seen healthier traditional diets displaced by processed foods, imported mainly from Australia. Nauruans are the world's most diabetes-ridden people. Just as forces outside the Pacific wrought the destruction in Nauru for their own benefit, recent moves to create a regional free trade area to ease the island nations' smooth and gradual integration into the world economy are being imposed from beyond the islands. Just as the British, French and German empires divided the Pacific into spheres of influence by an arbitrary line, the imperial tussles of the 19th century are now being mirrored by the jockeying of bigger powers to protect their political and economic interests in the region. Here, the place of the colonial powers of yesteryear has been taken by the European Union (EU), Australia, and New Zealand. Last month, Fiji's former president Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara forcefully criticised Australia and New Zealand - the Forum's metropolitan members. They have sought to impose their solutions in an insensitive way, when left to ourselves we could work things out in what we have come to call the Pacific Way. The Forum comes complete with some crazy maths, writes New Zealand journalist, Michael Field. The Marshall Islands has just 181 sq km of land, a third the size of Singapore, and none of it more than 5m above sea-level, yet it sits in an exclusive economic zone the size of Greenland. So small are the states that the populations of five of the smallest combined would nearly half fill Sydney's Olympic Stadium. Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea make up 93 per cent of the forum's population and 99 per cent of the land area. High-level statements about special development challenges and vulnerabilities faced by developing small island states are ubiquitous. They're in numerous UN and Commonwealth Secretariat documents. Former New Zealand politician, WTO Director General Mike Moore acknowledged problems of small and vulnerable countries with scarce resources in a video link to participants in a joint Pacific Island Forum/WTO trade policy course held in Fiji this March. Predictably, he thinks their problems are best addressed in the context of a new round of WTO talks. The Asian Development Bank (ADB), a major multilateral donor in the Pacific, classifies the special circumstances of Pacific Developing Member Countries to include smallness, remoteness from major markets, geographic fragmentation, economic vulnerability (because of reliance on a narrow range of primary product exports, aid, and/or remittances), and
Re: airlines and privatization
A wonderful example of how privatised companies (Air New Zealand) are run so much better than state-owned ones and are no longer a drain on the state ... Bill Rob Schaap wrote: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newslink/default.htm Crisis talks aim to keep Ansett from receivership Frantic negotiations are underway on both sides of the Tasman in a bid to save Ansett Airlines from falling into receivership. The Australian Government is coming under renewed pressure to bail out the troubled carrier. While it is business as usual for Ansett at Australian airports today, the airline's future is anything but certain. The New Zealand Cabinet has been meeting in Wellington to discuss financial assistance for Ansett's parent, Air New Zealand in a deal that could see Ansett jettisoned. Air New Zealand's acting chairman Jim Farmer says the responsibility of both the New Zealand and Australian Governments are clear. I suppose one might argue that the Australian Government should express a similar responsibility for what is essentially an Australian airline, he said. Air New Zealand's chief executive Gary Toomey has spoken to the Prime Minister John Howard in Washington this morning, while in Canberra the Transport Minister John Anderson has been in talks with other Ansett executives as well as those from other airlines. Air New Zealand's share price meanwhile continues to nose dive as the company's board prepares to meet to make a final decision on Ansett's future. ... The content of this message is provided in my private capacity and does not purport to represent the University of Canterbury.
Re: Re: Tobin tax in France
Thanks very much to Hinrich and Rob for the very useful replies. Regarding Hinrich's quote on the usefulness of a Tobin tax, I agree about its limitations. Global Finance: New Thinking on Regulating Speculative Capital Markets, Ed Walden Bello, Nicola Bullard and Kamal Malhotra, has two chapters (14 and 15) which make a technical and persuasive case that it is practically possible, given the political will. What becomes clear though are the limitations of the tax, even if the financial powers allow its implementation. As the authors of Chapter 14 write (p.201): There are two clear limitations to the Tobin tax: first, it does not stop major speculative attacks on a given currency. And second, it does not solve the problems caused by the disappearance of the previous international monetary system, and by the fact that it has not yet been replaced. The Tobin tax only represents a 'few grains of sand thrown on the roaring fire of international finance'. The tax would greatly reduce the constant speculation which drives currency movements and instability. It would not even begin to address the issues of development that require a much broader range of tools. Bill Global Finance: New Thinking on Regulating Speculative Capital Markets, Ed Walden Bello, Nicola Bullard and Kamal Malhotra, publ. The University Press, Dhaka, and Zed Books, London and New York, in association with Focus on the Global South, Bangkok, in 2000 Hinrich Kuhls wrote: Rob Schaap forwarded: A colleague heard a news item in the last few days that France has adopted a Tobin tax, which will be used to fund overseas development aid. Can anyone confirm that or provide more details please? German Minister Says Jospin's Tobin Tax Won't Work by Ulrika Lomas, Tax-News.com, Brussels 31 August 2001 French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin's Tobinesque fox finally ran into the buffers on Wednesday when German Deputy Finance Minister Caio Koch-Weser (Deputy Minister, mind you, not even the Minister) said that better regulation of derivatives and hedge funds would be more promising than taxes as a way of curbing volatile capital flows. Koch-Weser, speaking to newspaper Financial Times Deutschland, said the idea of a so-called 'Tobin tax' on foreign exchange transactions 'has charm but will never fly'. Additional details: Jospin backs moves for cross-border capital tax http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=Viewc=Articlecid=FT3E4NQ0YQClive=truequery=tobin More at: www.ftd.de/tobin-tax Schwerpunkt Tobin Tax: Berlin lehnt Devisenumsatzsteuer ab http://www.ftd.de/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=PrintArticlePageartid=FTDEER3LYQC Populärer Angriff auf die Spekulanten Die Organisation Weed hält die Devisenmärkte für überliquide. Besteuerung und Zielzonen für Wechselkurse gelten als Rezept. http://www.ftd.de/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=PrintArticlePageartid=FTDSQIJ00RC More additional links...: Unterschriftenaktion an die Bundesregierung Devisenumsatzsteuer gegen weltweite Spekulation und zur Finanzierung von Entwicklung http://www.weedbonn.org/finanzmaerkte/tt_u_form.htm Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Stabilisierung der Finanzmärkte durch eine Tobin-Steuer Autoren: Peter Wahl, Peter Waldow http://www.weedbonn.org/finanzmaerkte/tt_paperd.htm Tobin Tax, Speculation and Poverty http://www.attac.org/fra/toil/doc/attacliegeen.htm ... and finally a quote: Eine Besteuerung internationaler Finanzflüsse - eine rein negative Maßnahme - ist zwar nützlich, aber ganz und gar unzureichend. James Tobin hat selbst erklärt, dass das Hauptverdienst der von ihm vorgeschlagenen Steuer darin besteht, eine andere Kreditpolitik mit ermäßigten Zinssätzen zu ermöglichen. (Paul Boccara, Demokratische Umverteilung - Märkte beherrschen und überwinden, Sozialismus 5-2001, http://www.sozialismus.de/05.01/boccara05-01.htm ) Une taxation des flux financiers internationaux, mesure uniquement négative, serait utile mais tout à fait insuffisante. James Tobin lui-même a déclaré que le principal mérite de la taxe qu'il a proposée est de permettre une autre politique de crédit abais sant les taux d'intérêt. (Paul Boccara, Des partages. Pour maîtriser les marchés, in: Economie et Politique. http://www.pcf.fr/Eco-po/0012/boccara.pdf ) hk
Tobin tax in France
A colleague heard a news item in the last few days that France has adopted a Tobin tax, which will be used to fund overseas development aid. Can anyone confirm that or provide more details please? Bill Rosenberg --- The content of this message is provided in my private capacity and does not purport to represent the University of Canterbury.
Blocking Labour 'tragedy' for Fiji,warns professor]
Original Message Subject: [pasifik_nius] 3385 POLITICS: Blocking Labour 'tragedy' for Fiji,warns professor Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2001 18:52:12 -0800 From: Journ12 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: Journalism, University of the South Pacific To: Pasifik Nius [EMAIL PROTECTED] Title -- 3385 POLITICS: Blocking Labour 'tragedy' for Fiji, warns professor Date -- 2 September 2001 Byline -- None Origin -- Pasifik Nius Source -- Wansolwara Online, 2/9/1 Copyright -- USP Journalism Status -- Unabridged --- USP Pacific Journalism Online: http://www.usp.ac.fj/journ/ Fiji elections coverage: http://www.usp.ac.fj/journ/docs/news/index.html USP Pasifik Nius: http://www.usp.ac.fj/journ/nius/index.html USP Pasifik Nius stories on Scoop (NZ): http://www.scoop.co.nz/international.htm Have your say: http://www.TheGuestBook.com/vgbook/109497.gbook BLOCKING LABOUR 'TRAGEDY' FOR FIJI, WARNS PROFESSOR http://www.usp.ac.fj/journ/docs/news/wansolnews/wansol0209013.html Staff Reporters: September 2, 2001 Wansolwara Online (USP) SUVA (Pasifik Nius): A leading political scientist today warned that any attempt to block the deposed Fiji Labour Party from forming a new government if it wins the largest number of seats when counting begins tomorrow will be a tragedy for the country. There is an enormous effort from the top down to do that, said Associate Professor Scott MacWilliam, of the University of the South Pacific's history/politics department. It is disappointing that the position was based upon the claim that there will be violence if the Labour Party wins. It simply means that a small number of thugs are holding the country to ransom and that's a tragedy in any country. Prof MacWilliam's comments, made in a fullpage interview with Daily Post reporter Mithleshni Gurdayal published today, followed lobbying by a group of Fijian lawyers last week to orchestrate a pact between indigenous parties aimed at blocking Labour from forming a government. Most political observers predict a Labour victory in the general election, in which the week-long voting ended yesterday. Police have set up tight security with razor wire barricades around the four counting centres in Suva. According to Prof MacWilliam, an Australian: It is likely that the Labour Party will win the most seats; it is less likely that they will win an absolute majority. Asked whether the election would bring about stability for Fiji, he said the ballot had been conducted in exceptional circumstances and is was debatable about whether elections could ever bring stability by themselves. Did the last election in 1999 bring stability? he asked. The [Labour-led] People's Coalition Government had an overwhelming majority of seats in Parliament and yet violence from outside the parliamentary arena eventuated in overthrowing the government. It seems that a lot of people take the rhetoric of elections as the way of solving crisis. Nowhere in the world have elections been the sole means of dealing with those matters. Elections have been accompanied by other things like presidential security guards and so forth. Elections alone don't solve anything. Prof MacWilliam said it was an exceptional election in the sense that it was not within direct constitutional provisions. There was also a question about whether the decision to hold an election itself was unconstitutional - it still hangs in the air. What, for instance, has been the effect of all the intimidation, harassment and so forth? he asked. When people talk about a free, fair and open election, it may be that the election process itself is fairly blemish-free or faultless, but what about the background to that? How have people been persuaded to vote by either bribes or by threats and fears? While Fiji had been undergoing a transition with urbanisation as elswhere in the world, it's been urbanised in poverty. Prof MacWilliam said the victory of Labour, which offered policies to address poverty, had been so substantial in 1999 that he had predicted then that the People's Coalition would win the next two elections. They had so far completely wiped out the Opposition. It would have taken something very dramatic for them to lose all that support as a result of last year, he said. In fact, you could say that there were things that have encouraged people to go to the Labour Party - the job losses and the kinds of appeals that the party had made like cutting off the value-added tax (VAT), he said. Finding jobs would appeal to the poor people. It not only appealed to the Indo-Fijians, but many ethnic Fijians in the urban areas who have seen their living standards decline. Prof MacWilliam said so much depended on what ethnic Fijians had done with their vote in the urban area. Urbanisation is a factor here, he said. Earlier, in an interview with Wansolwara Online last week, Prof MacWilliam had said many politicians vying for seats in the election were not serious about addressing
Re: Fw: Fw: Re: Re: Lumber politics
Ken Hanly wrote: Here in Saskatchewan, we have gone from having an industry mainly locally controlled and owned to a system where 85% of the industry is controlled by Weyerhauser. And given Weyerhaueser's takeover of Mac Blo, and the arrival of the gian New Zealand corporation (I can't think of the name right now), I would suspect that even in B.C. there is a general trend to increased foreign ownership of the industry. That would be consistent with the reversal of trends since the free trade agreements, and a return to increasing foreign ownership of industry in Canada in general. The New Zealand corporation was presumably Fletcher Challenge. It has now committed harikiri and sold most of its divisions off. The Canadian subsidiary (half owned) was part of Fletcher Paper, sold to Norske Skog (Norway). All that remains of Fletcher Challenge now is Fletcher Challenge Forests. Bill Rosenberg --- The content of this message is provided in my private capacity and does not purport to represent the University of Canterbury.
