One Iraq veteran
A young friend, about 20 or so, spent time in Iraq during his on-going 4 year enlistment in the Air Force. He's now stationed in the states but will go back to Iraq in February. The conversation with him was depressing. He denounced Kerry because of his association with Jane Fonda -- and repeated the stories of Fonda -- totally bogus as I understand them -- of betraying prisoners in Hanoi. He'd never heard that Bush was AWOL. On another note, listening to the car radio up through the Chico area and into Oregon, I heard Vietnam vets calling in to radio shows, relaying the information that the post-war depression of many was because they had been spit on when they came back. No doubt they believed what they were saying. And of course they denounced Kerry because of his post-Vietnam posture which several interpreted as an attack on all who served in Vietnam. The spin is frightening. Gene Coyle
Re: more nader to moore
You go, Ralph! Dan Scanlan wrote: more nader to moore Hey Michael, Where's Your Past? The saga of Michael the Second continues. From a stalwart collaborator before huge rallies in our 2000 Nader/LaDuke campaign to a puzzling sidelines posture, to an endorsement of Wesley Clark, you have perplexed more than a few of your admirers. Now you have declared in the June 24, 2004 issue of USA Today that you "hope to have a significant impact on the 4 to 6% who now say they are going to vote for Ralph" to vote for Kerry. Wow! That's a long way from Michael of Flint and Michael of Washington, DC. You are some traveler. On "The Charlie Rose Show" last Thursday you repeated the false statement that I promised to avoid the close states in 2000 and therefore you broke away from the campaign in the last month and urged a vote for Gore. Strange - you were berating Democrats before nearly 10,000 people at our MCI Rally on November 5 - two days before the election. If you would like to see a copy of the tape of your speech let me know. And, you campaigned with us in some of those close states. I have called you on this false assertion regarding the close states yet you keep repeating the falsehood. Our 2000 Campaign was a 50 state run, (and I campaigned in all 50 states) from the beginning, a point repeated again and again, even though I spent 28 days in California and only 2 in Florida. In my last message to Michael the Second I mistakenly believed that your views had not changed, with an exception or two, "It's that your circles have changed. Too much Clinton, not enough Camejo," I observed. Now on "The Rose Show" you, the great freedom fighter, urged us to withdraw, urged rejection of the opportunity for millions of Americans to vote for a candidacy of their choice and a good agenda for their future. So the anti-war Michael supports the pro-war Kerry; the anti-Patriot Act Michael supports the pro-Patriot Act Kerry; the pro-tax on corporations Michael supports the low tax on dividends and capital gains Kerry. What ever happened to the great resister? Do you think any of the corporate lobbies are quaking in anticipation of a Kerry win, e.g. the military industrial complex (to use Eisenhower's warning phrase), the pharmaceutical, nuclear power, banking, securities, insurance, petrochemical, agribusiness, biotechnology, real estate and fossil fuel industries. The corporate government in Washington is the permanent government - as you well know. Oh well, we thought we knew ye, Michael. At least while you mingle with the people born to the purple and other nouveau riche, you'll still wear your working clothes and keep your cap on real tight as you bend to the wind. Best wishes for future films, Ralph Nader
Re: Is this a serious problem?
It might explain Greenspan's recent shift to talking about interest rates possibly going up more rapidly than earlier thought -- at a moment when the economy noticeably slowed. Suggesting higher interest rates might keep the cash in-bound. But maybe not for long. Gene Coyle Perelman, Michael wrote: Karmin, Craig. 2004. "Slowdown in Buying of Securities Reverses Trend and May Make It Harder to Finance Trade Deficit." Wall Street Journal (26 July): p. C 1. "Foreign purchases of securities in the U.S. in May came to $56.4 billion. While that was large enough to finance the current-account deficit, it was down 26% from April and represented the lowest monthly total in seven months. It also marked the fourth consecutive monthly decline of such purchases by foreigners. "May was the third consecutive month foreigners have been net sellers. That hadn't happened in nearly a decade." "Potentially more troubling was the slowdown in Asian purchases of U.S. debt -- especially in Japan, which holds 16% of all U.S. Treasurys. That country's nascent economic recovery has eased the government's concerns about maintaining a weak currency to boost exports, in turn reducing the Bank of Japan's need to intervene and buy dollars." "Japan bought $14.6 billion in U.S. Treasurys in May and $5.5 billion in April, according to the U.S. Treasury Department. That is a significant drop from a monthly average of $25 billion for the seven-month period ending in March. If the Japanese economy continues to rebound, Tokyo's Treasury purchases are unlikely to return to those lofty levels." "Japan is to the U.S. financial markets what Saudi Arabia is to the world oil markets -- the primary provider of capital," Joseph Quinlan, chief market strategist for Banc of America Capital Management, wrote in a recent report. "Self-sustained growth in Japan could ultimately obviate the need for the Bank of Japan to purchase U.S. securities, leaving a buying void in the U.S. Treasury market, helping to drive yields higher." "foreigners now control 40% of U.S. Treasury debt, and their purchases are unlikely to return to peak levels seen at the start of the year, she said. "So U.S. interest rates could still go higher, even if the current account is funded," Ms. McCaughrin [Rebecca McCaughrin, an economist for Morgan Stanley] said. "China, Asia's second-biggest buyer of U.S. securities, ... bought $13 billion in U.S. assets through May, compared with $33.1 billion a year earlier." "China was a net purchaser of $1.7 billion of U.S. Treasurys in the first five months of the year -- down 91% from the $18.4 billion in net purchases a year earlier." "Even the United Kingdom, long a reliable buyer of U.S. securities, turned negative in May, with net sales of $4 billion. That was its first monthly net sale since October 1998 during the near collapse of giant U.S. hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management and the aftermath of the Russia financial crisis." "Mr. Quinlan [Joseph Quinlan, chief market strategist for Banc of America Capital Management] argued that Japan has become "America's de facto banker, helping to keep U.S. interest rates low over the past year." Currency traders say the Bank of Japan hasn't intervened in the currency market since March, and the pace of Japanese Treasury buying of the recent past looks unsustainable: Japan bought $175 billion in U.S. Treasury debt from September to March, a figure that exceeds Japanese purchases of Treasurys in the previous seven years combined." Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
differences - Bush Kerry
Check this out: www.jibjab.com
Re: Apropos Albany
California is pretty bad. Gene Coyle Michael Pollak wrote: [Michael Hoover rightly pointed out that New York State's politics were worse than most other states, so people in other states might have opportunities that we in New York don't. Apropos, here's an article on a recent study that claims to show that our state political system in New York politics isn't simply worse than most -- it's the worst one in the country period.] URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/22/nyregion/22york.html The New York Times July 22, 2004 So How Bad Is Albany? Well, Notorious By MICHAEL COOPER A LBANY, July 21 - Over a five-year period, 11,474 bills reached the floor of the two houses of the Legislature in Albany. Not a single one was voted down. And during that period, from 1997 through 2001, the Legislature held public hearings on less than 1 percent of the major laws it passed. When those laws made it to the floor of each chamber for a vote, more than 95 percent passed with no debate. Civic groups, policy advocates and even some lawmakers have long rolled their eyes at what has become known as Albany's dysfunction. But a study released here on Wednesday by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law illuminates just how bad the problem is, calling the Albany body the least deliberative, most dysfunctional state legislature in the nation. Neither the U.S. Congress nor any other state legislature so systematically limits the roles played by rank-and-file legislators and members of the public in the legislative process, the study concluded. The report, which compared New York's Legislature with those in the 49 other states, found that Albany represents the worst of all worlds, being at once stiflingly autocratic and strikingly inefficient. It noted that the two men who control the Legislature - Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, a Democrat, and the Senate majority leader, Joseph L. Bruno, a Republican - have almost total power over which bills they will allow their members to vote on, and a wide range of sticks and carrots to help them keep their members in line. The report found that it is harder to get a bill voted on in New York than anywhere else in the nation. And it found that while New York has one of the most expensive Legislatures in the nation, if not the most expensive, its rate of bills that actually become laws is one of the lowest in the nation. The report includes a number of recommendations for change, and one of its authors, Jeremy M. Creelan, said he would be heading a statewide campaign to try to get each house of the Legislature to alter its rules. Some of the center's proposed rule changes were amusingly straightforward. Consider this one: Votes by members shall be recorded and counted only when the member is physically present in the chamber at the time of the vote. While that might sound self-evident, it would actually amount to a somewhat radical change in New York, where state lawmakers who sign in in the morning are automatically counted as voting yes on every bill that comes before them unless they signal otherwise - even if they have left for the day. The report found that 81 percent of the nation's state legislatures require their lawmakers to be physically present in the chamber to vote, and that New York's is the only Legislature that routinely allows empty-seat voting. Not surprisingly, the report was not warmly received by the two men who control the state's 212-member Legislature. Senator Bruno called the report pure nonsense, saying that other Republicans in the Senate confer with him constantly but that it falls to him to lead. Talk to the C.E.O. of any company, Mr. Bruno said. If you want to act on something, and the company has 212 employees, what are you going to do, have a discussion and let 212 employees do whatever the agenda is? Is that what you do? So you have 212 different agendas. And that is just chaotic, doesn't work. That is Third-World-country stuff. Speaker Silver said that he talked to the Democrats who make up his conference all the time. Nothing happens here in Albany, in the Assembly, without the input of the rank-and-file legislators, he said. But the input Mr. Bruno and Mr. Silver were referring to comes mainly from the members of their own parties, and it is given in private, behind closed doors. Those party conferences, in fact, are where many of the real decisions are made. Just this week the Assembly Democrats held a passionate debate about whether they should reinstate the death penalty by passing a bill to change a section of the current law that was ruled unconstitutional. And the Republican senators agonized over whether to raise the state's minimum wage - an issue that has divided the Senate for some time. But neither debate