Re: From H. Liu
Where was this article published? Thanks Bill Rosenberg Charles Brown wrote: This is not from some radical but Stephen Roach, Morgan Stanley's chief economist. It is capitalism acknowledgment that politics is all and local politics at that. The signs are everywhere. The global system has to be inclusive and equalitarian, two characteristics that capitalism cannot produce. Each nation would have to move towards socialism in its own way reflective of its historical conditions and political culture. But move they will. Henry C.K. Liu The Hollow Ring of Globalization by Stephen Roach (New York) It all started in Seattle about 20 months ago. A small band of anarchists and anti-globalists took to the streets and disrupted a high-profile ministerial conference of the World Trade Organization. In the months that followed, similar protests have been aimed at many major international economic gatherings - from Washington, D.C. and Prague to Quebec City and now Genoa. In theory, globalization is all about a shared prosperity - bringing the less-advantaged developing world into the tent of the far wealthier industrial world. But, in reality, when there's less prosperity to share, these benefits start to ring hollow. As the world economy now tips into recession, the assault on globalization can only intensify. The Genoa summit of G-8 leaders was probably doomed from the start. Pre-summit disharmony over the Kyoto Protocol on global warming drove a wedge between the United States and the other major countries of the world. The Missile Shield proposal of the Bush Administration was only slightly less contentious. U.S.-European disagreement over the GE-Honeywell merger added insult to injury. The world's most powerful leaders were hardly in a mood of reconciliation. Genoa was aimed at face-saving - nothing more. That's pretty much all that was accomplished. The communiqué addressed the usual potpourri of the world's problems - from AIDS and food security to the digital divide and transnational organized crime. Special mention was made of global poverty reduction - underscoring the need to narrow ever-widening disparities in the world income distribution between the developed and industrialized world. In that vein, G-8 leaders congratulated themselves for continued emphasis on debt relief of heavily indebted poor countries. They also endorsed a call for a new round of global trade negotiations. As always, the communiqué was noble in purpose - but lacking in any semblance of actionable initiatives. But it was also lacking in context. And perhaps that's the most disturbing aspect of the just-concluded summit. Forget about paying even lip service to the mounting risks of a synchronous worldwide slowdown - to say nothing of our own global recession call. The latest strain of emerging-market contagion - dominated by the nasty turn of events in Argentina - was not even mentioned. Nothing about currencies either - despite looming pressures on the yen. Nor was there any discussion of the post-bubble perils of the U.S. economy. In short, this was a communiqué that could have been written years ago - but for a very different world and an equally different phase in the global business cycle. The authorities are evidently in denial - hamstrung by domestic politics and unable to grasp the context of the broader global economy. All of this points up the intrinsic tensions of globalization: Market-driven forces of cross-border economic integration are increasingly at odds with the politics of fragmentation and nationalism. As the experience of 1998 taught us, global policy coordination is both rare and reluctant - it only happens at times of crisis, and on a piecemeal basis, even then. The authorities have come to believe that the best global policies are, in effect, a combination of the best collection of national policies. America's strong dollar policy is a classic example in that regard - as are the desires of Japanese and European authorities to resist depreciation of their own currencies. Never mind, foreign exchange rates are relative prices and not all the major currencies can be strong at once. The internal inconsistency of this supposition drives the point home - global policies rarely add up. In the end, it probably boils down to jobs, voters and the social contracts that bind politicians to these key constituencies. Disparities in social contracts around the world underscore the inherent contractions of globalization. Europe's public welfare state and Japan's corporate welfare state both stand in sharp contrast to America's far more tenuous social contract. ( Too nasty to even give a name to. Howabout Cowboy anti-social contract - CB ) Such disparate political values make it exceedingly difficult to merge the world economy into one big happy global village. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said it all
Re: Hong Kong expands despite deflation
Hong Kong has a wide range of policies to encourage domestic investment. It uses large projects (like its huge new airport) to stimulate the economy. Following the Asian financial crisis it bought $36 billion worth of shares on the Hong Kong sharemarket to prop up the Hong Kong dollar. It still retains $30 billion of those, and will keep half of them as a long-term investment. It also has venture capital funds, financial and technical support, export credit insurance, government-funded industrial estates and a Science Park, aimed at supporting and incubating businesses in areas considered growth areas (such as technology). I have a current interest in Hong Kong because the New Zealand government is currently negotiating a wide-ranging free trade and investment agreement with it. (Advt) See my report (published just beforer negotiations were officially announced) at http://canterbury.cyberplace.org.nz/community/CAFCA Bill Rosenberg Chris Burford wrote: Perhaps a few populist headlines carrying forward the interesting story of Hong Kong: (source from the BBC2 Newsnight programme) In 1997-8 HK fought off currency speculators and devaluation through massive state intervention in the stock exchange, and suffered a mere 5% contraction. In 1999 it expanded. In 2000 the expansion increased and was of the order of 10%. In the four years since 1997 the burden has been taken by property prices which fell by 65%. Deflation stands at 4%. This helps exports by reducing the costs of manufacturers. One factor in the expansion is the ability of the government to intervene in a countercyclical way with its unusual massive surpluses (derived from state ownership of land). It is now pouring money into reclaiming land to build the site of a regional Disneyland centre. Questionable taste in use values, but still some interesting lessons about how much state intervention and control is possible in an economy that has to remain competitive with the global capitalist market. Has anyone got any further details or clarifications? Chris Burford London
Re: Re: Re: Oz Competition update
Rob Schaap wrote: What One.Tel tells us about competition By KENNETH DAVIDSON: THE AGE Monday 4 June 2001 [snip] Even worse, the imposition of mindless competition on network development (parallel roll-out of the broadband cable by Telstra and Optus, five mobile networks and so on) has delayed and increased the cost of the introduction of new technology, as well as delayed the achievement of full economies of scale. [snip] The cost of our bureaucratic and political stupidity in slavishly worshipping competition policy is not trivial; we spend about $22 billion a year on telecommunications. If Australia had maintained its price advantage vis a vis the US since 1990, by allowing the industry to evolve a structure consistent with the evolution of the technology, Australians would be paying $5 billion a year less for telecommunications, and in all probability Australia might have maintained a telecommunications equipment industry worthy of the name. [etc] Similar story here in New Zealand. Telecom NZ was privatised after the Government having upgraded virtually all its exchanges and restructured a large part of its workforce into unemployment. Brian Gaynor in the NZ Herald (26 May) tells the story: [In 1997] The Ameritech/Bell Atlantic/Fay, Richwhite, Gibbs, Farmer syndicate walked away from Telecom with a realised capital profit of $7.2 billion. In addition, the telecommunications group paid over $4.2 billion in dividends in the 1991 to 1998 period, more than half to the consortium members. ... ... capital expenditure during the mid-1990s was relatively low. In the six years ended March 1998, dividend payments exceeded capital expenditure by $3.8 billion to $3.3 billion. These are extraordinary figures for a company that is supposed to be at the cutting edge of new technological developments. And now it is spending up large, buying into one of those too-many competitors in Australia instead of upgrading technology in New Zealand. It paid out over 90% of its after-tax earnings as dividends (in some years more than its earnings) - though it has just in the last year scaled that back to 50% (too late). Instead of privatised Telecom upgrading our cabling to fibre, Telstra/Saturn are now running it parallel to Telecom's - main population centres only - at a cost Telecom could easily have afforded out of those profits. We are ending up with two parallel networks with problems of inter-connectivity that are likely to haunt us for years. And of course smaller population centres (never mind our rural communities) have no assurance of any improvements at all. Bill
One H1-B victory, but thousands in slave-like state
The glories of working in California hi-tech industries eh? Bill One H1-B victory, but thousands in slave-like state by Sukhjit Purewal, India Abroad News Service San Francisco, May 5 - Dipen Joshi may have won his case against the consultancy firm, Compubahn Inc., that tried to hold him to an illegal contract, but there are thousands of other H1-B employees languishing under onerous slave-like conditions. San Francisco attorney Mukesh Advani, who first advised Joshi and usually helps consultancy firms, or body shops, draw up their contracts and other legal regulations, said most of the contracts he has seen for consultancy firms contain language that is restrictive and often illegal. Slavery was supposed to have been abolished in this country 200 years ago -- this is like bonded labor in India, Advani told IANS. Although there is no precise figure as to how many H1-B visa holders work for such consultancy firms waiting to parceled out for temporary assignments, a large number are believed to fall into this category. It is an unenviable position to be in, Advani said. Georgetown University demographer B. Lindsay Lowell said in some cases temporary workers earn 46 percent less than those holding permanent core jobs. Lowell said H1-B visa holders who have been in the country for five years or less, are three times as likely to be in these poor-paying contingent jobs as compared with five percent of the native population. That is what makes Joshi's case a potential lightening rod for helping to improve working conditions for H1-B visa holders working for body shops. Joshi successfully sued Compubahn for violation of California's non-compete clause in January 2000. He was awarded $215,000 in legal fees and other expenses in late April. Earlier Joshi's attorney Michael Papuc had said he has advised Joshi not to speak with the media. I'm very proud of Joshi, he could have paid these guys a few thousand dollars and gotten rid of them, Advani said. But he didn't, he said, 'I'm going to fight these guys.' The case began in 1999 when Compubahn demanded Joshi pay the company $77,085 for damages and a finder's fee when he left to join Oracle before completing an 18-month contract with Compubahn. But Joshi refused and instead sued Compubahn for fraud, misrepresentation and for violation of the state's unfair competition statue. San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Phrasel Shelton ruled in Joshi's favor on the unfair competition statute in February of this year and ordered Compubahn to drop restrictive language in its employee contracts. The three clauses that had to be excluded from the contracts were as follows: employees could not go to work for competitors a year after leaving Compubahn, employees had to pay a $25,000 finder's fee if they left, and they had to reimburse Compubahn for immigration and training costs, Joshi's attorney Michael Papuc said. Advani said it is one thing for a company to want to recoup the costs it took to relocate and train an employee. The case affected 38 other Compubahn contracts. In most cases, newly arrived H1-B visa holders know nothing about the legal system of America even though they are highly educated, Advani said. They can do nothing but assume it is legal if they are told it is.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Barter makes comeback in Argentina
Responded Rob : Here, our 'first way' government has worked it out with insurers that taxpayers should help pay out a collapsed insurance company's $1 billion obligations and that other insurers should impose a levy on all the country's policy holders to help. As shareholders are a more important sector than the insurance consumers, we have to ensure that our insurance industry doesn't actually take risks. It was this bunch, of course, who nagged and bullied until all properly run public insurers were privatised (ie those which didn't spend a fortune undertaking expansion and takeovers at the top of bubble markets, did spend enough on hedging, didn't overvalue their assets and didn't undervalue their liablilities) and then deregulated. If you're referring to HIH insurance, I suspect the collapse had something to do with the New Zealand government. HIH was a big player in the privatised workers' accident compensation scheme (ACC) when the tories privatised it a year before the election. HIH would have lost considerably when the new government renationalised it - a singularly courageous action in the current climate. And one that would be impossible under NAFTA because the insurance companies would have sued the pants off the government and made it unaffordable. So why is the current government staying in similar investment agreements already signed, and reinforcing them with new model full free trade and investment agreements? But to give some idea of the continued dryness at home at the same time as some genuinely progressive initiatives are taking place - - continued rigid adherence to a (very) independent Reserve Bank setting monetary policies - continued rigid adherence to a balanced - in fact surplus - budget - continued support for the Fiscal Responsibility Act which requires balanced budgets and policies that essentially require the government to run its finances like a business. - setting up a government superannuation fund that will be huge compared to the size of our share market but will be required to apply only commercial criteria to its investment and will invest a large part of its funds overseas. It is certainly an improvement on anything here for the last 25 years, both in content and style - but that is unfortunately not saying much! Cheers Bill Here, our 'first way' government gleefully went along with Shrubya's treachery on Kyoto, just as temperature rises promise to deprive this particularly dry continent of 20% of the water it does have. Here, our 'first way' government is presiding over scores of preventable deaths among the disabled due to lack of care whilst supplementing a 'defence' technology budget already unrivalled (for now) in the region. And that's just the first coupla pages of today's Herald ... Staring enviously Tasmanwards, Rob.
Re: Re: Re: Barter makes comeback in Argentina
I'd like to believe it Rob, but its also accompanied by a continuation of an amazingly gung ho attitude to free trade agreements (a ground-breaking one already signed with Singapore and one with Hong Kong on its way, more to follow) and discussion of dumping our currency for the $Oz. So not quite the social democracy with a vengeance some overseas observers have claimed it to be. The majority and dominant coalition partner, Labour, would describe its policies as Third Way. Cheers? Bill Rob Schaap wrote: it's interesting that in two of the places where the Neoliberal Crusade has taken its most virulent forms (the former Soviet Union, Argentina), barter has come back. And it was probably in New Zealand that it took its most virulent form in the Anglo-Saxon world. And there social democracy has come back with a vengeance. First they introduce a public bank, and now comes the public repudiation of its US-Australian defence treaty and the wholesale wind-down of its military. Cheers, Rob. -- The content of this message is provided in my private capacity and does not purport to represent the University of Canterbury.
[Fwd: Indian communists plot IT revolution]
Nice headline, even if not entirely accurate... but interesting story. Bill Original Message Subject: Indian communists plot IT revolution Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 16:47:07 +0500 From: Irfan Khan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] April 25, 2001 Indian communists plot IT revolution THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, India - Computers are no longer the devil's agents for the communist rulers of India's Kerala state, on the country's southern coast. Realizing the state is lagging behind other provinces in India's great information technology race, the rulers of Kerala have shed off ideological opposition to high technology and the Communist Marxist Party, which for long fought against computerization of the workplace, believing it would reduce jobs, is now zealously promoting IT. The reason is understandable. Internationally acclaimed for being India's first state to have achieved near full literacy, Kerala finds itself trailing in information technology as adjoining Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh states have made a name for themselves as the centers of India's emerging IT superpower status. Kerala, which voted in the world's first elected communist government in 1957, ushered in a social revolution through land and educational reforms in the tiny state. However, subsequent communist rulers tended to see new technology as a threat to workers. The present government finally appointed a high-level task force, which submitted a report that forms the basis of the IT revolution planned for the state. The education system at all levels requires extensive changes in content and pedagogy. This, coupled with a change in mindset, is necessary to prepare future generations to benefit from and meet the demands of the information age, says the report. In the next nine years, Kerala aims to make 60 million students at least computer-literate, if not experts. The state is being encouraged by India's famed nuclear scientist A P J Kalam, who believes that Kerala, being the country's most literate state, is best-suited to produce computer manpower. The government has promised to set up about 6,000 computers in more than 2,000 schools across the state in the first phase of the IT education program. The mainly rural state has an estimated 12,310 primary and secondary schools. There are another 931 higher secondary institutions. It also has plans to train a cadre of IT teachers. State officials have approached world IT leaders such as Microsoft and Intel to organize training, says Kerala Education Minister P J Joseph. As many as 60,000 teachers will be trained to impart computer education to students. Every school, from the villages to cities, will have a computer center that will be open to use by the students during school hours and the public after school hours. By 2010, all students and teachers of high schools and higher secondary schools will have easy access to computers and the Internet, claims the government. The state government also hopes that IT training will open new job avenues for its large unemployed workforce, estimated at about 3.8 million men and women. Kerala should witness, during the first decade of this century, a total transformation of the classroom at all levels, says the report of the government task force on IT education. Computers and the Internet should move to the center stage from the periphery and become an integral tool of the learning process it adds. Sunil Gupta, an IT expert who heads IVL India - one of the major IT companies in Kerala - says the state is well positioned to grab a major share of opportunities in the information technology field. The state has a telephone density - the number of connections per 1,000 people - twice the national average. Kochi, the state's commercial capital, is one of three landing points in India for international Internet submarine cables this year, which will make the city a major Internet hub. Some 100 hectares of land have been earmarked for an IT park in the port city. Another IT park is coming up at Kozhikode in the northern part of Kerala. An existing technopark in the state capital offers some of India's lowest operational costs and is steadily attracting investors. The state has also taken positive steps for e-governance under the Information Kerala Mission, which has linked more than 1,200 village councils and local bodies with district and state level planning boards. (Inter Press Service) http://atimes.com/ind-pak/CD25Df02.html
Hong Kong-New Zealand FTA negotiations - analysis
PEN-Lers may be interested in the following. Comments on the study mentioned would be welcome. Bill Rosenberg In April, New Zealand and Hong Kong announced the beginning of formal negotiations for a free trade and investment agreement after exploratory talks for some months. It is expected to use the Singapore-New Zealand Closer Economic Partnership agreement signed last year as a model. New Zealand and Hong Kong also have a bilateral investment agreement, signed in 1995, which contains contentious expropriation and investor-state disputes procedure provisions similar to those in NAFTA. ARENA (Action Research Education Network of Aotearoa) has published a study by Bill Rosenberg entitled Globalisation by Stealth - The proposed New Zealand-Hong Kong Free Trade Agreement and investment An outline follows. The paper and a summary are available on the web site http://canterbury.cyberplace.org.nz/community/CAFCA Alternatively, the paper is available from ARENA in book form for NZ$10: contact ARENA Action Research Education Network of Aotearoa P O Box 2450 Christchurch New Zealand/Aotearoa Phone: (643) 381 2951 Fax (643) 366 8035 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] With a preface by Jane Kelsey, the study looks at the investment relationships between Hong Kong and New Zealand. It uncovers multi-billion financial transfers to New Zealand for tax minimisation purposes. The intermediary relationship Hong Kong plays with China is analysed; again avoidance of taxes and tariffs are primary drivers. It finds that - Though the government has failed to release any details of what is proposed to the public, this paper finds that if such an agreement is based on the recently ratified Singapore-New Zealand Closer Economic Partnership (SNZCEP), an existing Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (IPPA), and the WTO, it presents the following dangers to New Zealand, among others: · Destruction of the remaining textiles, clothing and footwear industry · Litigation by investors in closed international tribunals against the effects and existence of laws and regulations that protect our environment and economic development, resulting in multi-million dollar compensation payments and possible reversal of local and central government policies. · Further pressure to commercialise our social services such as education, health, public broadcasting, waste disposal and water. · Further constraints on the use of central and local government procurement to encourage economic development. · Growing constraints on local government in all these areas. · Encouragement of large short term international capital movements, and further loss of the control of capital movements and foreign investment which are essential to develop New Zealand's economy and protect ownership of land and fishing quota. -- ends -- --- The content of this message is provided in my private capacity and does not purport to represent the University of Canterbury.