Re: Michael Moore letter to las vegas
Yes, I think that would have been a better point for Moore to make. Remind people they don't have free speech at work. Gene Coyle Devine, James wrote: Michael Moore writes: Last time I checked, Las Vegas is still in the United States. And in the United States, we have something called The First Amendment. This constitutional right gives everyone here the right to say whatever they want to say. All Americans hold this right as sacred. isn't free speech limited in corporate-owned venues? jd
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
No, I think he meant what he wrote. Gene ravi wrote: Michael Perelman wrote: How can anyone believe that keeping troops in the US could possibly help bring social justice? i assume, you meant "keeping troops in iraq"? --ravi
Report on Korea privatization
I've written a five page account of how I think privatization of electric power was stopped in Korea. I'm going to spare the list the five pages at this point. Please let me know off-list if you'd like a copy -- if a number of you so indicate, I will burden the list with the story. Gene Coyle
Re: The Chicago Smirk
Tom Walker is telling the story of my life as a crank. Speaking of stories, my 2002 essay in The Electricity Journal is titled "Economists' Stories, and Culpability in Electric Deregulation." The essay opens: "The most powerful and committed proponents of deregulation were driven by the opportunity to profit from it. But a STORY, beyond greed alone, was needed to win the battle for the minds of politicians, editorial writers, and opinion leaders. The story provides cover to politicians and others seeking to persuade the public to disbelieve what is plainly before its eyes. Economists provided the story for deregulation of electric power." And it concludes: "Debating with economists is pointless. Simple and complete rejection is the way to deal with them. Economic theory is past its sell-by-date Economists nevertheless go on training successive generations in meaningless and destructive modeling. Economists are like the Bourbons, of whom Talleyrand remarked that "They forgot nothing and they learned nothing." National policy is set on the unchallenged fiction that prices in the US economy are based on the cost of production. This fiction, story, or perhaps closer to the mark, this lie, must be rejected by journalists, regulators, and politicians. The public knows that prices are based not on the cost of producing a product or service but on what the seller can get -- what the traffic will bear. The story creates a cognitive dissonance as the public struggles to believe its ears by denying what it sees with its own eyes. Journalists, regulators, and politicians must clear this up. The story should carry no weight. No weight at all. In between I mention some economists, including De Long, Larry Summers, and Borenstein and Bushnell of the Univ. of Calif. Energy Institute. None of the economists would engage, of course. Why should they? Gene Coyle Tom Walker wrote: Although they may not explicitly acknowledge it -- even to themselves -- Friedman and his minions know intuitively that they are re-telling old folk tales. Each time they retell these tales the audience nods appreciatively, "that's how it goes! that's how it goes!" Neither the audience nor the storyteller distinguishes between the conventional story and "how it really is" and for good reason: no one can say how it really is. "That's how it goes" means little more than that's the way we've heard it so many times before. Critics don't have a story. They have to settle for poking holes in the myth. The holes are soon glossed over and easily forgotten. Myth is memorable and critique is not. Critique is hard work and has to begin again each time. Those who have their own, non-conforming story are cranks. Because no one has heard their story before, they feel they have to "prove" it; something that can't be done. The surest sign of a crank is insistence on the obviousness of what nobody else sees. If you have to insist, you're probably deluded. The tellers of the old tales don't have to insist because people readily recognize the old tales. How could they not? They've heard them so many times before. The smirk comes from the self-assurance that one's opponents are either critics or cranks, or more precisely that one's opponents will likely be seen by the audience as critics or cranks. Nobody loves a critic, no one takes a crank seriously. There's no fraud like an avuncular old fraud. Tom Walker 604 255 4812
Re: why CA gas prices fluctuate so much?
Borenstein and Bushnell still insist that the market works for electric power! Everything, for them, comes down to supply and demand. Remarkably, in 2004 (below) they seem to have discovered that withholding capacity can prop up high gasoline prices. This is a real breakthrough for the UC Energy Institute! Wow, I have to phone a few friends to celebrate this dawning! Gene Coyle Devine, James wrote: here's Hal Varian from yesterday's (7/1/04's) NY TIMES: The economics of the California gasoline market are described in a recent study by Severin Borenstein, James Bushnell and Matthew Lewis of the University of California Energy Institute (www.ucei.org/PDF /csemwp132.pdf). The basic problem comes down to supply and demand. California uses a special low-polluting blend of gasoline known as CaRFG (California reformulated gasoline), which is produced by only 13 in-state refineries. In 2003 these refineries produced about 15 billion gallons, a figure almost identical to the 14.8 billion gallons consumed in the state. [inelastic supply] California's production capacity is so closely matched to its demand that even sharp increases in price result in little additional production of gasoline. [inelastic demand] On the other side of the market, the demand for gasoline is also quite insensitive to price: a 10 percent increase in price typically reduces short-term demand by only 2 to 3 percent. The result is that even small fluctuations in the demand or supply of CaRFG can lead to large price swings. The market forces of supply and demand offer a reasonably convincing explanation as to why the California gasoline market is so volatile. But this may not be the entire story. [possible role for monopoly power] The market is controlled by seven large suppliers, ranging from ChevronTexaco, with a 27 percent share, down to Exxon Mobil, which supplies 8 percent of the market. With only seven suppliers, price manipulation may also be at work. When demand is insensitive to price and capacity is more or less fixed, sellers have mixed incentives. When prices rise, a refiner can make an immediate profit by selling more gasoline; if all suppliers sell more, the price is pushed back down. But if a few large companies withhold gasoline supplies, they can keep the price propped up for an extended period. The authors of the report are quick to point out that they have no evidence that this has occurred. Indeed, they argue that the basic economics of the industry make it difficult to find such evidence in price and quantity movements alone. However, they also point out that the temptation to manipulate price is certainly present, and a prudent response from Sacramento would be to enact policies that will reduce that temptation as much as possible. Does this make sense to the experts? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Thomas Sowell
This excerpt provided by Waistline echoes the crap William F. Buckley routinely put out in the past. I recall Buckley once pointing out that minorities chose to go into song and dance as a career path, rather than, say, medicine. He applauded the freedom of choice. Simple lying economics. Gene Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thomas Sowell June 29, 2004 /10 Tamuz, 5764 Excerpt "Just as an artificially high price for wheat set by the government leads to a chronic surplus of wheat, so an artificially high price for labor set by the government leads to a surplus of labor better known as unemployment. "Since all workers are not the same, this unemployment is concentrated among the less skilled and less experienced workers. Many of them are simply priced out of a job. "In the United States, for example, the highest unemployment rates are almost invariably among black teenagers. But this was not always the case. "Although the federal minimum wage law was passed in 1938, wartime inflation during the Second World War meant that the minimum wage law had no major effect until a new round of increases in the minimum wage level began in 1950. Unemployment rates among black teenagers before then were a fraction of what they are today and no higher than among white teenagers. The time is long overdue for schools of journalism to start teaching economics. It would eliminate much of the nonsense and hysteria in the media, and with it perhaps some of the demagoguery in politics. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell1.asp Without question Mr. Sowell is a highly educated and talented man .. . and also an outstanding propagandist. Many simply disagree with his point of view and the implied economic concepts and frameworks his exposition are based upon. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a popular form of exposition that takes into account how the diverse people of America actually think things out. This art requires awareness of how people actually interact with one another and the real history of their ideas. I tend to steer clear of broad ideological categories called "left" and "right" . . . liberal and conservative, because in my personal experience these are not categories that express how people think out social questions and the issues of the day. For instance, ones attitude concerning abortion does not necessarily dictate or correspond to a fixed and predicable political pattern concerning how one might respond to economic issues or losing ones pension for instance . . . or having the company renege on its pledge to pay ones medical benefits during retirement. Although, I generally and specifically disagree with Mr. Sowell's inner logic about America - including gun control, and I am against gun control as the issue is currently framed in the public, what he does understand is the mood of the country and how people think things out. At any rate, he understands the mood of the audience he is writing to and for. Mr. Sowell is an outstanding leader . . . as is Colin Powell . . . and they carry the tag "black leaders" for reasons of our history. They exist and operate on a political continuum and I generally have nothing in common with these men. One can nevertheless learn an important lesson from Mr. Sowell's form of exposition, whose inner logic I radically disagree with. Melvin P.