Thai PM calls for new Asian economic manifesto
PM calls for new Asian economic manifesto The Nation, 24 April 2001 BANGKOK, April 23 (AFP) -- Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra Monday urged developing Asian nations to abandon economic policies modelled after the United States and Japan at the opening of a UN conference here. Economic reforms based on so-called international standards have created major roadblocks for Asian economies, Thaksin said at the opening of the 57th session of the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP). Adherence to a new set of transparency and good governance banking standards not only has created massive public debts but ensured that these economies will be unable to cope with the problem of poverty alleviation, he said. The session, focused on urban and rural development in the Asia-Pacific, brought together delegates from 61 countries to forge social and economic development policies. Thaksin said Asia needed new economic strategies in light of the dimming global economy and ineffective fiscal remedies introduced since the 1997-98 regional economic crisis. The present shortcomings and failures of the traditional Japan Inc. model, the US development model, and the responses of the former Asian Tiger economies demand a reassessment of such approaches, Thaksin said. One size no longer fits all. Free market principles, the acceptance of globalisation measures and financial liberalisation through the adoption of Western business standards have made some Asian countries financial pariahs and non-transparent borrowers overnight, he said. Foreign investors worried about their investments are to blame for the tarring of developing economies in Asia, and to promote growth these countries must look within and build local business, as in Thailand. We are going back to basics in every sense of the word and especially in light of the new and less-than-friendly world environment, Thaksin said, just a day after his government announced a campaign to slash imports. The premier said the outlook for Asian economies was extremely precarious and that conditions would worsen for the more than 800 million people in the region who struggle to live on less than a dollar a day. ... http://www.nationmultimedia.com/
Re: Re: US-Singapore FTA to be negotiated
Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill, I thought you now had a reformed Labour government that eschewed this neo-liberal nonsense. Did you? We do have a third-way Labour Party that doesn't eschew this neo-liberal nonsense. It does to an extent domestically, but carries on enthusastically externally. The hope is that its small coalition partner, the Alliance, and the Greens on which they depend for a majority, will slow it down. But little sign of that at the moment! What I wrote in Canadian Dimension in May is still largely true... Bill From Canadian Dimension - But what most distinguishes Labour from the Alliance - and even more, the Greens - is its attitude to the open economy, or (to use that overused term) globalisation. Labour still carries the legacy left by Mike Moore, its spokesperson on foreign affairs and trade before ascending to the WTO. In contrast, the Alliance and the Greens want to reinstate some of the tariffs removed in missionary enthusiasm by the National government. They oppose uncontrolled foreign investment. They have strong economic development policies which involve government support for new industry. Indeed, Jim Anderton chose to create a new portfolio of economic development (as well as becoming Deputy Prime Minister) rather than accept something more conventional. To a degree, Labour goes along with this enthusiasm. Yet at the same time it is pushing ahead with negotiations for new free trade agreements initiated by the National government. It has announced talks on free trade areas with Singapore, ASEAN and Chile. It has yet to define its attitude towards the WTO. Yet it is hard to see the Alliance's economic development policies survive if exposed to uncontrolled international trade and investment. The past fifteen years have featured the deaths of many industries and the takeover by transnationals of many successful ones. The greatest constraint on the new government's economic policies may well be the crisis-level current account deficit and huge, growing foreign debt. An open economy has led to these; it seems unbelievable that an open economy can reverse them. Sadly, in spite of an inspiring beginning to its term in office, that may well be the source of this government's downfall. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba Date sent: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 18:10:37 +1300 From: Bill Rosenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[PEN-L:4591] US-Singapore FTA to be negotiated To: Progressive Economics list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copies to: Sid Shniad [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I would be interested in any reactions to the following announcement of a US-Singapore FTA. Singapore recently signed a FTA with New Zealand. Actually it was much more than that - it covered tariffs, services, investment, government procurement, TBT/SPS, intellectual property, disputes procedures and more. It was explicitly intended to be a model and a catalyst for further agreements. I can provide copies and various analyses for anyone interested. Singapore has announced negotiations for similar agreements with Australia and Japan. The intention of at least some of the parties (including Singapore and New Zealand) is to link them up into a wider FTA. New Zealand officials and trade ministers have been pushing for a "Pacific 5" agreement - US, Chile, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand. Bill Rosenberg Singapore To Launch Free Trade Negotiations Friday, 17 November 2000, 3:44 pm Press Release: The White House Singapore To Launch Free Trade Agreement Negotiations (First U.S.-Asian Free Trade Agreement to be established) (740) President Clinton and Singapore Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, on the final day of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Leaders' Meeting in Brunei, announced the United States and Singapore will launch negotiations for the first U.S. free trade agreement (FTA) with an Asian country. "This agreement will both develop and strengthen one of the Pacific's largest trading relationships, and bring us a step closer to the realization of APEC's vision of 'free and open trade' throughout the Pacific," said U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Charlene Barshefsky. Geared toward the information technology-driven "new economy," the agreement will address significant service sectors of the economy including communications, the Internet and high technology and include provisions on labor and the environment. According to Barshefsky, the agreement represents a major economic potential to reap the benefits of the new economy and has strategic significance for the overall mission of APEC. "As we realize the commercial benefits of an expanding trade relationship, we are also setting an example of progress toward the long
US-Singapore FTA to be negotiated
I would be interested in any reactions to the following announcement of a US-Singapore FTA. Singapore recently signed a FTA with New Zealand. Actually it was much more than that - it covered tariffs, services, investment, government procurement, TBT/SPS, intellectual property, disputes procedures and more. It was explicitly intended to be a model and a catalyst for further agreements. I can provide copies and various analyses for anyone interested. Singapore has announced negotiations for similar agreements with Australia and Japan. The intention of at least some of the parties (including Singapore and New Zealand) is to link them up into a wider FTA. New Zealand officials and trade ministers have been pushing for a "Pacific 5" agreement - US, Chile, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand. Bill Rosenberg Singapore To Launch Free Trade Negotiations Friday, 17 November 2000, 3:44 pm Press Release: The White House Singapore To Launch Free Trade Agreement Negotiations (First U.S.-Asian Free Trade Agreement to be established) (740) President Clinton and Singapore Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, on the final day of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Leaders' Meeting in Brunei, announced the United States and Singapore will launch negotiations for the first U.S. free trade agreement (FTA) with an Asian country. "This agreement will both develop and strengthen one of the Pacific's largest trading relationships, and bring us a step closer to the realization of APEC's vision of 'free and open trade' throughout the Pacific," said U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Charlene Barshefsky. Geared toward the information technology-driven "new economy," the agreement will address significant service sectors of the economy including communications, the Internet and high technology and include provisions on labor and the environment. According to Barshefsky, the agreement represents a major economic potential to reap the benefits of the new economy and has strategic significance for the overall mission of APEC. "As we realize the commercial benefits of an expanding trade relationship, we are also setting an example of progress toward the long-term vision of an open, prosperous and stable Pacific region," Barshefsky said. Singapore is the United States' largest trading partner in Southeast Asia. Trade between the two countries totaled $34.4 billion in 1999. Following is the text of the U.S. Trade Representative release: (begin text) OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE Executive Office of the President Washington, D.C. 20508 00 - 81 November 16, 2000 U.S. and Singapore to Launch Negotiations for a Free Trade Agreement President Clinton and Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong of Singapore, meeting in Brunei on the final day of the annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, today announced the launch of negotiations for a U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (FTA). "This agreement will both develop and strengthen one of the Pacific's largest trading relationships, and bring us a step closer to the realization of APEC's vision of 'free and open trade' throughout the Pacific," said United States Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky. "It will remove the remaining barriers to trade between our countries, and help us take full advantage of the new opportunities unfolding through communications, the Internet and high technology. It will also demonstrate again the Clinton Administration's commitment to accompany open markets with labor and environmental provisions." The FTA will be only the fifth Free Trade Agreement the U.S. has signed, and the first with an Asian country. Modeled after the recently signed U.S.-Jordan FTA, but reflecting the substantial volume of trade between the two nations, the agreement will eliminate tariffs on all goods over time; cover substantially all services sectors, help to develop electronic commerce, protect intellectual property rights, and include safeguards and dispute settlement mechanisms. Like the Jordan FTA, it will include provisions on labor and the environment. "President Clinton and Prime Minister Goh have taken a step of major economic potential and strategic significance," said Ambassador Barshefsky. "As we realize the commercial benefits of an expanding trade relationship, we are also setting an example of progress toward the long-term vision of an open, prosperous and stable Pacific region." The agreement is expected to have significant commercial benefits, as Singapore is already the United States' largest trading partner in Southeast Asia, with two-way trade totaling $34.4 billion in 1999. The agreement will represent the new economy, focusing on removing Singapore restrictions on a wide range of services, including high technology sectors such as engineering, medical, information technology, environm
Thomson
Does anyone have material to hand on the Thomson news media empire - particularly stuff relevant to its involvement in higher education, such as prior involvement, editorial interference etc. Anything on the extent of the empire would be useful too. Thanks Bill Rosenberg The content of this message, unless otherwise stated, is provided in my private capacity and does not purport to represent the University of Canterbury.
Re: [Fwd: NZ and OZ currency meltdown. Why]
Rob Schaap wrote: Well, everyone has a pet explanation. The appallingly glamorous David Hale made a big splash when he smugly informed us we were a recalcitrantly 'old economy'. No-one quite new what that meant, but they sold the Ozzie down a whole cent over the next two days. That was the cent from 56 to 55 (three Even if we really are "old economy", what other than irrational exuberance would cause it to drop a currency *this* quickly?! Bill -- The content of this message, unless otherwise stated, is provided in my private capacity and does not purport to represent the University of Canterbury.
Re: New Zealand rejects market health care model
Ken Hanly wrote: Perhaps Bill Rosenberg might comment upon this. Cheers, Ken Hanly Aint got a lot I can say other than, potentially, yes this will take us away from the "market-led health model". It sets up elected health boards similar to ones we had a decade ago, in place of the current commercially-designed ones. That in itself is a considerable step forward. What is not clear though is the pressure there will be on the new boards to undo (or not) the commercial model of operation. They may still have financial and other pressures to contract out services to private suppliers. It is also not clear how coordination between these 21 boards will be achieved, so that they don't compete for patients and funds. I haven't followed it closely enough to comment on these things. Bill THE EVENING POST 2 AUGUST 2000 Labour to abolish market-led health model Health Minister Annette King today unveiled the Government's health reform legislation, promising to restore public confidence in the health system by abolishing the market-driven model. "This is a day that we've worked towards for eight months since we became government; it is an honouring of a commitment that we made to the electorate not in one election but in three elections," Mrs King said ahead of the legislation being tabled in Parliament today. "(It was) a commitment that we were going to restore a New Zealand public health service that was based on co-operation and collaboration, that we were going to replace the current commercial and competitive model, that we were going to ensure that local communities once again had a say in the running of health services, and that we were going to focus on improving people's health as the fundamental role of a health service." The New Zealand Public Health and Disability Bill would dismantle the 23 existing Hospital and Health Service boards, and would replace them with 21 elected boards by late 2001. It would also disestablish the Health Funding Authority, whose functions would be absorbed by the Ministry of Health, and would clear the way for most health funding to be handed directly to district health boards. That wouldn't happen, however, until at least July 2002, or later for some boards. The legislation would require boards to develop plans for improving the health of people in their region, in line with a National Health Strategy. This would set goals in key areas such as obesity, diabetes, immunisation, cancer and Maori health. District health boards would be established as Crown entities and would have up to 11 members - seven elected and up to four appointed by the Minister. Each board would be required to have at least two Maori members, with as many as six required in areas where there is a high Maori population. Their meetings would be open to the public, like those of the old area health boards, which were established by the last Labour Government then disestablished by National after it took office in 1991. Hospital and Health Service (formerly crown health enterprise) board meetings weren't open and their members were appointed as directors. While most funding would be handled at district health board level, some services - such as national screening programmes or Plunket - would still be funded nationally. The first board elections would coincide with local government elections next year and the single, transferable voting system would be used - a different form of achieving proportional representation to MMP - to ensure a more "representative" board, Mrs King said. The Bill would allow the establishment of a health workforce advisory committee to advise the Government on long-term staffing needs. Currently, the health sector faced a shortage of vital staff, including nurses. It would establish mortality review committees to look at topics such as child and maternal mortality. For the first time in social legislation, the Government has included a clause stating its commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi, which Mrs King conceded today carried legal risks. But she said the Government was committed to working in partnership with Maori and improving their health. The Bill is to get its first reading in Parliament next week and will be sent to the health select committee for public submissions. - NZPA
Re: NZ and OZ currency meltdown. Why
Eugene Coyle wrote: What are the recent developments that have contributed to the currency meltdown in New Zealand and Australia? They are two commodity-dependent states selling into markets with weak prices. But that has been known -- is anything new happen to explain the dollar values melting like an ice-cream cone in July. (Northern Hemisphere.) The first answer is that I'm not sure that there is a meltdown, at least in recent months, unless you call the Euro's fall (for example) a meltdown too. Certainly the value of both currencies have dropped considerably. You might like to read a recent speech by the Governor of the Reserve Bank of NZ, Donald Brash (http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/speeches/0097094.html) which, apart from showing some bewilderment at the movement of the New Zealand dollar, makes some interesting observations, including: "Between the beginning of 1999 and the end of September this year, for example, the Australian dollar and British pound depreciated by about 12 per cent against the US dollar, the Swedish and Norwegian currencies by about 16 per cent, the Swiss franc by about 21 per cent, the New Zealand dollar by about 23 per cent, and the euro by almost 25 per cent. Clearly, the fall in our currency is not just the result of the New Zealand dollar being the currency of a small economy: the currencies of much larger economies have also fallen significantly against the US dollar in recent times." So the largest part of the "fall" is simply the strength of the US dollar. But there definitely has been a fall in the medium term, a fall which began with the financial crisis in Asia. Brash again: "Between its peak of more than 71 US cents in November 1996 and its trough of just over 40 US cents at present, the New Zealand dollar depreciated by some 44 per cent against the US dollar, a substantial depreciation over less than four years in anybody's language. Measured against the Reserve Bank's trade-weighted index (TWI), which measures the New Zealand dollar against a basket of five currencies, the fall was somewhat less dramatic, from 69 in late April 1997 to around 47 at present, but that still represented a depreciation of 32 per cent. Whether measured against the US dollar or against the TWI, the New Zealand dollar is currently close to its lowest level in history." It would be convenient to attribute the fall to the election of the centre-left Labour/Alliance government in Nov 1999, but as you can see, the fall began well before that - though perhaps the growing political senility of the previous government and the inevitability of a change could have caused pre-emptive capital flight, and there is evidance of that. Though capital flight is occurring, it is mostly not yet a massive movement. Rather, it is taking the form of moving investment to more liquid forms (debt securities to deposits etc), and in withdrawal of large foreign portfolio investors from the share market. Short term foreign debt (private plus official) has risen from 43% of the total in March 1999 to 50% in March 2000. I'd attribute the fall so far mainly to the huge current account deficit (7% of GDP, 22% of GS exports) and debt (105% of GDP and 329% of GS exports). It would have happened eventually whatever government was in power. But it is undoubtedly reinforced by the furious reaction by most business leaders here to the mild reforms the new government is putting in place. They of course pretend the dollar's fall to be a sign of the inadequate financial management of the new government. In fact, without it, there was no hope that the economy would reduce its import addiction and increase its exports sufficiently ever to bring the current account into balance. It is unlikely even at the current exchange rate, because the current account deficit is almost entirely due to a deficit on investment income ($6.6b of the March 2000 $7.3b deficit), and the destruction of many potential import substitution industries after 15 years of trade and investment "liberalisation". But capital flight could happen at any time. The Labour majority of the government is currently forcing through Parliament (in alliance with the right-wing parties just ousted from government, because its coalition partners oppose it) a free trade agreement with Singapore, which it wants to be the forerunner of a much wider free trade area. This is a political statement as much as a real change, given New Zealand's almost tariff-free and unrestricted investment regime. It says to the "markets" - don't be scared, don't run away, underneath all our social democrat veneer, we're still with you. Bill
Malaysian exchange controls
Can anyone refer me to material that details what actions Malaysia took in the 1997 financial crisis, and analyses the results? Bill Rosenberg
Re: looking for a book on the global economy
How about the following. Second half consists of great case studies. Bill Title The globalization of poverty : impacts of IMF and World Bank reforms / Michel Chossudovsky. Author Chossudovsky, Michel. Published London ; Atlantic Highlands, NJ : Zed Books ; Penang, Malaysia : Third World Network, 1997. Subjects International Monetary Fund --Developing countries. International Monetary Fund --Europe, Eastern. World Bank --Developing countries. World Bank --Europe, Eastern. Poverty --Developing countries. Poverty --Europe, Eastern. Description 280 p. : ill. ; 22 cm. ISBN 1856494020 (pbk.) 1856494012 (hardbound) Notes Includes bibliographical references and index. Peter Dorman wrote: Well, campers, my teaching team has started planning for the winter, and I'm wondering if any of you can recommend a good book on the global economy. The ideal book would: discuss the origin, management, and consequences of third world debt, the politics and economics of structural adjustment, liberalization of capital flows and instability in foreign exchange markets, debates within, between, and against the international financial institutions, the east Asian financial crisis, and the upsurge in global inequality. It would also: put all of this within a political context, and be readable by students with the equivalent of intro micro, intro macro, and political economy. It isn't necessary to have a book that "theorizes" all of this in some novel way or pushes a particular interpretation. The most important thing is to convey the facts of recent history, the political and institutional context, and the types of arguments different people are making. (Yes, I know, some degree of theoretical commitment is necessary to do these things, but I'm more interested in the planets than the telescope right now...) Peter -- The content of this message, unless otherwise stated, is provided in my private capacity and does not purport to represent the University of Canterbury.