Korean airline unions refuse to transport troops
Airline Unions Refuse to Transport Troops to Iraq The labor unions of the nations two airliners, Korean Air and Asiana Airlines, declared Thursday that they refuse to transport anything related to the troop dispatch to Iraq, including Korean soldiers to be stationed in Iraq along with armor and related equipment. The Association of Airline Unions, founded by both the national airlines and the employees of Incheon International Airport and Kimpo Airport, said Thursday that in accordance with the policy of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, that they are against sending more troops to Iraq and will launch an all-out struggle against the deployment. The association said, Both Korean Air and Asiana Airlines should not sign contracts with the government to transport troops to Iraq... If they sign such contracts, the security of our union members cannot be guaranteed as they may become a target of terror during operation... Also, in order to show our rejection to a war of invasion, we will suspend all flights. In response to the unions, the two airlines pointed out, We havent been asked by the government to transport troops to Iraq, and unconditionally rejecting something before even negotiations have begun is going to far. Lee Wee-jae, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Korean victory over privatisation
Korea recently effectively ended the move to privatize the electric power system. Privatization had been driven by the usual IMF/WB pressure, and steps had been taken down that path. A recent decision ended the move toward privatization. I was there last week for a symposium on the issue which was anti-climactic because the decision had been taken before I (and other international speakers) had arrived. I will write an account of this soon. But the labor union celebrated joyfully over the victory. Meanwhile, privatization of the natural gas company remains on the table, and privatization of water, telecom and railroads has also been looming. I hope that the Korean decision will have positive impacts in other countries. Gene Coyle
Thomas Frank's new book
What's Wrong With Kansas, the new book by Thomas Frank is interesting. His acknowledgements include a roster of Pen-L ers. Gene Coyle
Reagan and D-Day
Too bad Reagan didn't live a couple of days longer so he could celebrate the 50th anniversary of when he stormed ashore at Omaha Beach. Gene Coyle
Re: URPE Conference -- Final Schedule
Ruth, Thanks for these posts. I can't make it this year though I'd love to be there. I appreciate your updates about URPE and about the NYC forums. Just want to say thanks for your doing this grunt work. Gene Coyle Ruth Indeck wrote: To URPE Members and Friends, Here is the final schedule for the URPE Summer Conference, including an attached Word document. Please print it out and bring it with you. For more details on the conference, transportation, etc., see the URPE website: http://urpe.org/urpesumm.html. See you there! *** Right-Wing Coup, or Neoliberalism as Usual? 2004 URPE Summer Workshop/Retreat, June 4-7, 2004, Camp Chinqueka, Bantam, CT FRIDAY JUNE 4 2:30 - 4:00. Steering Committee Meeting 4:00 REGISTRATION BEGINS AND CONTINUES ALL WEEKEND 4:30 - 5:30. INTRODUCTION TO URPE/RECEPTION 6:00 - 7:00. Dinner 7:00 - 9:00. PLENARY. NEOLIBERALISM AT HOME: RIGHT-WING ESCALATION? Neoliberalism: Circling the Drain? Doug Henwood, Editor of Left Business Observer. Author most recently of After the New Economy. Worker Rights in the Global Economy. Mark Levinson, Chief Economist, UNITE. America Peculiar Brand of Justice: Corporate Corruption and Reform? Nomi Prins, Journalist, Demos Senior Fellow, member of URPE Steering Committee. Author most recently of Other People's Money: The Corporate Mugging of America. 9:15 - 11:00. Music, Dancing and Conversation. Contra Dancing with OUT ON A LIMB BAND SATURDAY JUNE 5 7:45 - 8:45. BREAKFAST 7:00 - 8:00. Yoga Session (See full description at the end of this schedule) 8:50 - 12:00. Morning Workshops Site A: 8:50 - 9:50. The New American Fascism. Arthur Pierson 10:00 - 11:00. Medical Dominance and the Imbecilic Healthcare System. Robert Kemp 11:10 - 12:10. Can URPE Help Build a Campus Teach-ins Movement in Support of Workers Rights? Sarah McKenzie Site B: 8:50 - 9:50. The Power Triangle - Washington, Wall Street and Corporate America. Nomi Prins 10:00 - 11:00. How to Get Rich, and Why It Matters: Diamonds, Oil, and Private Military Firms. Mehrene Larudee 11:10 - 12:10. Rethinking Municipal Privatization: A Class Based Perspective. Oliver Cooke 12:00 - 1:00. WOMEN S CAUCUS 12:00 - 1:00. LUNCH 1:00 - 1:55. RECREATION. Swim, boat, hike, relax with your friends, enjoy life and the beautiful camp. 1:55 - 4:20. Afternoon Workshops Site A: 1:55 - 3:10. Organizing for Economic and Social Justice: Police Tactics Today. Marina Sitrin and Mike McGuire 3:20 - 4:20. Domination and Evolution in Some Agent Based Economic Models. George Reiter Site B: 1:55 - 3:10. Equality and Development. Clara Garcia and Sang Hwan Jang 3:20 - 4:20. The Structure of Households in Different Modes of Production (Feudal, Capitalist and Communist). Paddy Quick 4:30 - 6:00. DAVID GORDON LECTURE Communicating Political Economy. Ann Markusen, University of Minnesota. Director of the Project on Regional and Industrial Economics at the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. Author most recently of From Defense to Development. 6:00 - 7:00. DINNER 7:00 - 9:00. PLENARY. GLOBAL NEOLIBERALISM: IS IT DIFFERENT UNDER BUSH AND POST 9/11? Neoliberal Dynamics - Neoimperial Dynamics. Grard Dumnil, economist and Research Director at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (MODEM, University of Paris X-Nanterre). Author most recently of Capital Resurgent. The Roots of the Neoliberal Revolution. Reclaiming Development: Policies for a Post-Neoliberal World. Ilene Grabel, Denver University. Co-author most recently of Reclaiming Development: An Alternative Economic Policy Manuel, forthcoming. Venezuela: Participatory Democracy, State Socialism, or Capitalism as Ususal? Greg Wilpert, freelance journalist and an editor for one of the best sources of information on what is happening today in Venezuela, www.venezuelanalysis.com 9:15 - 11:00. Music, Dancing and Conversation. Self Managed DJ Night, bring your favorite CDs (and we mean all types of music). SUNDAY JUNE 6 7:00 - 8:00. Yoga Session (See full description at the end of this schedule) 7:45 - 8:45. BREAKFAST 8:50 - 12:00. Morning Workshops Site A: 8:50 - 9:50. The Economics of US Imperialism. Grard Dumnil 10:00 - 11:00. The Rise and Decline of Neoliberalism in Latin America. Paul Cooney and Joe Smith 11:10 - 12:10. Understanding Venezuela Today. Greg Wilpert. Site B: 8:50 - 10:20. New Currents in the Political Economy of the Caribbean. Susan Duron, Lester Henry, and Brenda Wyss 10:30 - 12:00. Organizing, Organizing Until Our Demands Are Met. Carrie Bernstein, Graham Cassano, Kate Harris, Germai Medhanie, and Gwen Mills 12:00 - 1:15. ELECTIONS FOR THE STEERING COMMITTEE 12:00 - 1:00. LUNCH 1:00 - 1:30. RECREATION. Swim, boat, hike, relax with your friends, enjoy life and the beautiful camp. 1:30 - 4:50. Afternoon Workshops Site A: 1:30 - 2:30. The Master s Tools: Subverting Mainstream Economics. Julie Matthaei 2:40 - 3:40. Gloves Off and Promoting Alternatives to Mainstream Economics. Editors of Gloves Off and Al
Re: The new number one reason to vote Nader
This opening by Gitlin could (and should) be the opening to stop voting Democrat. Louis Proyect wrote: Dissent Magazine, Spring 2004 Ralph Nader and the Will to Marginality by Todd Gitlin A classic book of social psychology analyzes a flying saucer cult of the 1950s. This small band of Americans believed that on a particular date soon to come, the world would be engulfed by a flood of biblical proportions-but also that, on the very same day, flying saucers would arrive and rescue the true believers. Researchers infiltrated the group and waited to see what would happen. Came the designated day, the landscape remained dry, no saucers landed, and how did the believers respond? A number of them fell away. But as in similar cases of millenarian prophecy over previous centuries, there remained a core of fanatics who, having already turned their lives upside down to conform to the prophecy, took courage from the support they found in their group. They stuck to their guns, reinterpreted the data in such a way as to justify the commitments they had already undertaken, and intensified their proselytizing efforts. If reality was going to be in such poor form as to disconfirm their belief, they would find a way to make belief and reality match. If they could win converts in a second round of proselytizing, they would confirm the wisdom they had demonstrated in the first. full: http://www.dissentmagazine.org/ -- Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: FT on Chavez Political Legi?macy
Happy birthday Sabri! Sabri Oncu wrote: Ahmet: I think the answer is buried in the biographical info about the author. Those of us who are old enough heard and lived through this argument in various ways in Turkey, 1960, 1971, and 1980! Well! In 1960, I was not born yet. I was born two years later. But, I was born on May 26th, 1962, which was one day before the second anniversary of the May 27th, 1960 coup. I have always been very glad that I was not born on May 27th. Don't remember much about the 1971 one but I dearly remember the 1980 one. What was that song: The answer is my friend, Blowin in the wind. The answer is blowin in the wind. Best, Sabri
Winds of change
The two paragraphs below which open a long opinion piece would be unremarkable from the NY Times Op Ed page. Though America has condemned the cruelties of Abu Ghraib, they remain nonetheless a symbol of the inescapable fact that the war has been run incompetently, with an apparently deliberate contempt for history, strategy, and thought, and with too little regard for the American soldier, whose mounting casualties seem to have no effect on the boastfulness of the civilian leadership. Before the war's inception, and even after September 11, the Bush administration, having promised to correct its predecessor's depredations of the military, failed to do so. The president failed to go to Congress on September 12 to ask for a declaration of war, failed to ask Congress when he did go before it for the tools with which to fight, and has failed consistently to ask the American people for sacrifice. And yet their sons, mainly, are sacrificed in Iraq day by day. But they are not from the NYT or a liberal source. They were written by a regular on the Wall Street Journal editorial page, novelist MARK HELPRIN and appeared today, May 17, 2004; Page A20.