Downfall of an economic experiment: New Zealand
Financial Times ; 30-Aug-2000 Downfall of an economic experiment: New Zealand's textbook programme of liberalisation has left it poorer than before, argues John Kay: By JOHN KAY If ever a country has been run by economists, it is New Zealand. In 1984, the colourful Roger Douglas became finance minister. He began the most comprehensive programme of economic reform ever seen in a developed country. According to current orthodoxy, New Zealand has done everything right. The central bank is independent and its governor's pay is linked to the inflation rate. State industries have been comprehensively restructured and privatised, with none of the regulatory supervision found elsewhere. What was one of the world's most comprehensive welfare states has been dismantled. The Employment Contracts Act insists that conditions of work are a private matter between employer and employee. In surveys of economic freedom, New Zealand ranks with Hong Kong and Singapore, ahead of Britain and the US, and well ahead of continental Europe. After 15 years, the electorate delivered its own verdict on the reforms by returning an old Labour-style government, led by Helen Clark. If we look coldly at New Zealand economic data, the voters are right. Since the experiment began, economic growth has been much slower than in the rest of the developed world. Productivity and living standards have barely risen, while almost all other rich countries have enjoyed sustained expansion. The last 15 years have completed New Zealand's transition into a very select group of states: those that were once rich but are rich no longer. The standard of living has fallen from 1.25 times the average standard of living in high-income countries in 1965 to 0.62 last year. New Zealand is the Argentina of the second half of the 20th century. What went wrong? The world has certainly treated New Zealand badly. Its economy was oriented towards Australia and Europe, especially Britain. It was, and is, the most efficient producer anywhere of lamb, wool and milk. The rise of agricultural protection, and the UK's accession to the European Union, was deeply damaging. But this happened some time ago. Between 1965 and 1976 the price New ealand received for its exports, relative to what it paid for imports, fell by more than one third. Since then, the country's terms of trade with the rest of the world have improved slightly. Economic performance since 1976 is the responsibility of New Zealanders themselves. Between 1976 and 1984, Premier Robert Muldoon urged his compatriots to think big, and gave them aluminium smelters and petrochemical plants. Most of these schemes failed, at large cost to the taxpayer. The liberalisation that followed was an understandable reaction but it was no more successful. The programme is still widely admired outside New Zealand. As was true of Margaret Thatcher's Britain, the success of reform is often measured by the extent to which it has occurred, rather than the benefits that flowed from it. The US Central Intelligence Agency claims in its 1999 factbook that the reforms have boosted growth and moved incomes towards the levels of the big West European economies but its statistics show the opposite. The more serious challenge is to those international economic agencies - the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development - that have advocated elsewhere the reform programme that New Zealand adopted so enthusiastically. Unable to ignore the evidence, the OECD waffles. "It is difficult to reach definite conclusions about why economic performance has not improved to a greater extent in the light of the substantial policy changes that have taken place, not least because it is hard to be precise about the counterfactual to be used for comparison," (OECD Economic Survey, New Zealand, 1999). That means things have been bad but they might have been worse. "The reforms are, on balance, commendable for the application of a broad set of consistent principles and the extent to which announced measures were actually implemented." You might equally congratulate a man jumping off a cliff for his firmness of purpose. Still, like all peddlers of panaceas, the OECD's conclusion is that the patient has not believed strongly enough. "Despite the enormous strides made to date, there is unfinished business as to structural policies," it says. After 15 years, it cannot seriously be argued that more time, or more reform, is needed before benefits emerge. The New Zealand experiment as a test of the claim that government is the source of most economic ills and the withdrawal of government is a solution to them. The New Zealand Treasury adopted that argument with almost obsessive zeal. And it is clear that the experiment failed. The electricity supply disruptions that blacked out much of central Auckland for five weeks in 1998 resulted from a sequence of managerial and technical failures that might
Current account deficits (was The IMF and the Presidential Candidates)
Been meaning to ask this for a while: New Zealand has been running a current account deficit for 27 years. It is now at about 8% of GDP. Sounds dangerous to me, but Treasury and other orthodox economists here (following Friedman) say no need to worry with a floating dollar. Should we worry? Why? Bill Jim Devine wrote: Brad describes Stanley Fischer as saying: --That tax cuts would surely be accompanied by a tightening of monetary policy to try to keep the real GDP growth path unchanged, that such a shift in the policy mix would raise the value of the dollar and increase the U.S. current account deficit. --That no one looking back at the financial crises that hit countries running large current-account deficits in the 1990s and looking at today's value U.S. current account deficit could remain calm at the prospect of policies designed to widen the U.S. current account deficit further. If he's so concerned about the US balance of trade deficit, why isn't he denouncing the Fed's repeated interest-rate hikes that have encouraged the dollar to soar, crowding out US exports? Why is he simply blaming the government? Doesn't he realize that the government has a budget surplus? --That the combination in the U.S. of an extremely low private savings rate and what looks like a relatively high marginal social product of investment seemed to make the argument for budget surpluses much stronger than usual. Where does he get the view that investment has a high social product? is this simply an assumption? or is it the application of Keynesian economics, a reference to the multiplier effects of investment? does government investment in education, science, infrastructure, and/or public health have a similar effect or does Fischer privilege the private sector as the font of all that is good? if so, what evidence does he have for this assertion? --That everyone should listen very closely to the criticisms of the current globalization process offered by Ugandan President Musaveni, one of the true heroes of the 1990s and a man who deserves as much credit as one individual can take for halting Uganda's downward spiral. what does Musaveni say? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -- The content of this message, unless otherwise stated, is provided in my private capacity and does not purport to represent the University of Canterbury.
Re: Re: Current account deficits (was The IMF andthePresidential Candidates)
Jim Devine wrote: At 09:04 AM 9/1/00 +1200, you wrote: Been meaning to ask this for a while: New Zealand has been running a current account deficit for 27 years. It is now at about 8% of GDP. Sounds dangerous to me, but Treasury and other orthodox economists here (following Friedman) say no need to worry with a floating dollar. Should we worry? Why? How high is NZ's external debt relative to its GDP and exports? How high is its interest and other debt-service relative to its exports? External debt - NZ$109.1 billion at 31 March 2000, or 329.4% of Goods and Services exports, or about 105% of GDP, and has been at similar levels for several years. 15% is Official (govt) debt, 85% corporate. Income on investment and debt - on FDI in NZ, year ended 31 Mar 2000 - NZ$5039b, on portfolio and other investment, $2952b, total $7992b. From NZ investment abroad - total income $199m (yes - not an error!). Net investment income on foreign investment -$7791b or about 24% of GS exports. Has it been used to pay for productive investment or boondoggles? Given the growing GS deficit, and the huge spending on imported cars for example, largely boondoggles. Haven't seen any analysis of this question (though this "if" it is always cited as a reason why we can afford to have this persistent deficit). Bill More importantly, has the debt been used to pay for productive investment or for boondoggles? Back in the 19th century, the US ran big trade and current-account deficits but it didn't hurt since most went for productive investment (railroads, etc.) which helped the US make the debt-service payments. These days, the US current account deficit is more serious, since it mostly goes to finance consumer spending, which doesn't help deal with debt service. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -- The content of this message, unless otherwise stated, is provided in my private capacity and does not purport to represent the University of Canterbury.
Re: Current account deficits (was The IMF and the PresidentialCandidates)
Been meaning to ask this for a while: New Zealand has been running a current account deficit for 27 years. It is now at about 8% of GDP. Sounds dangerous to me, but Treasury and other orthodox economists here say no need to worry with a floating dollar. Should we worry? Why? Bill Jim Devine wrote: Brad describes Stanley Fischer as saying: --That tax cuts would surely be accompanied by a tightening of monetary policy to try to keep the real GDP growth path unchanged, that such a shift in the policy mix would raise the value of the dollar and increase the U.S. current account deficit. --That no one looking back at the financial crises that hit countries running large current-account deficits in the 1990s and looking at today's value U.S. current account deficit could remain calm at the prospect of policies designed to widen the U.S. current account deficit further. If he's so concerned about the US balance of trade deficit, why isn't he denouncing the Fed's repeated interest-rate hikes that have encouraged the dollar to soar, crowding out US exports? Why is he simply blaming the government? Doesn't he realize that the government has a budget surplus? --That the combination in the U.S. of an extremely low private savings rate and what looks like a relatively high marginal social product of investment seemed to make the argument for budget surpluses much stronger than usual. Where does he get the view that investment has a high social product? is this simply an assumption? or is it the application of Keynesian economics, a reference to the multiplier effects of investment? does government investment in education, science, infrastructure, and/or public health have a similar effect or does Fischer privilege the private sector as the font of all that is good? if so, what evidence does he have for this assertion? --That everyone should listen very closely to the criticisms of the current globalization process offered by Ugandan President Musaveni, one of the true heroes of the 1990s and a man who deserves as much credit as one individual can take for halting Uganda's downward spiral. what does Musaveni say? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -- The content of this message, unless otherwise stated, is provided in my private capacity and does not purport to represent the University of Canterbury.
Re: Re: Re: Overfishing versus Conservation
Doug Henwood wrote: Bill Rosenberg wrote: Not sure what the story is in Australia, but in New Zealand, a "total allowable catch" is calculated for each fish species, and then converted into property rights - fishing "quota" in tonnes of catch - which can be bought and sold. There are hefty penalties, including forfeiture of fishing vessels, for exceeding quota. Why is this supposed to work any better than just imposing limits without the aftermarket? Doug You know the answer to that Doug: because New Zealand is pure as driven snow when it comes to marketising anything of value. I suppose there is a real issue though as to how you would divide the limited catch in an equitable fashion, and having done that, allow in new entrants and reallocation of quota etc. For what it is worth, I include below how the Ministry of Fisheries describe it on their web site, though I am sure there are more sophisticated justifications. An OR guy here at Canterbury did a lot of the basic work for it back in the 80s. [By the way - I have just put together some MS Word 97/2000 macros that reformat cruddy text into something fit for an email message. Anyone interested, let me know and I'll email it in an attachment, all care no responsibility.] Bill http://www.fish.govt.nz/commercial/quotams.html The Quota Management System (QMS) Input Controls Output Controls How the Quota Management System works Individual Transferable Quota Recreational Fishing The Quota Management System (QMS) The QMS was introduced in 1986. It controls the total commercial catch from all the main fish stocks found within New Zealand's 200 nautical mile EEZ. It was introduced to: * prevent overfishing, which had reached dangerous levels in some inshore fisheries, and with certain species such as snapper, and * improve the economic efficiency of the fishing industry. New Zealand is not the first country to bring in quotas, but it is the first to use them on such a broad scale in a multi- species fishery. Most countries manage fisheries by controlling inputs, such as the number of boats, the size of boats, mesh size of the nets and so on. Input controls The main disadvantage with controlling inputs is that controls on one input can usually be avoided by substituting another input. Overfishing isn't necessarily prevented. For example, a restriction on the number of rock lobster pots allowed could be circumvented by using the pots more often, or a restriction on the size of boats could be circumvented by using faster, more powerful boats. Input controls can actually have a negative effect, by impeding the development of more efficient technology and making the New Zealand fishing industry less competitive. Output controls The approach used with the QMS is to directly limit the total quantity taken by the commercial fishing industry so that there are sufficient fish available for non-commercial uses and for the conservation of the resource. These are known as output controls. (The needs of recreational fishers and Maori interests are allowed for before commercial quota levels are set.) Within the commercial catch limit, access is determined by ownership of quota. Quota is a right to harvest a particular species in a defined area. Quota can be traded (bought, sold, or leased). The QMS is designed to ensure sustainable use of the fisheries resources while allowing economic efficiency in the industry. The quota system is also being used to deal with Maori claims to commercial fisheries. The Government has a responsibility to ensure that 20% of all commercial quota is transfered to the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission in recognition of Maori rights to the commercial fishery. The quota is being distributed to iwi through the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission. How the Quota Management System works Each year the Government decides what quantity of each quota species may be caught. It makes the decision based on information supplied by the Ministry and other interest groups such as the commercial fishing industry, recreational fishers, Maori and conservation groups. Scientists provide biological data, such as the size of the resource and its productivity. They use the concept of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) to work out safe fishing levels. This is the largest average annual catch that can be taken over time without reducing the stock's productive potential. MFish works out risks to the fish stocks of particular catch levels in the future. The quantity of fish that can be taken for each fish stock by both commercial and non-commercial fishers is known as the Total Allowable Catch (TAC). An allowance is then made to provide the recreational fishing and customary Maori uses. The remainder is then made available to the commercial sector as the Total Allowance Commercial Catch (TACC). This is the total quantity of each fish stock that th
Re: Overfishing versus Conservation
Not sure what the story is in Australia, but in New Zealand, a "total allowable catch" is calculated for each fish species, and then converted into property rights - fishing "quota" in tonnes of catch - which can be bought and sold. There are hefty penalties, including forfeiture of fishing vessels, for exceeding quota. Bill Lisa Ian Murray wrote: [Could an Aussie enlighten us on the property rights design on this one?] A Tale of Two Fisheries As New Englanders overfish their way to ruin, Australians have profited by becoming conservationists. By JOHN TIERNEY ... full article at http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/2827mag-fisheries.html
US clarifies stand over Fiji crisis
Original Message Subject: [pasifik_nius] 2928 FIJI: US clarifies stand over Fiji crisis Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:28:07 +1200 From: Journ12 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: Journalism, University of the South Pacific To: Pasifik Nius [EMAIL PROTECTED] Title -- 2928 FIJI: US clarifies stand over Fiji crisis Date -- 26 August 2000 Byline -- Jillian Hicks Origin -- Pasifik Nius Source -- Fiji Sun, 26/8/00 Copyright -- FS Status -- Unabridged --- EMBASSY CLEARS AIR USP Pacific Journalism Online: http://www.usp.ac.fj/journ/ USP Journalism on the Fiji crisis (UTS host): http://www.journalism.uts.edu.au/ USP Pasifik Nius stories on Scoop (NZ): http://www.scoop.co.nz/international.htm Have your say: http://www.TheGuestBook.com/vgbook/109497.gbook SUVA: The United States government has suspended more than $1 million in security and other assistance to Fiji, cancelled a number of ship visits to Suva and banned more than 130 people from entering the US because it did not support the hostage-taking in Parliament, the Fiji Sun reports. The US Embassy in Suva said the US government had taken these actions in strongly condemning the overthrow of the elected People's Coalition government on May 19. The embassy was reacting to a media report which quoted [deposed Prime Minister Mahendra] Chaudhry telling the Times of India that the US Embassy had put indirect pressure on his government and was "pushy" about the American firm Timber resource management (TRM) being awarded the mahogany contract. Chaudhry reportedly said the coup was triggered by his government's decision to award the contract to British government-owned Commonwealth Development Corporation (CDC) over TRM and the game plan was to remove his government. But the embassy said insinuations attributed to Chaudhry regarding the alleged backing of the US government in the attempted May 19 coup was "completely unfounded, untrue and unfortunate". It said Chaudhry should know better than anyone else the straightforward role it played in advocating on behalf of a US company's bid on Fiji's public tender for mahogany resources. The embassy said an important role of all nations' embassies and high commissions was to promote their countries' commercial interests and that it would continue to promote American businesses and commercial interests in the future. "In that regard we helped arrange a meeting between Mr Chaudhry and State Department officials during a visit by Mr Chaudhry to New York," it said. The embassy said it also sponsored an orientation visit to New York of two cabinet ministers and two of Chaudhry's key advisers who met with senior financial experts in Wall Street to discuss how the US bond market would be involved in financial aspects of the US company's bid. It said any notion that the US supported the demise of constitutional democracy in Fiji was ludicrous, pernicious and completely false. +++niuswire This document is for educational and research use only. Recipients should seek permission from the copyright source before reprinting. PASIFIK NIUS service is provided by the niusedita via the Journalism Program, University of the South Pacific. Please acknowledge Pasifik Nius: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.usp.ac.fj/journ/nius/index.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Murray Dobbin on the NZ Miracle
New Zealand has made a habit of practicing what others preach, and then getting
naively offended when others don't. That applies not just to monetarism but to
trade liberalisation, privatisation, marketising society, and so on.
I only skimmed Murray Dobbin's article (if I'm thinking about the same one as
Ken), but he has generally got the right idea and is reasonably well informed on
New Zealand. Apart from a couple of years in the early 90's, New Zealand's
growth has been below OECD average, and so the shrinkage of the 80's has never
been regained.
I quote from an article I wrote for Canadian Dimension (May issue from memory):
Meanwhile economic successes were few and far between. Economist Paul Dalziel
summed up the position in a 1999 analysis ("New Zealand's economic reforms
failed to achieve their ultimate objectives", by Dr Paul Dalziel, Senior
Lecturer in Economics, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand,
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]). He compared New Zealand to its most
similar economy, Australia. Though it also instituted many neo-liberal reforms,
Australia carried them out at a much more measured pace, and retained many more
social underpinnings including a national award system and protection for
collective bargaining.
Rather than exceptional growth, Dalziel found that over the period 1987 to 1998,
New Zealand had "sacrificed a large volume of real per capita GDP". In 1998, per
capital GDP was $25,980. Dalziel estimated that "every New Zealander could have
received an extra $4,806" if growth had been kept up with Australia. Over the
period, $30,000 had been lost per person.
Rather than reduced unemployment, he found that "New Zealand's average
unemployment rate moved from well below that of Australia before 1988 to
comparable values thereafter". New Zealand had had an exceptionally low
unemployment rate since the Second World War: near to zero until the
mid-seventies, and never much above 4% until 1984. It is now above 6% - at least
50% higher than at the beginning of the experiment - with a peak of 10.9% in
1991.
The deregulated labour market, under the 1991 Employment Contracts Act, was
supposed to increase labour productivity. It replaced a system of national
awards with a regime of individual contracts. Membership of trade unions has
declined from 41.5% of the employed workforce in May 1991, to 19.9% in 1996.
Dalziel found that instead of increasing productivity, "since 1992 labour
productivity growth in New Zealand has been considerably below that of that of
Australia", despite similar growth rates in the past.
Lastly, Dalziel documents the increase in inequality and poverty. Half of the
population had lower real incomes in 1995/96 than before the start of the
experiment, and for 40% the loss of income was greater than 3%. The top 10% of
incomes increased during that period by 26%.
Signs of real poverty are everywhere: rapid increases in numbers of food-banks,
reappearance of diseases of poverty such as tuberculosis, children coming to
school hungry, homelessness and overcrowded housing. Other studies have shown
that New Zealand had probably the fastest growing inequality in the OECD during
this period, and that the real incomes of New Zealand's indigenous Maori
population actually fell by one quarter (25%) between 1982 and 1996.
Dalziel might have added that achievement of perhaps the primary stated economic
objective, increased international competitiveness, has also failed. The current
account deficit has now been at crisis levels of about 5% of GDP - rising to 7%
- for almost five years. It is largely fuelled by the high levels of foreign
debt and investment. Foreign debt rose from $16 billion in 1984 (47% of GDP,
almost all government debt) to $102 billion in 1999 (104% of GDP, mainly private
debt). Probably half to two-thirds of the commercial economy is foreign-owned,
and the deficit on investment income exceeds the current account deficit. In
1999 even the balance on goods and services was in deficit.
Bill Rosenberg
Brad De Long wrote:
Shows the advantages to be gained from not practicing what you preach, if
what you preach is a load of BS. Is there any evidence to suggest that the
"Washington Consensus" was NOT a deliberate ploy by the U.S. to gain
macroeconomic advantage by sabotaging the performance of its acolytes?
Brad DeLong wrote,
Good God! Ever since the start of the Clinton Administration the line
has been that if the U.S. needs to be more "classical" that Japan and
Europe and the rest of the OECD need to be more "Keynesian." The
inflation rate needs to be low so that it doesn't really mess up the
resource allocation process, but once inflation gets below 4 percent
per year only fundamentalist ideologues worry about pushing it down
further...
Brad DeLong
--
The content of this message, unless otherwise stated, is provided in my private
capacity and does not purport to represent the University of Canterbury.
Re: ICANN question
The following doesn't quite answer Michael's question, but it justifies his
second concern and raises a few more about commercialisation.
Michael Perelman wrote:
If anybody here following what's going on with ICANN. I have a
question. Suppose I have a web site that the something that ICANN
doesn't like. Can they make it possible for someone to reach my IP
address?
How much of the threat are they to the absolute commercialization of the
Internet?
[attribution]
CPSR-GLOBALhttp://www.egroups.com/list/cpsr-global/info.html
To join, send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To leave the list, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Some back issues and information at
http://www.cpsr.org/lists/global/global.html, the
most up-to-date are on egroups.com.
[snip]
***
CYBER-FEDERALIST No. 3July 28, 2000
WHY ICANN'S ELECTIONS MATTER
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR)
http://www.cpsr.org/internetdemocracy
Internet Democracy Project
http://www.internetdemocracyproject.org/
***
If you haven't yet registered to vote in ICANN's At Large elections, you
have just until Monday (July 31). The web site is slow, but registration
is not impossible.
Go to: http://members.icann.org/join_now.htm
In light of this deadline, it may be useful to remember why participation
is so important.
The recent ICANN meeting in Yokohama gave stark evidence of how Board
representation affects Internet policy. At Yokohama the Board made
important policy decisions over new top-level domain names (to complement
.com, .edu, .org, and others.) The Board set a non-refundable $50,000 fee
for submission of an application to operate a new domain name. This policy
effectively excludes small and non-commercial groups from proposing new
names. But those groups are not represented on the Board, and so could not
voice their perspective there.
The lesson is this: representation shapes policy.
TLDs Matter
===
Industry has long recognized the importance of top-level domain names
(TLDs): being a ".com" company is now a prerequisite for doing e-commerce.
Other groups are also recognizing this: the European Union wants ".eu,"
bankers want ".bank," a U.S. Congressman recently proposed ".sex" for porn
sites. What everybody recognizes is that a top-level domain makes content
visible on the Net. For better or worse, domain names are the road signs
for navigating cyberspace.
Civil society groups (i.e. non-profit and non-governmental organizations)
also have a stake in domain names. Such groups, whether they are
advocating human rights, free speech, culture, or just the local bowling
league, often have high ideals -- but low resources. In general, the
Internet has been a boon to them, providing advanced communication
capabilities at non-profit prices.
So when ICANN made policy to add top-level domain names -- to increase the
road signs in cyberspace, so to speak -- civil society organizations were
interested. TLDs like ".humanrights," ".union," ".critique," or even
".museum" were suggested. Such new domain names could render groups'
issues more accessible to a global public.
Priced Out of Reach
===
Unfortunately, ICANN's policy on new names shattered any such hopes. The
Board set a high price for participation in the name proposal process: a
whopping $50,000. That money doesn't buy you domain name; it just allows
you to submit a proposal.
So don't expect to see even a proposal for a ".humanrights" or ".museum"
anytime soon. The Board priced that possibility out of reach.
The Board's pricing decision was best suited for business interests. The
price is low enough to be affordable ("only" $50,000!) to bid on a business
opportunity worth perhaps billions. Moreover, by putting domain names out
of reach of civil society groups, the high price prevents competing
proposals from non-business groups. That may not have been the intent, but
it is the effect.
So how does this relate to the At Large elections?
Who is on the Board?
Consider who made the decision. Today's ICANN Board is a remarkably
talented and experienced group of people. But conspicuously absent from
most directors' background is affiliation with any organization concerned
with the rights of Internet consumers, with free speech, and with other
civil society concerns.
As the ICANN web site documents, most directors' affiliations are with such
industry and government entities. I list just a few names: BULL,
MCIWorldcom, Dun Bradstreet, European Telecommunications Network
Operators Association, Australian Communications Industry Forum, U.S. Dept.
of Defense/ARPA, Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, European Commission --
the list goes on. (You can see for yourself at:
Re: Re: Re: Re: summary of calculationdebate
Rob Schaap wrote: G'day Bill, Gidday Rob and all Thanks for all the interesting replies to this. I'll briefly follow them up, then tell you where I'm coming from. Re innovation: I agree with all that Rob and others wrote about the source of research and innovation - much comes from public funds (especially in branch economies like Oz and NZ) - but since we started from talking about markets here, that's really my focus on "innovation": getting new products to people (in market terms: getting them "on the market") after they have been invented. It's what Jim talked about - It's also important to bring in the "Austrian" distinction between invention and innovation. Methinks that the really great part of good innovations has been the hard work by scientists and tinkerers _inventing_ new stuff (often done in not-for-profit government or university labs). Innovation refers only to the filtering out of which inventions are _profitable_ to the individual "innovator" (or packaging them to make them profitable). IMHO, there's no reason why the individual _profit motive_ should be the only method to decide which inventions are tried as innovations and which not, as the Austrians would have it. Why not use a democratic method for filtering inventions instead? Does the democratic method work? My observation at work of people democratically (more or less) looking at ways to improve what they do, is that they are reluctant to change more than incrementally - because they want to avoid someone getting hurt. Significant innovations often displace current products; the risks involved (already discussed) tend to be high, and most people are risk-averse. So they are avoided. Or going back to the inventors themselves - the scientists and tinkerers - it's a commonplace that an inventor is frequently not the best person to make and "market" the finished product. Rob gives good reasons why there would still be an interest in innovation in a socialist economy - but I don't see them as dynamic forces, pushing the pace. It seems to me to be part of the failure of the USSR (with no data to back up my assertion!) that it didn't innovate fast enough to compete against the leading capitalist countries. Re practicalities: Some of these products (as Rob points out) are simply far too many variations on a theme, and I what he is relating from Tassie rings many bells with me. But many of these "choices" fill genuine needs - new medicines for each of 1001 new diseases we suffer from, create or discover; gizmos for the kitchen; bits of software for all sorts of applications; clever tools for highly specialised uses; new artistic works; I think to simply write them *all* off as consumerism misses the point of where we (and society) are here and now. To chuck out products just because the planning mechanism can't handle them won't sound like a superior form of economic system to most people. While computers surely make planning far more credible than in the 1920's, I suspect the devil is in the detail - and more often the non-technical detail of putting all this into practice - the negotiation of those social relationships implied by the exchange of products. Why my current interest in this? I've been asked to speak in a month or two (can't quite remember!) to an ex-CP group (now the more-or-less Trotskyist Social Workers Party) in a debate on globalisation. The debate (against a member of the party) is along the lines of: is the movement against globalisation (Seattle etc) anti-capitalist or just anti-corporate? How should it be advanced? They will presumably be saying it needs to become anti-capitalist, internationalist, socialist etc. Well, one of the things I want to say (I'm there to provoke a discussion you understand!) is that the reason that the movement will be largely - and at best - anti-corporate [ie anti big business], is that, while people are increasingly tending to anti-capitalist, they no longer see a socialist (ie non-capitalist) alternative as credible. There is no alternative (to quote Maggie Thatcher in much narrower context) and people won't fight something as big as capitalism unless they have an alternative. Socialism is discredited largely (rightly or wrongly) because of the fall of the USSR and Eastern Europe. It comes down to: what is the alternative to the market? If you tell them: "a planned economy", they will ask where it has worked. The kind of theoretical answers we've seen in the recent discussions on this list won't convince: what empirical evidence people have about those alternatives frightens them to hell rather than attracts them. To convince people that socialism is an alternative, people have to see it as practical - something achievable, that will work, that won't create more problems than it solves. I suspect you're right Rob about a mixed planned/market system (though as the discussions on PEN-L have shown, that is scarcely a straightforward concept either).