Re: Employee sacked for photographing coffins
Maytag Aircraft? When I was a pilot I flew the Maytag Messerschmidt, but I thought they'd gone out of business. Gene Coyle joanna bujes wrote: So what was the reason for sacking her husband? Collective punishment? Joanna k hanly wrote: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/22/1082616268111.html?from=storyrhs Last Sunday a newspaper in Seattle, Washington, published a rare photograph of soldiers' coffins, each of them containing the body of an American who had died in Iraq. The coffins, each draped with the Stars and Stripes, had been loaded into the back of a cargo aircraft for a final journey to the US, where they would be buried. There were at least 18 of them in the picture, which was taken by a 50-year-old civilian contractor, Tami Silicio. On Wednesday Ms Silicio was sacked from her job, for taking the photograph and sharing it with news organisations. Ms Silicio worked for Maytag Aircraft Corporation, which has a $US18 million ($25 million) contract to handle cargo for the US Government at Kuwait airport. As part of that job she would often see soldiers' coffins in the back of aircraft, on their way from Iraq to burial in the US. Earlier this month - which has been one of the deadliest for coalition soldiers - Ms Silicio decided to photograph the coffins. She asked a friend, Amy Katz, to forward the image to her local newspaper, The Seattle Times. Ms Katz said she was amazed when she saw the photo. I immediately picked up the telephone and because [Ms Silicio] is from Washington state, I called The Seattle Times, she said. Tami wanted to share the image with the American people. The US military generally bans photographs of soldiers' coffins, and few have been published in US newspapers during the war in Iraq. On Wednesday Ms Silicio engaged an agent, who offered her photograph to newspaper outlets for $1400 for one-time, non-exclusive use. The editor of the Times, Mike Fancher, said in a column this week that he decided to publish the photograph on the front page because it was undeniably newsworthy. Readers would have differing reactions to the photo, depending on their views of the war, he said. The managing editor of The Seattle Times, David Boardman, told the magazine Editor Publisher this week that we weren't attempting to convey any sort of political message. He disagreed with the military ban on photographs of coffins, saying: The Administration cannot tell us what we can and cannot publish. Ms Katz said that after the picture was published Ms Silicio was called into her supervisor's office and severely reprimanded. She explained why she did it, but they sacked her and her husband [David Landry] too. She said Ms Silicio really wanted mothers of the soldiers to know how the coffins were handled. In an interview with The Seattle Times, Ms Silicio said the coffins were prayed over and saluted before being shipped. Everyone salutes with such emotion and respect, she said. The families would be proud to see their sons and daughters saluted like that. She said she had seen a coffin accompanied by the wife and, in another case, by the father of the fallen soldier. William Silva, the president of Maytag Aircraft, was quoted by The Seattle Times as saying the sackings had been for violating US government and company regulations.
Re: mixed economic signals
I'm puzzled by the supposed drop in "utility" production, which was used as the reason for the drop in industrial production. First, electricty production, as reported by the Edison Electric Institute on a weekly basis, increased in March 2004 over March 2003 by a little more than 2 percent. The data used in this report probably comes from the Energy Information Agency at DOE, which keeps statistics differently, but the difference between a 2% increase and a 2% decrease is very large. On the natural gas side of "utilities" I don't know how they measure "production." If it is output at the wellhead, which seems to me to be the reasonable place to measure it, the weather should not have an impact on production. What doesn't get sold in the month of March would be produced nevertheless and placed in storage. Perhaps they are subtracting the storage injection from the production to find a decrease. But that would, it seems to me, be different than, say automobiles. If a car is produced it would be counted as production, would it not? Wouldn't make any difference whether it was in the lot or was sold. So, I'm puzzled. Not puzzled enough to bother with this any further. Gene Coyle michael wrote: Consumer Sentiment Slides; Industrial Production Slows A WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE NEWS ROUNDUP April 16, 2004 1:04 p.m. U.S. consumer sentiment unexpectedly dropped in a mid-April reading, suggesting that concerns about the war in Iraq have been outweighing upbeat reports on the economy. The University of Michigan reported Friday that its consumer-sentiment index fell to 93.2 from 95.8 at the end of March. Measures of consumers' assessment of current conditions as well as expectations for the future both declined. Earlier reports showed industrial production declined in March, led by a sharp slowdown in utilities output, while new housing construction rebounded last month, helped by better weather. Output from the nation's factories, mines and utilities dropped 0.2% last month, the Federal Reserve said Friday. The decline, the largest since April 2003, marked the first time since August that production fell. Output rose a revised 0.8% in February. Capacity use slid to 76.5% from a revised 76.7% in February. Economists had expected production to rise by a modest 0.4%, held down by weak data on hours worked by manufacturing employees, and for capacity use to come in at 76.8%, according to a survey by Dow Jones Newswires and CNBC. "The entire drop in output was due to a 2.3% decline in utility output, reflecting less severe winter weather than in January and February," wrote Ian Shepherdson, chief U.S. economist at High Frequency economics, in a note to clients. The 2.3% drop in utilities output was the biggest drop for the sector in a year; capacity use in the sector eased more than two percentage points to 84%. Manufacturing production was unchanged in March, making it the one of the only major categories that didn't post an outright drop. Capacity use in the sector fell slightly to 75.2%. Manufacturers generally have been upbeat about their prospects this year. The sector has shown strong growth recently as it has emerged from a long slump that was at the heart of the 2001 U.S. economic recession. Output in the mining industry skidded 0.3%; capacity use fell to 85.4%. Construction was a rare bright spot in the report. Construction-supplies production rose 0.6%. But production of cars and parts fell 2.2%, and production of consumer durable goods, items such as appliances that are meant to last three years or more, dropped 0.5%. Business-equipment production declined 0.2%. But the technology industry saw production rise 1.4%, on top of the previous months' 3.4% increase. Semiconductor production jumped 2.5% and output of computers and office equipment rose 2.4%. But production of communications equipment slipped 2%. Housing Starts Rebound Meanwhile, housing starts jumped 6.4% last month to a seasonally adjusted 2.007 million annual rate last month, the Commerce Department reported Friday. The increase was the largest since last May, and followed two straight months in which bad weather in some parts of the country put a damper on housing construction. In February, starts dropped a revised 2.6% to an annual rate of 1.887 million. The March gain soared past economists' expectations that, according to a survey by Dow Jones Newswires and CNBC, called for a rise of 1.9% to a 1.900 million annual rate. Building permits, an indicator of future building activity, rose 1.9% last month to a 1.946 million annual rate. But housing starts "cannot be sustained at this level," Mr. Shepherdson wrote in an earlier note. And, "with a serious rise in interest rates now finally under way, [starts] will likely decline markedly by the end of the summer." Construction on single-family homes rose by 5.5% while ground broken on new apartment buildings jumped 11.2%. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department
Re: Mark Jones Was Right
Louis Proyect wrote, in part: The entire planet, from the New Jersey suburb to the farming village in Bangladesh, will have to reexamine the value of these highly touted but environmentally destructive commodities once socialism is established worldwide. I am sure that reasoning human beings can think critically about their value and choose long-term sustainability instead. His full post is below. The final sentence above makes sense only when read with the penultimate one, which has these "reasoning human beings" thinking critically after socialism is established worldwide. So, are we in a race between the killing of billions through global warming and the establishment of socialism worldwide? In my judgement the catastrophe to unfold from global warming is approaching faster than worldwide socialism. Can anything else be done about climate change? Will anything be done? Gene Coyle Louis Proyect wrote: DMS: "They," "socialists," are not at all doing their duty when they uncritically reproduce statements directly Malthusian claiming that the "natural" carrying capacity of the earth is 2 billion people. But clearly the Earth cannot sustain an infinite number of people. Global warming is not a product of 6 billion people on a planet built for 2. Global warming is the product of the private property system of capital's need to garner profit no matter what the SOCIAL cost. But you are wrong. Global warming is a byproduct of the burning of fossil fuel. There is no "socialist" solution to this problem. There is nothing in Marx or Engels that can provide an answer. Even under socialism, there will be only one way to use internal combustion engines. This is not even a question of "pollution" in the conventional sense. You can put all sorts of scrubbers on factory burners, car engines, etc. to prevent sulfur emissions. But greenhouse gases are the inevitable byproduct of energy consumption. If that isn't the case, then indeed, the more than 2 billion people living on a dollar a day, the 4 billion living in poverty, the 5.2 billion living on the rations determined by a ruling class, have no way out, as the energy requirements for their emancipation from privation, that is to say the emancipation of us all, cannot be fulfilled. dms Of course there is a way out for a society that lives in balance with nature. The idea is to share equally in the resources of the planet without class divisions. That being said, we still need to accept ecological limits. Furthermore, the main problem facing the world's poor is not being deprived of automobiles or air conditioning. It is being driven off their land into the favelas and slums as Samir Amin pointed out in a recent MR article. The capacity to feed, shelter, clothe, educate and provide health care one's family is a function more of class relations than anything else right now. Once a basic standard of living is provided, you get into a more problematic area involving the desire for an automobile and other energy-burning but dubious consumer goodies enjoyed in the West. The entire planet, from the New Jersey suburb to the farming village in Bangladesh, will have to reexamine the value of these highly touted but environmentally destructive commodities once socialism is established worldwide. I am sure that reasoning human beings can think critically about their value and choose long-term sustainability instead. Louis Proyect Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Mercenary Boom in Iraq Creates Tension at Home and Abroad (2nd try)
Good luck. Gene Coyle joanna bujes wrote: Layoff day tomorrow, wish me luck. Joanna Mike Ballard wrote: It's nice to see the commodification of patriotism making headway. Cheers, Mike B) = The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched. They must be felt with the heart. former I.W.W. member, Helen Keller http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
Bush/Greenspan tax increase?