FIJI: Civil servants face 12.5% pay cut
Original Message Subject: [pasifik_nius] 2847 FIJI: Civil servants face 12.5% pay cut Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 09:41:39 +1300 From: Journ12 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: Journalism, University of the South Pacific To: Pasifik Nius [EMAIL PROTECTED] Title -- 2847 FIJI: Civil servants face 12.5% pay cut Date -- 20 July 2000 Byline -- None Origin -- Pasifik Nius Source -- Pasifik Nius, USP, 20/7/00 Copyright -- USP Journalism Status -- Unabridged --- CIVIL SERVANTS FACE 12.5% PAY CUT USP Journalism Online: http://www.usp.ac.fj/journ/ USP Journalism on the Fiji crisis (UTS host): http://www.journalism.uts.edu.au/ Have your say: http://www.TheGuestBook.com/vgbook/109497.gbook SUVA: Fiji Islands civil servants may have their pay cut by 12.5 per cent starting next month, the Fiji Times reported today. A Finance Ministry memorandum this week advised the Information Technology Centre which processes salaries, of a 12.5 per cent pay cut across the board from August 1. The move is part of wide-ranging public sector moves to regulate an "unprecedented" 15 per cent contraction in the economy. It affects about 17,000 civil servants, including the disciplined forces, nurses, doctors and teachers. A letter by Anare Jale, secretary to the Public Service, says the impact of the crisis on real gross gross domestic product was "two and a half times worse than in 1987", when then Lieutenant-Colonel Sitiveni Rabuka staged his two coups. "The effect of the crisis will be felt in all areas of the economy and 7000 jobs have already been lost, with predictions of as high as 20,000 if certain scenarios are realised," he was quoted by the Fiji Times as saying. Last night, public sector union officials were disappointed with the pay cut directive, saying they were under the impression that negotiations were still underway. The Fiji Times appealed in an editorial today for the interim president and prime minister not to cave in to demands by the rebels led by George Speight who yesterday left Parliament and set up camp in Kalabu Fijian School near Suva. The rebels burned vehicles, damaged the parliamentary chambers and trashed the compound in retaliation to the cabinet swearing-in ceremony, which was called off. The rebels were angry that just two of Speight's key supporters were named in the cabinet line-up - both as assistant ministers. The Fiji Times said interim President Ratu Josefa Iloilo, Vice-President Ratu Jope Seniloli and Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase now faced their first big test over Speight's further demands about cabinet representation. "The people expect their leaders to lead and demonstrate, by their actions, true leadership. After all, the leaders are the ones who have been chosen to run the country," the paper said. "Now is not the time for our leaders to shirk their responsibilities and cave in." Qarase reportedly refused to formally meet Speight face-to-face in a brief encounter, saying that a meeting "in the same room is against my principles". Meanwhile, officials said Constitution Day on July 24 would still be celebrated as a public holiday in spite of the the 1997 constitution having been abrogated after the May 19 insurrection. +++niuswire This document is for educational and research use only. Recipients should seek permission from the copyright source before reprinting. PASIFIK NIUS service is provided by the niusedita via the Journalism Program, University of the South Pacific. Please acknowledge Pasifik Nius: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.usp.ac.fj/journ/nius/index.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: summary of calculationdebate
Two things strike me: changes in the economy, and practicalities. Changes in the economy: how does a centrally planned system introduce/allow to be introduced innovative industries? Innovation tends to be high risk - can't be sure about inputs until some experience is accumulated; and can't be sure of people buying the product. It would seem likely that a planned economy would find it difficult to not only accomodate but encourage such behaviour. Practicalities: with literally hundreds of thousands (millions?) of different products, how are all those prices conveyed to those who need them, in good time; how are they negotiated with those affected (I am sure in practice it is not a simply technical exercise: if reductions are indicated, the producer will argue; if increases are indicated the buyer will argue); how are they enforced? At times of crisis (such as war, dire poverty, revolution), such things will be more easily accepted. What about in good times? Rob seems to be suggesting we should focus planning on a subset of critical products: i.e. a mixed planned and market economy? That reduces the size of the problem, but probably intensifies some of the problems above, doesn't it? Bill Michael Perelman wrote: Excellent, Rob. Rob Schaap wrote: G'day Michael, You write: The only advantage that the entrepeneur has over the planner is that there are a lot of them rather than a single planner. Well, that, according to the price-mechanism theorists is one of two decisive differences. The other being to do with the nature of motivation for entrepreneurial activity. You are correct. The former could be addressed via some sort of decentralisation of economic power (the 'infantile' left communists had suggestions to make about this - if memory serves, Labour Commissar Shliapnikov wanted sectorally based economic management, based on the relevant trades unions - and Trotsky's wistful observation that the system of soviets was too underdeveloped at the time of the revolution includes some reference to such a system's potential for sectorally diversified management - incidentally, Again, correct. What we have to remember, as many of you have, is that we're not pursuing the optimality Mises and Hayek saw immanent in their precious price-mechanism. We don't see any evidence at all that it is anything like optimality in it, and shouldn't allow ourselves to be bullied into trying to concoct a system to match the system they claim exists. Exactly. I tried to make this point in a new book, Transcending the Economy. The bar is not set that high at all, in our benighted reality (to which Pen-pals are making too few references, for mine), and we shouldn't be afraid of a few Campari shortages if we can convincingly show ways of getting more grain to more Sierra Leoniam stomachs, more AZT to more Zambian bloodstreams, and more useful employment to more of Flint's unemployed. I mean, when you take a five-second peek at the world, the priorities have a way of disclosing themselves rather starkly, no? As for the danger of dictatorial nomenklatura; there too our current system does not offer any real alternative - they're just hidden behind tendentious definitions of freedom and democracy, is all. Let's change our point of view to thinkable structures and mechanisms to fix a few things that press today, rather than (as perhaps we're inclined to do as our particular and enviable beings mess around with our consciousnesses) build these castles in the air. Cheers, Rob. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: new zealand
Michael Yates wrote: Not long ago, on one of these lists, there was a post about the rejuvenation of the NZ Labor Party and the reversal of some of the anti-labor policies of previous Labor and National governments. Can anyone in the know on these matters comment? Has the NZ Labor Party really moved left? Have the unions gone along? Michael Yates The short answer is that yes, the NZ Labour Party has moved somewhat to the left, forced in part by its need to form a coalition with the more-left Alliance Party, and its reliance on the further-left Greens. Labour is still the dominant force in the coalition but has to a substantial extent renounced its extreme neo-liberalism of the 1980's and early 90's. However (cold shivers down spine) it talks about its programme being "Third Way" and Labour leader and Prime Minister Helen Clark attended the recent meeting of "Third Way" leaders including Blair and Clinton in Germany. Nonetheless it has moved rapidly to reverse the privatisation of workers' compensation, introduce more union-friendly labour legislation (including restoring recognition of unions, the right to strike for multi-employer contracts, right to join collectives etc), and to increase the highest tax rate and the minimum wage among a rush of other actions. Worryingly the labour legislation (which in historical terms is very mild - the right to strike does not exist before the expiry of a contract, except on grounds of health and safety, for example) has been delayed because of a ferocious employer campaign against it and the workers' compensation reversal. Union - and opinion poll - support for the government is still very strong, but its honeymoon is now over and the next few months will tell whether it continues on its mildly reformist centre left path or becomes paralysed with fear. It is highly susceptible to capital flight, which is already occurring, due to the huge overseas debt and current account deficit. Its recent budget made some small positive steps away from the social stringency of the previous government, but it is tied rigidly to budget surpluses and "no new taxes" other than the one already enacted. I have written about this in an article for the May issue of Canadian Dimension (just out) but can provide a copy to interested non-Canadians. It is naturally already a little dated. If you want to read more about the proposed labour legislation, the Employment Relations Bill, have a look at the CTU site http://www.ctu.org.nz/ or go to http://library.psa.org.nz/collection/ctu/index.asp for a collection of papers - the ones by Hughes, Wilson and Conway are the most worth reading. (The CTU - Council of Trade Unions - has a new lease of life too, with an almost completely new leadership.) Bill Rosenberg -- The content of this message, unless otherwise stated, is provided in my private capacity and does not purport to represent the University of Canterbury.
[Fwd: [pasifik_nius] 2765 FIJI: Fiji unions hit back at Aussiebusinessman]
Original Message Subject: [pasifik_nius] 2765 FIJI: Fiji unions hit back at Aussie businessman Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 19:13:08 +1300 From: Journ12 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: Journalism, University of the South Pacific To: Pasifik Nius [EMAIL PROTECTED] Title -- 2765 FIJI: Fiji unions hit back at Aussie businessman Date -- 7 June 2000 Byline -- Joe Yaya and Phil Thornton Origin -- Pacific Media Watch Source -- Pasifik Nius, 7/6/00 Copyright -- Pasifik Nius Status -- Unabridged --- FIJI UNIONS HIT BACK AT AUSSIE BUSINESSMAN See updates and pictures: http://www.journalism.uts.edu.au/ and: http://www.lookinglassdesign.com/wansolwara/wansol.html Have your say: http://www.TheGuestBook.com/vgbook/109497.gbook By Joe Yaya and Phil Thornton © USP Journalism Programme SUVA: Suva's deputy mayor and national assistant secretary of the Fiji Trades Union Congress (FTUC), Diwan Shankar, today slammed Australian businessman Mark Halabe for statements he made in The Australian newspaper just five days after the coup. Halabe was quoted in the paper as saying that the end of the Chaudhry government would benefit Fiji economically. A furious Shankar told Pacific Journalism Online that Halabe's comments were "insensitive" and "inappropriate" considering Chaudhry was still held captive. He also said the FTUC was considering asking international consumer groups to organise boycotts of Halabe's products. "I'm surprised at these comments from an Australian who's enjoyed Fiji tax concessions for 13 years," Shankar said. "This is the same man who recently accompanied Mahendra Chaudhry to Australia to gain concessions for his industry yet just days later while Chaudhry is a hostage, he's meeting with his captors and publicly saying it's good for business." Shankar said it was ironic that Halabe as an Australian was telling Fijians who should be Prime Minister. "Why doesn't he manufacture in Australia --- he's here because he's got an unlimited supply of cheap labour," said Shankar. The trade union leader said that if business people don't like what democracy delivers they should realise that you can't change it with guns. In reply to these accusations, Halabe told Pacific Journalism Online that he regretted having said this to the Australian media. "It is unfortunate that it was reported in the media. I regret it very much," he said. Halabe commended Chaudhry as a "hard working prime minister, focused on getting Fiji moving on into the future." As president of the Fiji-Australian Business Council, Halabe added that it was sometimes frustrating for council members and him to accept some of the policies of the Chaudhry administration. "For instance, the loss of the tax-free status, the rice-quota system, the rearrangement of work permits, the banking review to implement bank charges, the Credit Act that was supposed to be changed but wasn't," he said. "It's been very very hard for the government to change it's mind once it made a decision on changes to policies." Meanwhile, job losses that have hit the country have been in the hotel industry, garment industry and the sugar industry. The European Union in a message conveyed to the commander of the interim military government warned that it would stop buying sugar from Fiji if rebel leader George Speight or any of his members were included in a new civilian government. Fifty per cent of the sugar produced in Fiji is sold to the European market, amounting to two-thirds of the gross sugar revenue of about $FJ200 million. If the sanction on buying Fiji sugar goes ahead, it would directly affect around 200,000 people who depend entirely on the industry for their livelihood. +++niuswire This document is for educational and research use only. Recipients should seek permission from the copyright source before reprinting. PASIFIK NIUS service is provided by the niusedita via the Journalism Program, University of the South Pacific. Please acknowledge Pasifik Nius: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.usp.ac.fj/journ/nius/index.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tariffs with foreign investment
I recently came across a paper on the WTO web site (of all places: see http://www.wto.org/wto/research/wpaps.htm) whose abstract appears below. I requested and recently received a copy of the full paper. The mathematics of the paper is well beyond my economic theory, but what I read it as saying is that if a trade surplus is more than negated by income to foreign-owned factors (as it is in New Zealand) then tariff reductions are immiserising (optimal tariffs are positive); and similarly when foreign investment increases trade to the country. Such effects are not unexpected given capital mobility, but I haven't seen it spelt out before in this way. Mind you I'm always skeptical about such models... Any views on this line of argument? Anyone know if it is more fully developed anywhere in recent times? What would the true believers in free trade respond? Bill Rosenberg Tariff Reforms Under Foreign Factor Ownership No: ERAD-97-01 Marcelo Olarreaga World Trade Organization, and Geneva University February 1997 Keywords: Foreign-Owned Factors, Trade-Promoting, Trade-Substituting, Trade Pattern-Differential JEL codes: F11, F13, F21 Abstract: In the presence of foreign factor ownership, the traditional welfare effects of tariff reforms have to be reconsidered to include income redistribution between national and foreign-owned factors. Bhagwati and Brecher (1980) showed that when the relative amount of foreign-owned factors in the host country is sufficiently large as to induce a change in the direction of the trade pattern, immiserising tariff reductions may occur. Here it is shown that in the mirror case when foreign-owned factors tend to promote the existing trade pattern (i.e. trade-promoting), similar results can be obtained. On the other hand, when foreign factors are trade-substituting, tariff reductions cannot be immiserising. Extending the analysis to the case of trade-diverting Free Trade Areas, it is shown that national welfare may improve if foreign factors are trade-substituting.