The notion of raising the retirement age for full Social Security benefits is popular in conservative circles. Shouldn't it be described as a tax increase? Say the retirement age is raised from 65 to 67. An individual continuing to work pays income taxes for two additional years, pays payroll tax for two additional years. That is a lot of additional tax dollars that would not be paid absent the change. The individual, furthermore, does not collect SS for two years -- thus losing maybe $10,000 to $20,000 a year. That is money taken away by the Bush/Greenspan idea. Why not call both parts of this a tax increase? Plus two more years of working like dogs. Gene Coyle
Job flight contest $$
Thinking about job flight? Here's your reward. Gene Coyle This year sees the fifth anniversary of the Shell Economist writing prize competition, and we hope very much that you will consider entering. The theme is 'Import workers or export jobs?' Points to consider Should developing nations be allowed to 'poach' skilled professional labour from countries who have helped pay for this expertise? Or is the influx of immigrants, whether skilled or unskilled, a positive force, bringing either expertise or ambition and hard work to the host nation? The above is, of course, just a starting point. We're looking forward to essays that touch on some or all of these questions and go further, while providing a new, fresh perspective and real insight into the issues involved. US$65,000 to be won From a total prize fund of US$65,000, the winner of the competition will receive US$20,000, while the prizes for the second and third place runners up are US$10,000 and US$5,000 respectively. You can find all the details you need - such as maximum word count and the closing date - on our Web site www.shelleconomistprize.com. So, if you decide to rise to the challenge and enter the competition, good luck. We look forward to receiving your essay. Best regards, Shell and The Economist
Re: More on LNG
Michael, The trade says that LNG imports make sense if the domestic price of gas is around $5.00 mcf. It has been above that level for a year or so, after trading normally from $2.50 to 3.50 in recent years. Gene Coyle Michael Perelman wrote: I had my realized before your last message that so much was being imported. How expensive is the liquefaction and then transportation of the natural gas? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
More on LNG
Natural gas supplies are tight in the USA. Why? A discussion I'll duck today. But supplies are tight. Fortunately for the big oil companies, they have huge gas fields shut-in around the world, in places where the domestic demand is trivial. If only they could sell that gas in the USA!! It is close to worthless where it is. Greenspan jumped into the issue last year, suggesting that we'd better start importing a lot of LNG. There are multiple proposals for new terminals in California, the Gulf of Mexico coast, New England, Baja California. I'll paste below a Providence Journal story of 3/24/04 which reports the eagerness of the Governor of Rhode Island for one or two new LNG terminals in his locale. At the same time, there isn't much political gain in arguing for renewable energy, better architecture, conservation of whatever kind. So, on we will go, burning what we can burn. Gene Coyle Carcieri tells Senate panel of need for LNG projects 04:20 PM EST on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 By JOHN E. MULLIGAN Journal Washington Bureau WASHINGTON -- Warning that rising energy costs are driving jobs away from New England and the nation, Governor Carcieri declared strong support today for new and better liquified natural gas storage facilities in Providence and the nearby Massachusetts communities of Fall River and Somerset. The Republican governor, a former business executive, told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that he thinks the top domestic issue facing the nation is the damage that tightening energy supplies are doing -- and will do in the coming years -- to the economy. In New England, where the growing popularity of natural gas for manufacture and power generation has raised demand in recent years, Carcieri said a supply crunch this past winter came close to creating a crisis. "One would think that this combination of high demand and intermittent supply shortages would create an outcry for more natural gas production,'' Carcieri said. "It doesn't seem to have. Unfortunately, it may take a disaster before some in our nation get serious about this problem.'' Carcieri said some of the local political opposition to proposed LNG tanks in Fall River and Somerset is "a knee-jerk" reaction ''to safety fears that the Coast Guard and other authorities can more than adequately address." Carcieri also pointed to what he called "false choices'' between adequate energy supply and environmental protection. He said both needs can be accommodated in such planned projects as the conversion of a LNG tank at Fields Point in Providence to take supplies from tanker ships.
San Francisco demo
At the San Francisco march last Saturday there were the now-familiar signs. Noticable were the many Kucinich signs, plus big banners carried by Kucinich supporters. The signs mentioning Kerry seemed to all carry an admonition for him to behave lest support not be forthcoming. A nice sunny day, a mellow march. The turnout was noticably smaller than the crowds of a year ago. Gene Coyle
Re: LNG security....FERCed (again)
The point of the FERC action is to severly hamper local opposition to the siting of any LNG facility. There is information, as Les Schaeffer points out, but battles will be fought at the local level and site-specific information will be important. If only the proponents have credible information, the battles will be one-sided. I happened to be living in Vallejo when Shell and Bechtel tried to site an LNG facility plus a large gas-fueld power plant there. The local political uprising stopped the venture, probably permanently. The general literature mentioned by Les Schaffer, while helpful, was countered by the well-funded proponents. Certain trade unions were strong supporters of the project, and risk was minimized in studies that Shell and Bechtel paid for. The push for LNG at the national level is very strong, and hamstringing local opposition will have an effect. Gene Coyle Les Schaffer wrote: Eugene Coyle wrote: Patriot Act Restricts Access to LNG Safety Studies March 19, 2004, California Energy Circuit i 'm not sure how they intend to restrict access ... its fairly well known in engineering circles that James Fay at MIT studied this back in 1970's. the papers are widely available -- and paint a quite scary scenario for places like Boston Harbor. a few googles on Fay LNG: http://www.greenfutures.org/projects/powerplant/Fay.html http://www.energy.ca.gov/lng/documents/CRS_RPT_LNG_INFRA_SECURITY.PDF a google on LNG fire brings almost identical results, meaning one would not even need to know who did the initial studies. the documents placed under restriction by FERC appear to be compliance documents, and one can only wonder at the regulation breaking by shipping companies that may be contained therein. Whatever they contain, practioners of violence would merely need shipping routes and times, a scheme for breaching double hulls, and use of existing documents on fireball diameters to plan best location for attack scenarios. Anyone covering these bases would probably be better prepared than 9/11 pilots. this use of the Patriot Act reminds me of the news story from the other day on resurgence of nuclear fallout studies with the view that diagnosis of radioactivity post-detonation could lead to bomb material identification and hence to (human) detonators of the bomb and hence to a country to retaliate against and hence by a commodius vicus of recirculation to a form of deterrence: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/19/national/19NUKE.html it's important to expose the Patriot Act for what it is not: it is not a blueprint for making anyone you or I know safe from physical attack. les schaffer
LNG security....FERCed (again)
Original Message Subject: FW: LNG securityFERCed (again) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 18:16:09 -0800 From: Reply-To: To: -Original Message- From: Don Schultz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 6:03 PM To: 'Washusen,Jeff'; Skala, Pete; 'Roberts,Wally' Subject: LNG securityFERCed (again) Patriot Act Restricts Access to LNG Safety Studies March 19, 2004, California Energy Circuit Californians concerned about the risks of planned liquefied natural gas terminals are unlikely to see safety studies for the proposed facilities because of recent federal rules issued under the U.S. Patriot Act. Local and state officials, who are just becoming familiar with the rules, are among those who may be kept from gaining full access to the safety studies. To date, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has restricted access to more than 90,000 documents under the rules. A considerable percentage of them are about safety and environmental compliance, said Sean Moulton, senior information policy analyst for OMB [Office of Management and Budget] Watch in Washington, who has examined the titles of the restricted items. While the federal commission issued the rules a year ago, their effect is only now being realized by cities, states, and citizen groups as the federal regulators apply the information controls to the spate of LNG terminal proposals across the nation. LNG is definitely going to be the area where this policy will get its toughest test, said Moulton. LNG poses a significant risk to the workers and the surrounding community. Last month, the California Energy Commission dropped a plan to publish a compendium of LNG safety studies for state residents and local governments to use as they consider terminal projects along the coast, said David Maul, director of natural gas and special projects for the commission. Mauls staff found that most of the studies were considered confidential for either security or proprietary reasons. Meanwhile, the city of Long Beachwhich has entered a tentative LNG terminal agreement with Sound Energy Solutionswill not be able to share much of the safety information it receives with the public, according to Dominic Holzhaus, deputy city attorney. We get access to quite a bit of this, but were bound to various confidentiality agreements with FERC, said Robert Kanter, director of planning for the Port of Long Beach. He said FERCs critical energy infrastructure information rules require the city to keep the information secret. The federal commissions infrastructure rules are aimed at keeping confidential any information that may aid enemies, according to Tamara Young Allen, a spokesperson for the agency. Parties with a need to know can file a federal request for safety studies; if granted access, they must sign a nondisclosure agreement. BHP Billiton, one of the companies that have proposed LNG terminals in California, plans to provide the public with a general description of the results of its risk assessment, but not the whole document, according to Kathi Hann, public affairs manager for the company. Because of concerns about terrorism and trade secrets, only state and local agencies concerned with the project will be able to receive the full assessment, she said. The federal commission claims legal authority for its strictures under the Patriot Act, though Moulton said the statute does not explicitly authorize the rules at issue. Of immediate concern is whether FERC will release in the weeks ahead a study done under contract by ABS Consultants to analyze the likely effects of a catastrophic accident on an LNG ship. FERC will have to examine the report before deciding whether it will be subject to the regulatory restrictions, said Young Allen. This [study] is crucial information because that defines how safe these ships are in our community, said Casi Callaway, executive director of Mobile Bay Watch, a community group that is fighting proposed LNG terminals in Alabama. William J. Kelly
Re: Corporations
This interlocking series of contracts has the right of free speech? I think the series of responses Shemano gives in this thread is sillier than neo-classical micro. He describes a total phantasy world, just as the micro theorists do. But the world both try to hide is terribly real. This stuff is much worse than people have been asked to leave the list over. Disgusting stuff. I'd say beneath contempt, but I don't know what is lower. Gene Coyle I wish you well with your liberty. You are a real person. I do not feel that E-M is a real person, but an illigitate creation of state. You wish me well with my liberty, but what about my liberty to enter into a series of contracts with other real persons, and calling those interlocking series of contracts a "corporation?" What is a corporation, but an interlocking series of contracts between real persons? David B. Shemano
Re: US-Australia FTA: drug prices...........
The absurdity of the argument repeated by Senator Kyl (where's he from?) is so obvious that even a US journalist ought to call these people on it. Let's suppose the Australians now will have to pay more for pharmacueticals. The drug companies get the money. Why in the world would they reduce prices in the USA? Does anyone believe that there is a certain amount of money that they need and once they have more from the Australians they'll take less for USA customers? No one could possibly accept that. I can understand the senators and trade officials saying it, but why don't journalists laugh at them? No, I understand that as well. Just ranting here. Gene Coyle Eubulides wrote: Drug costs will rise with deal: US official http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2004/03/10/1078594434762.html Date: March 11 2004 By John Garnaut, Sydney Morning Herald The US trade deal is the first step in a campaign to raise global pharmaceutical prices, a US Senate finance committee heard yesterday. Contradicting the Prime Minister, John Howard, America's top trade official told the committee that the cost of Australian drugs would be changed under the agreement. It would change the distribution of prices in Australia and the relative prices of generic and patented drugs, the US Trade Representative, Bob Zoellick, said. Under intense pressure on rising drug costs at home, an influential Republican senator told the committee that the Australian deal was a breakthrough that began the process of getting other countries to bear a greater share of drug company research and development costs. One of the ways of addressing the causes [of high US prices] is to get the other countries of the world to help bear part of the burden of the RD, said Senator Jon Kyl, who lobbied Australian ministers on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme last year. So, my hat's off to your [Mr Zoellick's] team and the work that you did in at least beginning to address this with Australia. Senator Kyl said the final agreement, released last week, was only the beginning of negotiations over Australia's pharmaceuticals system. We don't need to discuss it here, but I know that there is much more work that needs to be done in further discussions with the Australians. Labor's health spokeswoman, Julia Gillard, said the deal had set in train a process that could threaten the PBS. This is the thin end of the wedge in an American drug company campaign to impose global drug prices on Australian patients and taxpayers. Mr Howard said recently there would be certainly no direct or indirect effect on price and the Health Minister, Tony Abbott, and Trade Minister, Mark Vaile, have made similar claims. Who's lying here, Ambassador Zoellick or John Howard and Tony Abbott? Ms Gillard said. A spokesman for Mr Vaile rejected the US suggestion that Australia did not carry its share of research and development costs and reiterated that nothing in the agreement would affect pharmaceutical prices. Regardless of the language used by officials in the US it won't change what's been agreed in this free trade agreement, the full text of which is available for all to see. Mr Zoellick told the committee he had protected American beef and dairy interests from Australian competition.In beef, we had a very long phase-out with various safeguards, slow quota increase. We tried to take care of the dairy industry as well because we didn't touch the tariff and we just increased the quota basically about $40-$50 million of imports a year. US Democrat Senator Max Baucus said that Mr Zoellick's trade agenda had been hijacked by foreign policy objectives.
Re: Third Time is the Charm
I'm very disappointed with DMS leaving PEBN_L. His tone was sharp but he brought fresh ideas and perspective. I see this as a loss for the list. There are other frequent posters who are more rude to those they disagree with. Gene Coyle dmschanoes wrote: I have received the following request from the moderator: From: "Michael Perelman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "DMS" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 10:39 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Crisis at the peak David, I don't think that your tone is very productive on the list. Maybe we should part ways. Far be it from me to disturb the peace, love, and good vibes of a family romance. dms
Re: Haiti expert
I was on the phone with someone in Washington this morning. As we talked he saw Max Sawicky walking by. Said Max was dressed for the '60s. Gene Coyle Max B. Sawicky wrote: Ask somebody at IPS. -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Doug Henwood Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 7:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Haiti expert I'd love to find someone who could talk about the history political economy of Haiti on my radio show next week - e.g., how did it get to be so poor? Any ideas? Doug
Re: Anti-deregulationmentarianism ?
Charles, I took a look at the DTE proposal. There wasn't much detail there but it looks like what Schwartenegger's academics are pushing in California. I wrote a year ago that economists never learn -- but the proponents of deregulation actually have learned that free market they proposed has flopped. DTE sees this as well. But Schwartenegger and DTE now propose what is called core and non-core. That is, let the industrial and other giant customers shop, and provide regulated service for the smaller customers. In my view this is sure to fail, though its failure will not be obvious and the cost of the failure will be felt in the environment and in the pocketbooks of small businesses and residential customers. DTE listed three alternatives -- completely de-regulate, completely re-regulate, and this core/non-core proposal. I think the choice should be to re-regulate. This is not to argue that regulation has worked well or will work well. But absent a strong move toward local ownership and control -- a movement yet aborning -- regulation is clearly the preferred route, IMHO. Gene Coyle I wonder if somebody on PEN-L might have some insight as to whether the anti-deregulation move by DTE, our local energy utility, is really anti- or not. http://www.dteenergy.com/ http://www.dteenergy.com/ Charles Brown
declaration of war?
Wasn't Greenspan's little talk about cutting taxes for the rich and cutting Social Security pretty close to an open declaration of class war? Gene Coyle
Right wing populism
Tom Frank has an essay in Le Monde Diplomatique addressing the right wing populism that confuses and attracts many. I'll paste the first paragraphs here: A WAR AGAINST ELITES The America will vote for Bush The US is currently going through the peculiar process of deciding which Democratic presidential candidate will stand against George Bush in November. The aversion to Bush, at home and abroad, makes us forget how many people support this spokesman for another America sure of its superiority and its values. By TOM FRANK * THERE was a commercial that aired on Iowa television in which the-then front-runner for the Democratic Partys presidential nomination, Howard Dean, was blasted for being the choice of the cultural elites: a "tax hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left- wing freak show" who had no business trying to talk to the plain folk of Iowa. The commercial was sponsored by the Club for Growth, a Washington-based organisation dedicated to hooking up pro-business rich people with pro-business politicians. The organisation is made up of anti-government economists, prominent men of means, and big thinkers of the late New Economy, celebrated geniuses of the sort that spent the past 10 years describing the low-tax, deregulated economy as though it were the second coming of Christ. In other words, the people who thought they saw Jesus in the ever-ascending Nasdaq, the pundits who worked himself into a lather singing the praises of new billionaires, the economists who made a living by publicly insisting that privatisation and deregulation were the mandates of history itself, are now running television commercials denouncing the "elite". Thats the mystery of the United States, circa 2004. Thanks to the rightward political shift of the past 30 years, wealth is today concentrated in fewer hands than it has been since the 1920s; workers have less power over the conditions under which they toil than ever before in our lifetimes; and the corporation has become the most powerful actor in our world. Yet that rightward shift - still going strong to this day - sells itself as a war against elites, a righteous uprising of the little guy against an obnoxious upper class. http://mondediplo.com/2004/02/04usa Subject: Date: From: To:
Re: Secret Pentagon report on global warming
This account is very misleading. They report a Pentagon What if... exercise as a Pentagon prediction. There is a frightening possibility that sudden climate change can occur, with some of the outcomes described here. But this sensationalism takes away from the serious discussion that needs to hit the mainstream media. Gene Coyle Louis Proyect wrote: Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us · Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war · Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years · Threat to the world is greater than terrorism Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York Sunday February 22, 2004 The Observer Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters.. A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world. The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents. 'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.' The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority. The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network. An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions. Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change. Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change. A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced with complaints that America's public stance appeared increasingly out of touch. One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, after he branded the President's position on the issue as indefensible. Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK's leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the Pentagon's internal fears should prove the 'tipping point' in persuading Bush to accept climatic change. Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office - and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism - said: 'If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.' Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon's dire warnings could no longer be ignored. 'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group,
[Fwd: Unionbuster Safeway's Burd Serves As Advisor To Ridge]
Original Message
Subject:
Unionbuster Safeway's Burd Serves As Advisor To Ridge
Date:
Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:53:12 -0800
From:
steve zeltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
Campaign Against T-H8-conf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unionbuster Safeway's Burd Serves As Advisor To Ridge
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/22/BUGJ3559S51.DTL
2/22/2004
Letter To The Editor
Safeway's Burd serves as adviser to Ridge
Editor -- As I read your twin stories on Steve Burd ("Safeway CEO
finds himself at the center of labor dispute" and "Grocery union
alleges intimidation," Jan. 28) and the grocery workers strike and the
intervention of (Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department) homeland
security officers, I scanned the articles over and over for what I
understood as the obvious missing link.
It is no accident the Department of Homeland Security has attempted to
intervene and intimidate the workers.
A simple Google search of "Homeland Security and Steve Burd" clarifies
that the Safeway CEO was recently appointed by Homeland Security
Secretary Tom Ridge to the Homeland Security Private Sector Senior
Advisory Committee.
Perhaps this link was known to your editors and ignored for fear that
your readers would more readily connect the war on terrorism and
corporate America's war on wages and living standards.