[Fwd: [pasifik_nius] 2750 FIJI: Commentary: Wandering between twoworlds]
Original Message Subject: [pasifik_nius] 2750 FIJI: Commentary: Wandering between two worlds Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 12:54:55 +1300 From: Journ12 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: Journalism, University of the South Pacific To: Pasifik Nius [EMAIL PROTECTED] Title -- 2750 FIJI: Commentary: Wandering between two worlds Date -- 2 June 2000 Byline -- Brij Lal Origin -- Pasifik Nius Source -- Pasifik Nius, 2/6/00 Copyright -- Pasifik Nius Status -- Unabridged --- WANDERING BETWEEN TWO WORLDS See updates and pictures: http://www.usp.ac.fj/journ/ (temporarily offline) By Brij V. Lal The promises have gone Gone, gone, and they were here just now WS Merwin The abrogation of Fijis 1997 constitution has saddened me immensely. Part of the reason is personal. As a member of the three-man Fiji Constitution Review Commission, I had a small hand in devising it. Our report was a comprehensive document based upon the most extensive consultation in Fiji, a close first-hand examination of the constitutional arrangements of jurisdictions with problems somewhat similar to Fijis, and expert advice drawn from the South Pacific region and international experts in Europe and North America. The constitution, based on our report, was unanimously approved by an ethnic-Fijian dominated parliament and blessed by the Great Council of Chiefs. Now it lies tattered in the dustbin of Fijian history. I feel deeply sorry for the ordinary people of Fiji as well who will have to pick up the pieces from the wreckage of the last twelve days and start all over again. The task of re-construction will not be easy. The fabric of multiculturalism and harmonious race relations has been severely strained. The philosophy of multi-ethnic cooperation on the basis of equal citizenship has been discarded. The economy, which was beginning to show signs of recovery after years of stagnation, is hobbled. However you look at it, the hostage crisis is a huge disaster for Fiji. Fiji has failed the ultimate test of democracy: to survive a change of government. We now know what havoc a gang of armed thugs can wreak. George Speight, front man for an assortment of interests, has achieved virtually everything he wanted. The Peoples Coalition government headed by Mahendra Chaudhry is out of power. The President, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, has been forced, however gently, to vacate his office. The constitution is out, and Mr Speight and the seven men who hijacked parliament and held Prime Minister hostage, have received amnesty. Mr Speight, volatile, dangerously delusional, the self-appointed saviour of the indigenous Fijian race, even though he himself is half-indigenous, is savouring his gains and asking for a place at the countrys political table. There will be more Speights in Fiji in the future and, one fears, in other South Pacific states as well coping with the collapse of law and order and imported conventions of governance. There are other casualties of this crisis as well. Among them is the Great Council of Chiefs. Sadly, they stand today a diminished body of dithering men and women, confused, partisan, manipulable, unable to exercise their much sought after -- and much hoped for -- role as the custodians not only of indigenous Fijian but Fijis broad national interests as well. They listened to Speights pleas for Fijian paramountcy, but there was no place in their deliberations for the voice of a multi-ethnic democracy and the defence of a constitution which they themselves had blessed just three years ago. They have showed themselves to be the chiefs of the Fijian people only, not chiefs of Fiji. Fijis much praised military forces, too, have had their reputation tarnished. They vacillated while the country burned. Why, it will be asked for some time yet, did they not intervene earlier, and more decisively, to prevent a catastrophe they knew well was coming. Allegations of complicity cannot be dismissed and, one hopes, would be investigated by an impartial body. Be that as it may, there is no doubt now that the military is deeply divided, its ranks infected by the deadly virus of provincialism. Had the crisis gone on longer, and regional and personal loyalties to chiefs and vanua (land, place of birth) tested, it is not too far-fetched to say that the army would have fragmented into separate provincial militia. In view of its lacklustre performance in protecting the security of the state, and its blatantly partisan and racially exclusive character, the people of Fiji may well ask whether Fiji should have an army at all. If that is not countenanced, then it will be in the interests of the indigenous Fijian people themselves to have more and more non-Fijians enter its ranks to diffuse provincial tensions. Keeping the status quo is a recipe for disaster. This crisis, everyone now knows, was more about the re-structuring of power in indigenous Fijian society than it was about race. It was also in some sense
[Fwd: 2736 POLITICS: Chaudhry government did not fail Fijians: Rabuka]
Interesting background to the Fiji attempted coup. Bill Original Message Subject: 2736 POLITICS: Chaudhry government did not fail Fijians: Rabuka Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 12:29:09 +1300 From: Journ12 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: Journalism, University of the South Pacific To: Pasifik Nius [EMAIL PROTECTED] Title -- 2736 POLITICS: Chaudhry government did not fail Fijians: Rabuka Date -- 24 May 2000 Byline -- David Robie Origin -- Pasifik Nius Source -- USP Journalism Programme, 24/5/00 Copyright -- USP Journalism Programme Status -- Unabridged --- CHAUDRY GOVERNMENT DID NOT FAIL FIJIANS: RABUKA See updates and new pictures: http://www.usp.ac.fj/journ/ by David Robie USP journalism programme SUVA: Great Council of Chiefs chairman Sitiveni Rabuka says he believes Fiji's Mahendra Chaudhry government held hostage by rebel gunmen has not failed indigenous Fijians. He admitted this in a media conference called last night to announce the decision of the council to support the President's steps to return Fiji to constitutional rule. The council meets again today to consider demands by rebel leader George Speight and details of President Ratu Kamisese Mara's plan to end the five-day-old hostage crisis. Badgered by reporters questioning Rabuka about claims that he had said the government of Chaudhry, the Pacific country's first Indo-Fijian prime minister, had not served Fijians well, he denied this. When pressed further, he said that not much more could be expected in the first year of the Fiji Labour Party-led multiracial coalition government. As he stood up to leave, he added strongly: "I don't think it has failed indigenous Fijians." Chaudhry was detained by Rabuka's troops in the first coup on 14 May 1987 when he was finance minister in Dr Timoci Bavadra's deposed Labour-led government. Ironically, Fiji's Sunday Times published a two-day interview with Chaudhry assessing his first year in office two days after the prime minister and his government had been seized at gunpoint in Parliament. Headlined "Reducing poverty is our poriority," Chaudhry told the newspaper that his government was "making good on its promise to alleviate poverty" and that most Fiji Islanders had "faith" in his government. Outlining his government's achievements, which political observers compare favourably with the seven-year rule of the post-coup elected Rabuka government, Chaudhry cited: * A reduction in the price of basic food items by removing customs duty and value added tax on such food. * A reduction in charges for basic utility services, such as electricity and water. * Introducing a micro-finance scheme which makes it possible for poor people and those on lower incomes to be able to access loan finance to begin small ventures and become economically independent. * Assistance for women to become economically independent (mainly through the micro finance scheme). * Boosting budget assistance for education, health and welfare programmes. * Agricultural development in depressed rural areas. "[Alleviating poverty] has been our first priority and, of course, at the same time we have been active in taking initiatives and promoting measures to attract investment to promote economic growth," Chaudhry said. "Overall we achieved an economic growth in 1999 of around 7.5 per cent which is quite remarkable," Chaudhry told the paper. Asked about the land tenure issue, he replied: "Why [has Rabuka's] Soqosoqo ni Vakavulewa ni Taukei party (SVT) not resolved this problem while they were in power for seven years?" "Because they found that it was not an easy thing and there should be a balanced approach to it. "So they are accusing my government of not giving in to the Native Lands Trust Board (NLTB). But our reasons for saying ALTA [Agriculture Landlord and Tenant Act] should be retained are borne out by two independent reports which the SVT government had itself commissioned. "We have hardly been in government for 12 months and they want us to do what they did not do in seven years." * Meanwhile, as international condemnation of the armed civilian takeover of Parliament continued, New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark ruled out military intervention. But Deputy Prime Minister Jim Anderton called for a New Zealand ban on any Fiji Islander involved in the insurrection. He also said he wanted an examination of any bank accounts held in New Zealand by any of the perpetrators and for "Pinochet-style" prosecutions in New Zealand against those accused of human rights violations. +++niuswire This document is for educational and research use only. Recipients should seek permission from the copyright source before reprinting. PASIFIK NIUS service is provided by the niusedita via the Journalism Program, University of the South Pacific. Please acknowledge Pasifik Nius: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.usp.ac.fj/journ/nius/index.html
[Fwd: FIJI: WEB NEWS ON 'COUP' - 21.05.00]
For anyone wanting to get up to the hour news on the tragic turn of events in Fiji - the current attempt to overthrow the progressive government there - the following web sites are worth a look. Bill Rosenberg Original Message Subject: FIJI: WEB NEWS ON 'COUP' - 21.05.00 Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 12:20:54 +1000 From: BUSHFIRE MEDIA [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- !! MEDIA FREEDOM ALERT FROM PACIFIC MEDIA WATCH !! -- 21.05.00: The internet has reinforced its crucial role in bypassing blockages in media communication and telecommunications by allowing some email and websites to produce news updates on the coup attempt. Best Fiji Web Sites for information on the insurrection: http://www.usp.ac.fj/journ/ - Reporting from USP's Journalism students. http://www.fijilive.com - Breaking news from 'The Review' journos - HAS BEEN OUT OF ACTION. http://businessnews.com.fj - ALTERNATE SITE FOR FIJILIVE! http://rugby.com.fj/coup/ - ANOTHER ALTERNATE FOR FIJILIVE!!! http://fijivillage.com/ - Web site linked to FM96 and 'Fiji Times'. Media Freedom Alert 21.05.00 Peter Cronau, Co-Convenor PACIFIC MEDIA WATCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- !! MEDIA FREEDOM ALERT FROM PACIFIC MEDIA WATCH !! -- PACIFIC MEDIA WATCH is an independent, non-profit, non-government organisation comprising journalists, lawyers, editors and other media workers, dedicated to examining issues of ethics, accountability, censorship, media freedom and media ownership in the Pacific region. Launched in October 1996, it has links with the Journalism Program at the University of the South Pacific, Bushfire Media in Sydney, and Pactok Communications, in Sydney and Port Moresby. (c)1996-2000 Copyright - All rights reserved. Please copy appeals to PMW and acknowledge source. E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax: (+679) 30 5779 or (+612) 9660 1804 Mail: PO Box 9, Annandale, NSW 2038, Australia or, c/o Journalism, PO Box 1168, Suva, Fiji ** WATCH FOR PMW'S NEW WEB SITE LAUNCH ON 1 JUNE 2000 **
Help please: Currency union
Pressure here in New Zealand to abandon the NZ$ in favour of either the Australian or US dollar is increasing. A Parliamentary select committee will in the next few months hold an inquiry into the "Closer Economic Relations" free trade/investment area with Australia, with a view to expanding it (either in its coverage or geographically). One of the issues on the agenda is the currency. Could anyone refer me to worthwhile papers that analysed the potential effects of the single European currency? Thanks Bill Rosenberg
Re: Re: Re: Query on Small Farmers
Food First have a number of publications on small farms (not sure of the size of the farmers!) at http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/index.html Bill Rosenberg Michael Perelman wrote: I am in a rush now and cannot answer in detail. Most of the production comes from fairly large farms, which probably is owned by a farmer. Corporatations however impose ever more stringent contracts on farmers, so that many, if not most, become more like franchise owners than outright owners. Louis Proyect wrote: Check out the Monthly Review special issue on agriculture from a couple of years ago. There is a tremendous article by Richard Lewontin that not only makes the case that most farming is done by self-employed family farmers, but has the statistics to back up his argument. At 02:30 PM 3/28/00 -0600, you wrote: Does anyone have any good figures on the farm population of the United States? How many "small farmers" are left -- not counting those whose primary family income is from regular off-farm employment. Also, I'm not sure how to define "small farmer." Does this category add up to a politically significant sector of the population any longer? Carrol Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org) -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Health care
I can't speak for Australia, but the two-tier system in New Zealand has a number of effects: - it reduces political pressure from the rich (and influential) to improve the public health system because they use the private one to jump the queues - the private hospitals cherry-pick the cheap procedures, leaving the public health system to provide the expensive procedures and facilities like accident and emergency departments. That is a hidden subsidy: when an operation in a private hospital goes wrong, the patient gets rushed to a public hospital with full facilities. - it provides a lobby group that puts on constant pressure for further contracting-out or privatisation. The picture here is not too different from what Walkom describes in Australia, including a single agency that buys pharmaceuticals. Bill Rod Hay wrote: This article appeared in today's Toronto Star. Tom Walkom is one of Canada's foremost left wing journalists and an old grad school buddy of mine. I think that it widens the area of recent discussion of health care. Any one in Australia who could add their prespective to the discussion? Rod Condition critical: Where two-tier hospitals are failing By Thomas Walkom Toronto Star National Affairs Writer BRISBANE, Australia - When free-market critics of Canada's struggling medicare system start to talk of reform, they look to countries like Australia. Canadians, they say, have become wedded to a system that no other major country has, one in which core medical care is funded by a government monopoly. William Orovan, head of the Ontario Medical Association, made the case a little over a year ago. Why not take a lesson from the rest of the world, he asked them, and allow private hospitals and other forms of private medicine to exist alongside medicare? Sure, the result would be two-tier. But letting those who can afford it pay extra for health services would reduce medicare waiting lists and take pressure off the public system. And while many Canadians fear that the re-introduction of private medicine would lead inexorably to the horrors of the U.S. system, critics say that's fear-mongering. ``My only fear is that we will not make progress because we're afraid of an American-style two-tier or multi-tier system,'' Orovan said. ``There are many countries in the world, like Australia and New Zealand, who do things differently.'' In Alberta, Premier Ralph Klein is forging ahead with private medicine. In Ontario, Premier Mike Harris is sympathetic. If governments aren't willing to put more public money into basic health, he said last month, the only sensible alternative is to tap the private sector. Would that really be the end of the world? To try and answer these questions, The Star took a close look at the Australian medicare system. It's a system much like Canada's - in fact, it was modelled on ours. But unlike this country, Australia allows - even encourages - private hospitals and insurers to operate alongside the public system. If Canada were to add a private tier to its health care system, along the lines suggested by the OMA or the Reform Party, it would probably end up with one almost identical to Australia's. In Australia, every resident may use the public medicare system where all, or nearly all, the costs are picked up by the government. But those who wish can also pay extra to be treated privately. They can avoid long waiting lists by using private hospitals (about one-third of Australia's 1,100 acute care hospitals are private). And they can buy private health insurance - not just for ancillary services like dental care, as in Canada, but full-blown medical insurance that will cover them for anything, including procedures as complex as brain surgery. During a month in Australia, I talked to nurses, doctors, politicians, health experts and just plain patients. I visited crowded public hospitals which, like their Canadian counterparts, are trying to cope with years of government cutbacks. And I toured private hospitals so spanking new, they seemed four-star hotels. What I found was not an unalloyed horror story. Two-tier medicine has not destroyed Australia's public medicare system, at least not yet. Australia is not the U.S., where only the well-to-do get good care and the middle classes have to scramble. But at the same time, private medicine has not been without cost. By diverting resources, it has weakened the public system - some say fatally. Certainly, it has not produced the benefits claimed by its Canadian adherents. In particular: It has not eased pressure on the public system; in fact, it has made waiting lists in the public hospitals longer. It has not saved money. Hospital privatization schemes, along the lines suggested by
Re: Privatisation critiques