ROB ROOKE
Delegate, Northern California Carpenters Regional Council,
Local 713 Oakland
Re: query
Jerry Brown? Oh, no, that was later. Devine, James wrote: I am struggling to remember a name and it's bugging me, so I thought maybe bugging pen-l could help. (I tried googling...) What is the name of the Democratic Party candidate for President who ran in the early 1950s presidential primaries and was pretty successful in the primaries but lost -- and then, because seemingly because the glory and attention of the whole process had turned his head, ran for the Party's nomination again again, for more than 2 decades? (The same thing later happened to the comedian Pat Paulsen. Something like that may have happened to Howard Dean.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Dow Chemical's Knowledge Factories
I've just had the time to read Brian McKenna's article on Dow Chemical and its impact on universities. I really liked it. It says a lot about our universities as well as about Dow Chemical. Thanks, Brian, for this article. Gene Coyle Brian McKenna wrote: Hi socialist economists, Who said, "Growth is the opate we're all hooked on?" To find out, and to learn about a phenomenon that would have Thorstein Veblen turning in his grave, see my just released article on Michigan's Dow Chemical. . . http://www.ecocenter.org/200401/dowuniversity200401.shtml To see the entire issue, in pdf format, see: http://www.ecocenter.org/200401/ftgu_jan-feb_2004.pdf Brian McKenna
Buy today's Wall St. Journal
Today's Wall Street Journal, Page 1. A story that should get the Pulitzer Prize. Washington's Tilt to Business Stirs a Backlash in Indonesia. I have closely followed the Paiton power plant deal for years. The corruption in US corporations and at the highest levels of the US government is revealed in today's story. Read about Warren Christopher, former US Secretary of State and a director of the US giant utility, now called Edison International. Read about Larry Summers. Read it all carefully. Gene Coyle
Re: The economy - a new era?
I started this thread but Doug Henwood's initial response turned it into the question of whether high concentration or its opposite should be preferred. That's like asking if you prefer weightlessness or gravity. What difference does it make what you prefer if you live under the force of gravity? Where are we? My question is -- are we in or entering the era of the embrace -- on the part of the elite, on the part of the academy -- of industrial concentration, the embrace of monopoly and oligopoly? If so, Corporatism is (almost?) here, which is the precursor of ... ? I think we are in such an era. Judge Bork was mentioned earlier. A significant group of U. of Chicago economists supports letting industry "cooperate." The Wall St. Journal cheerleads for this. As someone mentioned already, this goes back to Reagan and his DOJ. The FBI and the DOJ have gone in the tank on anti-trust enforcement. I guess I would like your thoughts on whether my view -- about the new era -- is shared. Then we can go on to whether we like it or not. Incidentally, that story in today's Wall Street Journal would have made me weep if it hadn't made me even angrier. The last bit, citing Stu Eisenstadt, is so typical. Made it sound as if he would have stopped it, if only he'd known. What classic CYA. And the innocent Summers! He must be shocked, ... shocked, to read of this. Gene Coyle Michael Perelman wrote: The relationship between large corporations and the distribution of income is not predetermined. Generally, small employers pay much lower salaries than large employers. Wal-Mart is the exception, but may represent a future trend. Large corporations may be easier to orgahe technological laziness of concentrated industry. In short, we don't have good answers -- only opinions -- on the question of industrial concentration. On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 08:52:40AM -0500, Julio Huato wrote: Can you guys elaborate on this? Why would concentration be more propitious for progressive politics? What's in my mind is the idea floated in the growth literature in the last 10 years that initial inequality sabotages subsequent growth. (See, for example, Person and Tabelini, Dani Rodrik, Will Easterly, etc. There's a brief survey of the material by Francisco Ferreira, World Bank at www.worldbank.org/poverty/inequal/econ/ferreira.pdf.) I know there's no necessary link between industrial concentration and inequality, but -- at least in the development literature -- economies (e.g., Southeast Asia versus, say, Latin America) with relatively less industrial concentration have lower Ginis and are more robust in dealing with external shocks. I'd argue that progressive politics has been much more effective in Southeast Asia, where millions of people have lifted themselves out of poverty in the last 20 years. I was just reading this morning a posting by Henry Liu in the Post-Keynesian list on China's re-distributive rural subsidies. Maybe I'm naive, but just as progressive politics doesn't necessarily require deficit financing (it may, because politics is decisive, but it doesn't appear to me as a technical necessity in spite of what Post-Keynesians argue), I'd think that the only acceptable basis for concentration is technical (e.g., natural monopoly), and such technical basis is continuously shifted by technological change. (Again, this could also be overruled by political necessity.) No? Julio _ Las mejores tiendas, los precios mas bajos y las mejores ofertas en MSN Latino. http://latino.msn.com/compras -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
The Indonesia story
I probably should say something about the WSJ story I touted this morning. Edison Mission Energy, a wholly owned subsidiary of what is now Edison International, the giant southern California utility, along with GE and others, won the right to build a coal plant at Paiton in Indonesia. Perhaps they were successful in the bidding because they gave, for no money down, 15% of the ownership to a Suharto relative -- 15% of a billion dollar plant. That share would be paid for out of the profits once the plant was producing. Or perhaps they were successful because the contract to supply coal for the plant went to a Suharto relative. Who can guess? Part of the plant was financed by OPIC, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. So, you US citizens, you helped get this thing built! The price for the output -- the price per kWh -- was very high. It would have been high in the USA, but in Indonesia, where some of the customers work for sweatshop wages, and some work for less than that, the price was outrageous. And that was before the Asian financial crisis. Never mind, Warren Christopher fixed things. Warren, coincidentally (?) was US secretary of State under Clinton and a member of Edison's Board of directors before the his service at the State department and again after he stopped being a public servant. Everytime I think of the Paiton deal I think of the World Trade Center. John Bryson, the CEO of Edison International, was a founder of NRDC. Gene Coyle
Re: The economy - a new era?
Alfred Kahn has a new book out -- I'm told, haven't seen it. He's still boasting about the success of airline deregulation. Guess he hasn't been keeping up. He was a director of People Express, oops, that went bankrupt. But so did 400 plus other airlines -- some multiple times. And they keep going bankrupt. That's all to the good, it means competition works. ??? I should stick a little smiley in here. :-) There. But six or eight airlines still have the traffic. Yes, it was Teddy. One of the current Supremes, Stephen Breyer, was the staff leader pushing dereg. He later published a book which was a dumbed down version of Kahn/Freshman micro, with his personal bias added. And, yes, Nader was an early supporter of "competition" -- read "deregulation" but he got it straight later on and opposes electric dereg now. That's better than the economists who supported electric dereg and haven't learned a thing. At Harvard, MIT, Berkeley, Stanford. Just typing that list makes me aware of how rigid and powerful are the economists controlling the game. Michael Perelman wrote: Teddy Kennedy? Ralph Nader? On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 06:57:49PM -0500, Max B. Sawicky wrote: Wasn't it Jimmy Carter who did a number on airlines and trucking? Anybody remember Alfred Kahn? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Psychoanalysis Re: happiness is a transitory state
So, should the decline of the British empire have been predicted because Brits are subjects? I always marveled that Brits were willing to be so described. Gene Coyle Doug Henwood wrote: Mike Ballard wrote: Why *don't* the proles revolt? After all, capitalism is way past its use-by date by now. That's demonstrated on this list daily by the countless, excellent news articles posted. Could this condition originate in a conservative psychological character structure rooted in the upbringing of individuals within societies where the monogamous-paternalistic family, private property and the State permeate social relations? Or, if you want to take it further, there's Judith Butler's argument - rooted in that silly doctrine called psychoanalysis - that subjects are formed in subjection (through deference to authority figures, like parents, and their successors, like language and law), and that attitude of deference to authority persists through life, for fear of the disintegration of the subject. Doug
Tuxedo Park (was Skull Bones)
I have just finished reading Tuxedo Park, a book about Alfred Lee Loomis, a Wall Street lawyer and financier who cashed out before the Depression and turned to science. He built his own scientific lab at Tuxedo Park, where he sponsored and mentored scientists who were or became giants in the years before and after WW II. The book describes him as one of the people who individually won WWII. I think it describes -- better than does uttering the words "Skull and Bones"-- how the world of connections and relationships (family and otherwise) works at the highest levels of finance and government. Loomis' own mentoring cousin, Hemry Stimpson, became Secretary of War before WW II. The account of how Loomis, Stimpson, heads of Harvard and MIT parcelled out government dollars to fund the science that created micro-radiation and nuclear bombs is subtle but revealing. A few insiders decided where the millions of research dollars would be focused -- and who would benefit. Loomis -- in the 1920s -- put together a number of the giant electric utility holding companies that later collapsed financially, but he got out with his fortune not only intact but robust. A thoroughly engaging read, written by a young woman, a family member herself, a Conant, as in president of Harvard Conant. (Conant with one "n" or two?). She writes well and tells an inside story and settles scores along the way. It is only as an aside that she notes that Loomis personally, and dubiously, patented a key radar/micro-radiation invention. You can also read into the book, or at least I did, how big science takes care of its favorites, showing money and accolades on some, leaving others on the B list. Loomis went to Andover, Yale, and Harvard Law School. I did a quick check but haven't seen him listed as a member of Skull and Bones. In any event, although Skull and Bones is a collection of powerful people who look out for each other, I think that at the highest levels of finance there are others playing the game who were not in Skull and Bones but are as connected as (and with) the Bones men are. Gene Coyle
The economy - a new era?