I would be interested in seeing the answers to Patrick's questions so replies on-list would be appreciated! Patrick - Eugene Coyle's recent paper on the electricity industry (which actually has wider implications) is well worth a look. Re Stiglitz, I have a PDF copy of his paper, "Whither Reform? Ten years of the transition" prepared for the Annual Bank Conference on Development Economics, Washington, D.C., April 28-30, 1999, which covers privatisation amongst other things. Not Washington Consensus stuff, and some telling points, but still very market-oriented. Similarly I have an electronic copy of his "The World Bank at the Millennium" (Economic J, Nov 99), from which this quote: "While the development strategies of the last twenty years have focused on market-based reforms, they have often failed to establish the institutional infrastructure required to make markets work. Economic theory emphasized that to make markets work, both the competition and the incentives provided by private property are necessary. The emphasis on one over the other was not based on any body of theory or evidence. The contrast between the experiences of China and Russia has raised questions about the reform strategy emphasizing privatization over competition: China focused on competition, and saw its per capita GDP increase almost eight-fold in two dec-ades; Russia ignored competition policy, and, even after privatizations and other reforms that were supposed to improve efficiency, saw its output decline markedly. Moreover, privatizations in many countries that did not accompany those changes with effective regulatory and competition policies showed that while private monopolies could more efficiently exploit consumers than could the pub-lic monopolies they were replacing, privatization did not necessarily lead to either lower prices or much greater market access." Many of his articles are still at the World Bank site under http://www.worldbank.org/knowledge/chiefecon/ but it is no longer in their index as far as I can see and presumably won't last there for long! A look at http://www.psiru.org/ or http://www.btinternet.com/~ipspr/index.htm (Public Services International Research Unit) is probably worthwhile. Bill Patrick Bond wrote: Hi comrades, who has the very latest material against privatisation? Has anyone read the Stiglitz distinction between Russia and China enterprise restructuring? Has anyone been delving into related ESOP literature recently? This is real for South Africans, now debating this... so please let me know offlist if you can help out! Yours, Patrick Patrick Bond email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * phone: 2711-614-8088 home: 51 Somerset Road, Kensington 2094 South Africa work: University of the Witwatersrand Graduate School of Public and Development Management PO Box 601, Wits 2050, South Africa email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 2711-488-5917 * fax: 2711-484-2729
Another Mike Moore story
A tale of WTO Director-General Mike Moore from his past in the neo-liberal New Zealand Labour government 1984-1990: Background: the Mr Skelton is respected Judge Peter Skelton, who recently retired as head of New Zealand's Environment Court. The Tourist Hotel Corporation was then a government-owned tourist hotel operator (later privatised by that government), and Queenstown is one of New Zealand's prime tourist resorts, situated beside a large mountain lake. From: The Press, Christchurch, New Zealand, "Former judge ruffled feathers", by Michael Rentoul, 13 March 2000, http://www.press.co.nz/2000/11/000313p02.htm Mr Skelton fell foul of the Labour Government in the mid-1980s when he declined development plans by the Tourist Hotel Corporation in Queenstown. Mike Moore, then Tourism Minister, was "pretty abusive," he says. "He accused me of sitting on my piles." Mr Moore had said that as a member of a judicial appointments committee he would make sure such a judge did not take office again. Mr Skelton said he asked the Solicitor-General to take action for contempt of court. While unsuccessful in that regard, the Attorney-General, Geoffrey Palmer, had taken the outspoken Tourism Minister aside for a "quiet word". Bill Rosenberg
Re: Ritualistic chantings,the stock market,and the right to privacy
Not really what Eric asked for, but a delightful example of business ethics appeared in the London "Times" in February. The following letter to the Times quotes the essential part. (Stagecoach is a UK-based transnational transport firm with holdings in Sweden, Eastern Europe, Africa, China, New Zealand, and recently the US. It has a particularly unsavoury ethical and industrial record.) Bill Rosenberg Sir, In his report on Stagecoach, Fraser Nelson (Business February 17) quotes the chairman Brian Souter as saying: "If we were to apply the values of the Sermon on the Mount to our business, we would be rooked within six months. Ethics are not irrelevant, but some are incompatible with what we have to do because capitalism is based on greed. We call it a dichotomy, not hypocrisy." This must be a classic of its kind, and represents the ultimate rationalisation of what Cicero meant when he said, over 2,000 years ago, long before the Sermon on the Mount, that "It is the error of men who are not strictly upright to seize upon something that seems to be expedient and straight away to dissociate it from the question of moral right." Yours sincerely, G.S. Guest. Eric Nilsson wrote: I'm looking for readings for an undergraduate course about the link between the social market and social norms about acceptable business behavior in the USA. For instance, I'm interested in analyses of how the change between #1 and #2 occurred: 1) layoffs by businesses during good economic times in the USA where very difficult to justify in the "court of public opinion" (before 1980) 2) layoffs by businesses during good economic times can be socially justified by the ritualistic chanting by the business of "the stock market requires we boost profitability (in the 1990s). Of course social norms about layoffs are only one of many that have changed. Also, is there anything on current tensions about changing social norms for business behavior? For instance, social norms about business's invasion of individuals' right to privacy on the Internet are not a site of conflict. For instance, DoubleClick recently had to back off on their plans to merge various databases holding information about individuals not because it was illegal but because of "public outcry": this behavior violated social norms. However, I would bet that in 20 years this "public outcry" will have become a faint sound as social standards against invasions of privacy by businesses fade away. Is there anything written on this sort of process? Thanks for any help. Eric Nilsson
Re: Re: throat singing
There's a book about Feynman's visit to Tuva by Ralph Leighton, "Tuva or Bust". I've got it but have never read it. I couldn't remember its name and author so did a web search. All and more is explained about Feynman and Tuva at http://www.scs-intl.com/traderindex.html. Can't vouch for its political line though! Stuff there also about Pena, including videos and CDs for sale. Extraordinary what web sites people have... Bill Mathew Forstater wrote: There is a documentary about the physicist Richard Feynman mentioned in Mike's post with a considerable amount devoted to his interest in the Tuvans and the Tuvan form of singing. It wasn't clear from Mike's post, but I believe that Feynman's interest--almost obsession--with Tuva began with the singing. Feynman has a few memoirs and I would be surprised if this wasn't covered by him somewhere. If memory serves me correctly, Feynman had a pretty harsh anti-Soviet slant resulting from his experience relating to Tuva and the Tuvans. Mat -Original Message- From: Michael Yates [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, March 03, 2000 9:57 PM Subject: [PEN-L:16844] throat singing I just saw a fine film, "Genghis Blues," about the remarkable experiences of blues singer and musician, Paul Pena. A native of the Cape Verde Islands (formerly a Portuguese colony and now part of Guinea-Bissau), Pena played with many jazz and blues greats and composed many songs. He is blind and at the film's beginning he is living in San Francisco and not doing particularly well. His wife has died and he has just come out of a long period of depression. He has bought a short wave radio and listens to broadcasts from around the world. One day he hears on Radio Moscow some unbelievable singing. It is the harmonic or throatsinging of singers from Tuva, a land north of Mongolia. ( I remember the beautiful diamond-shaped stamps of the republic of Tannu Tuva I lusted after when I was a boy). Tuva became part of the USSR during WW2. One of Genghis Khan's greatest generals was a Tuvan. Under the Soviets, the Tuvans were not allowed to use their language, and many Russians settled there. It is the size of North Dakota, and many people there are nomadic sheepherders and horsemen. The land is extraordinarily varied and has temperatures ranging from 100 degrees F to many degrees below zero. Tuvan singers have learned to sing in their throats in such a way as to produce more than one note at the same time. You have to hear it to believe it. Remarkably, Pena is so taken with the singing that he tracks a tape down in a record store, and he learns to do it himself. Using a braille device he also begins to learn Tuvan, translating letter by letter from Tuvan to Russian to English. Through a fantasitc set of circumstances, involving the Nobel physicist, Richard Feynman (who decided to go to Tuva as his last adventure and helped to establish a Tuvan-US friendship association), Tuvan singers come to San Francisco. Pena goes and astonishes the Tuvans by throatsinging for them. They insist that he come to Tuva for a great throatsinging contest. Others get involved and it is decided that a crew will go to make a film about his visit. The trip to Tuva is an adventure, but Pena's relationship with the Tuvans is the main theme of the movie. I don't want to give it away, but I was moved to tears. What was so awful was the horror of his life in the USA compared to the beauty of his life in Tuva. To the Tuvans he was not some poor blind black man, making his way down some shaby street to the corner store, but a hero, a truly wonderful human being, talented beyond words and beautiful to see and to hear. The Tuvans' embrace of Pena and his love of them make you see what we as humans are capable of, just as his tribulations here in the land of the free do the same though from a different angle. If you get the chance, don't miss this film. Michael Yates
[Fwd: TRANSALTA OF CANADA WINNER OF ROGER AWARD FOR THE WORSTTRANSNATIONALCORPORATION IN NZ IN 1999]
If anyone would like a copy of the full judges report, let me know. Bill Rosenberg CAFCA 18 February 2000 TRANSALTA OF CANADA WINNER OF ROGER AWARD FOR THE WORST TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATION IN NZ IN 1999 TRANZ RAIL MONSANTO GET DISHONOURABLE MENTION Canadian power company, TransAlta, which owns energy retailers in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, has the dubious honour of being the winner of the Roger Award for the Worst Transnational Corporation in New Zealand in 1999. The annual Award was announced in Christchurch today. The Award is named after Sir Roger Douglas, notorious Minister of Finance in NZ's 1984-90 Labour government; the man who gave the world Rogernomics. The judges were: Maxine Gay, president of the Trade Union Federation, Wellington; Moana Jackson, Maori Legal Service, Wellington; and Professor Jane Kelsey, Auckland. To quote from their report: TransAltas brief foray into New Zealand is a warning to the world of what can happen when basic infrastructural services such as electricity are privatised and deregulated . Having made its money, TransAlta has this year agreed to sell its NZ assets to an Australian company for a tax-free capital gain of almost $NZ300 million. During its seven years here, TransAlta: * Raised prices for domestic consumers and for small and medium businesses, while cutting prices for big businesses. * Sacked workers to an extent which is causing those left to fear for their safety. * Was a partner in building two gas-fired power stations which produced about half of the total increase in NZ carbon dioxide emissions from 1990-98. * Blatantly attempted to blackmail the NZ Government into abandoning a proposal to force energy companies to split their lines and retailing businesses by threatening to leave the country if the change went through. * Campaigned to wind up the Hutt-Mana Energy Trust (Wellington) which was elected democratically in local body elections, because its minority stake in TransAlta NZ was an obstacle to the Canadians plans to sell out at an even greater profit. The criteria for judging were by assessing the transnational that has the most negative impact in New Zealand in each or all of the following fields: unemployment, monopoly, profiteering, abuse of workers/conditions, political interference, environmental damage, cultural imperialism, impact on tangata whenua (ie Maori), running an ideological crusade, impact on women, health and safety of workers and the public. TransAlta contravened acceptable standard across virtually all the criteria. American-owned Tranz Rail (1997 winner; 1998 Continuity Award) was given another Continuity Award because its persistent failure to maintain the safety of its rolling stock has continued to put its customers and workers at risk of crippling injury and death. Monsanto (1998 winner) was put on the Roger Watchlist because it is trying to make New Zealand a site in the international development of genetic engineering. The other finalists were: News Ltd, which owns the INL media chain; WestpacTrust (bank); Telecom and Waste Management. Full copies of the judges report are available upon request. Murray Horton for the organisers Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa* (Aotearoa - indigenous Maori name for New Zealand) GATT Watchdog Corso CAFCA Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa PO Box 2258, Christchurch email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More than one-third of New Zealand children live in poverty
More than one-third of New Zealand children live in poverty, a draft report on
poverty finds. High housing costs are the key contributing factor, with children
under 15 being the most in need. One in three of them live in poverty. They made
up 44 per cent of all the poor in New Zealand, the study found.
The study, which combined official statistics with focus group analysis of the
daily hardship faced by many living in poverty, was conducted by Victoria
University public policy senior lecturer Bob Stephens, Charles Waldegrave, of
the Family Centre social policy research unit, and Paul Frater, of Business and
Economic Research. Mr Stephens said the high cost of housing was the key factor
in pushing many poor households below the poverty line.
"We did find that low-income households have on average higher housing costs
than the average family."
Some people had shifted to rural areas for cheap rental housing, but they had
little prospect of finding work, he said.
Those most at risk were children living with one parent. Nearly half of
sole-parent households fell below the poverty line.
Social Services and Employment Minister Steve Maharey said the previous
government had created a "poverty trap" by adopting the view in the 1990s that
beneficiaries "were probably their own worst enemy".
"We saw attack ads on beneficiaries, we saw massive cuts to benefit levels, we
saw a kind of testing which really made it almost impossible to get off a
benefit," Mr Maharey said yesterday.
(Christchurch "Press" (NZPA report), Thursday, February 03, 2000)
Meanwhile ...
Maharey has forced Work and Income New Zealand (the government department
responsible for paying benefits etc) to dismantle an "advisory board described
as a 'cosy support group' for chief executive Christine Rankin". Board members
were each earning more in a day than most beneficiaries got in a week. The pay
of the chairman, Victoria University graduate school of business and government
management chairman Lincoln Gould, was $750 a day plus GST, and board members
got $500 a day.
The other board members were former Employers Federation chief executive Steve
Marshall, Tourism Board and former TAB chief executive George Hickton, Birthcare
NZ managing director Lee Mathias, IHC chief executive Jan Dowland, Westpac Trust
government business manager June McCabe, and Infometrics director Gareth Morgan.
(Morgan is an extreme neo-liberal economist.)
("Winz 'support group' removed", Christchurch "Press", Thursday, February 03,
2000)
Bill Rosenberg
[PEN-L:11708] Re: U.S. foreign debt
This is somewhat startling, not because it hasn't been said before, but because of who is saying it. Bill Rosenberg From: The Economist: Sept. 25th to Oct. 1st. issue American households and firms are on a borrowing spree: The private sector's financial deficit is now five times as large as what it has been any time in the last 50 years. And the nation's trade deficit is soaring: we continue to buy vastly more stuff from other countries than they buy from us. There are now more American households with debts exceeding assets than there are households with assets exceeding their debts. This is the first time this has happened since the 1930s. Meanwhile, corporations (i.e. non-financial businesses) increased their debt load by more than $400 billion last year. And what did they do with this borrowed money? Did they invest in plant and equipment? No. Instead they bought other businesses. They bought stock shares. So what if foreigners eventually become much less willing to finance America's widening current-accounts deficit and what if inflation eventually kicks in and pushes up bond yields? Stock prices would slump as investors moved to bonds. And what about all those Americans whose nest egg is invested in stocks and who, as they approach retirement, anticipate that they might need some of that money sooner rather than later? If too many of them try to get out of the market at once, stock prices are going to fall dramatically, maybe as much as the 40% drop in share prices that occurred in 1987. Problem is, almost twice as many Americans have money invested in the stock market today as did in 1987. And far more of them are in debt than were in 1987. Credit card debt (and write-offs) have soared since 1987. So have personal bankruptcies. So a stock market sell-off would be much more likely to dump this country into a long lasting recession (or worse) than it was in 1987. So is the bubble about to burst? Non-performing bank loans have risen and the default rate on corporate bonds is running at its highest level since the early 1990s. And remember the words of Yale professor and economics guru Irving Fisher who, on the eve of the 1929 crash, observed that "stock prices have reached a permanent and high plateau." He, like many others, was convinced that the boom-bust cycle was a thing of the past. Japan, too, believed that in the 1980s. Yet these proved to be the two biggest economic bubbles of the century. And both developed, and popped, when inflation was modest.