Has the US economy entered a new era? It seems to me that the US Department of Justice, along with other relevant agencies, has lost interest in enforcing antitrust laws. I think we are back to the 1880s and 1890s, where Trusts and pools will rationalize capacity for the good of all? Banks and insurance companies agglomerate. Electric power generation is falling into fewer and fewer hands, and those hands are more and more financial institutions. Big oil gets bigger. Big steel consolidates while the steel market sags. ADM and Cargill thrive while the number of farmers shrinks. Am I generalizing from the worst possible input, anecdotal evidence? I've always loved anecdotal evidence -- I continue to believe what is before my eyes. I believed that smoking cigarettes caused lung cancer. I still do, actually. But clue me in: Are we moving to tight oligopoly everywhere in our economy? PEN-l doesn't much discuss economics, as Michael complains. But when it does, it discusses macro. Anybody looking at market structure? Gene Coyle
Bush and the F 102
Bush and the Texas Guard flew the F 102. An aviation buddy points out that the F 102 had no conceivable mission in Vietnam. So even if he showed up, his unit wasn't going to go. Gene Coyle
Re: The economy - a new era?
Yes, it is at least back as far as Reagan that anti-trust was shelved. There has been an on-going interest in cases where foreign firms -- those bad folks verging on evil -- were colluding. Gene Devine, James wrote: my 2 kopeks: it was under Clinton (or perhaps under Bush I or even Reagan) that anti-trust was shelved. The idea was that with globalization of competition in product markets, anti-trust wasn't needed. Of course, not all products have globalized markets... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Eugene Coyle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 2:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L] The economy - a new era? Has the US economy entered a new era? It seems to me that the US Department of Justice, along with other relevant agencies, has lost interest in enforcing antitrust laws. I think we are back to the 1880s and 1890s, where "Trusts" and "pools" will rationalize capacity for the good of all? Banks and insurance companies agglomerate. Electric power generation is falling into fewer and fewer hands, and those hands are more and more financial institutions. Big oil gets bigger. Big steel consolidates while the steel market sags. ADM and Cargill thrive while the number of farmers shrinks. Am I generalizing from the worst possible input, anecdotal evidence? I've always loved anecdotal evidence -- I continue to believe what is before my eyes. I believed that smoking cigarettes caused lung cancer. I still do, actually. But clue me in: Are we moving to tight oligopoly everywhere in our economy? PEN-l doesn't much discuss economics, as Michael complains. But when it does, it discusses macro. Anybody looking at market structure? Gene Coyle
Skull Bones distraction
Skull Bones is a distraction. My uncle used to put it more clearly: They all shit in the same pot. Gene Coyle
Re: new LBO web and radio product
Bill, I like what you're proposing here. We need some straightforward, simple yet deep flyers and pamphlets. A whole lot of what "Reagan Democrats" talk about is a critique of capitalism, all the while they phrase their longings in terms of "competition", the "free market" etc. Gene Coyle Bill Lear wrote: On Thursday, February 5, 2004 at 19:23:46 (-0500) Doug Henwood writes: ... "'Action Will Be Taken': Left Anti-intellectualism and Its Discontents," by Liza Featherstone, Doug Henwood, and Christian Parenti (comments highly welcome!) A very thoughtful piece. I do have some comments. I applaud your call for more thinking and a desire to get out the word about how the world works. It does strike me though that there is a tremendous amount of room to combine critical thinking with undercutting the opposition, a favorite tactic usually employed by the activist powerful. I was reading the Sermon on the Mount yesterday and was struck by how many of the things said I agreed with (I'm not religious). The Sermon is in many ways profoundly conservative: don't beat your chest about the alms you give, for example. This lesson is totally ignored, the practice of publicly patting yourself on the back (think of PGA tour players who give .0004 percent of their winnings to charity and are lauded by announcers for their deep humanity) deeply ingrained in our culture, and embraced by so-called conservatives. I sometimes feel that the left should really be called "true American rock-ribbed patriot conservatives" because so many of the values of the left align with the (at least) rhetorical claims of conservatism as I see it. You know: self-sacrifice, not mortgaging your future for present pleasures, real distaste for power (as opposed to organization), humility, gentleness in the face of aggression, generosity instead of mindless accumulation, a recognition and fear of greed (the single greatest cancer eating at our private and public lives, which atomizes us so effectively), etc. You want more people to read "Bakunin, Marx and Fanon", yet you don't want a movement that is headed by a few pointy-headed intellectuals. I think it is time to write alternative works that I can hand to my in-laws, who have only heard of one of the three and who would stop reading Marx as a worthless waste of time after the first four sentences. I'm all for theorizing, but I agree with Chomsky, and disagree with Zizek's rather careless criticism of him. Chomsky doesn't ever say, explicitly or implicitly, "you don't have to do any theory". First, he is very skeptical of the value of a lot of the "theory" that he has seen for very good reasons: most of it is unsupported garbage. Second, he applauds theorizing especially when it can be expressed to others in plain language, as, for example he does when he talks about (for example) Thomas Ferguson's fine work theorizing how much of American political life works, and many, many others who have admirably done the work of hard-core empirical research and who can turn around and share their work with a wide audience. So, I'd say, it's time to re-engage Marx's goal: rewrite a book that explains in outline all of society, in 200 pages or less. Then write volumes two and three for more details. Then, as times change, update the book, don't let it get musty and irrelevant. Create a new bible that you rewrite every 5 years, but don't worship it, be willing to change your ideas (another core conservative principle). The book should start with moral precepts drawn from the powerful, truly conservative and admirable core of our culture that is trampled on, violated daily, by the laughable monsters we call "conservatives" who when confronted by sayings such as "blessed are the peacemakers" hiss and shrivel. Bill
CA budget alternative
This column from the LA Times proposes a simple and painless way to fix California's budget problems. Painless for almost all of us and with minimum pain for the few bothered at all. Peter Camejo, the Green candidate for governor last fall -- who might be the Green candidate for president this year -- pushed higher tax rates for the rich during his campaign. Gene Coyle LA TIMES: Steve Lopez Surcharge Not Too Taxing for Wealthy January 21, 2004 So what would you say if I told you there's a way to wipe out the entire state budget deficit, and it wouldn't cost one red cent for the vast majority of Californians? We wouldn't have to turn kids away from college, kill transportation projects, leave cops and firefighters in the lurch, or take a stick to children, the elderly and the lame. Twice now I've mentioned the proposal by two professors to put a temporary surcharge on wealth, and each time, readers have wondered if there's a petition they can sign. Not yet. But let me give you the background. When we heard Arnold Schwarzenegger say the only way to do this was with a $15-billion bond measure, we wanted to come up with an alternative that wouldn't substantially change the lifestyle of any Californian, says Paul O'Lague, who teaches molecular biology at UCLA. O'Lague and his pal John Bachar, who teaches statistics and probability at Cal State Long Beach, have been studying income taxes and wealth distribution for years, and hosting salons to hash out their ideas. They came up with a proposal that puts a surcharge on California residents with an income above $200,000, including a joint filing in which husband and wife make that much combined. The surcharge would start at 0.5% for light heavyweights making $200,000, and climb to 7% for bombers hauling in $5 million a year or more. All told, this $200k-plus group accounts for just 3.1% of all tax returns, but has 35.9% of total personal income in the state. The surcharge would generate a fat $13 billion a year, because California has more millionaires per capita than any state. (And Golden State billionaires, who account for more than one-fifth of the nation's billionaires, have a net worth of $102.9 billion.) How much money can you spend on yourself? asked Bachar. He echoed his colleague's point that for the state's aristocracy, the hardship of a surcharge could mean having to settle for a $9.5-million mansion instead of a $10-million estate. As some readers said, people making $200,000 aren't exactly rich in this day and age, and they're right. But in 2000, Bachar said, 6,455 Californians made $5 million or more, and the average in that group was $15.6 million. We lost some of those millionaires after the dot-com crash, but we've gained some recently. Not everyone turned cartwheels when I first mentioned O'Lague and Bachar's cage-rattling idea. I heard from the growing legions of trained chimps who can't get through a day without saying no new taxes, even in a state that's in the middle of the pack in taxation. Others called me a dope for a plan that would drive millionaires out of the state. But not all of them would leave. And if enough of them did, maybe it would burst the real estate bubble so more people could afford a house. I also heard from readers telling me about all the hard work that goes into striking it rich. Some of them carped about having to keep shelling out for society's laggards and dregs. First of all, for the super rich, a good chunk of their income doesn't come from working up a sweat. It comes from capital gains, dividends, stock options and other non-aerobic activities. These folks have got shelters and deferrals and all sorts of tricks the average Joe doesn't have. Because of it, they control more of the nation's wealth than ever, but their share of taxes has been dwindling for roughly 20 years. If you don't believe me, I refer you to a former colleague, David Cay Johnston, who has a new book on the subject. The title, not exactly subtle, is: Perfectly Legal, the Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich and Cheat Everybody Else. Johnston saw my reference to O'Lague and Bachar and called to say that in 2000, the 27,000 richest Americans had as much income as the bottom 96 million combined. And the gap is growing. The rich really are getting richer and the poor poorer, said Johnston, who writes about taxes for the New York Times. His book is filled with examples of the tax burden being shifted from the famously rich to average blokes. No mystery there. Money, in the form of campaign donations, buys access. And access has meant that corporations and the wealthiest Americans have umpteen ways to shrink taxable income. The richest 1% are taxed more lightly than the middle class when you add up all their tax and investment advantages, Johnston writes. The same data show that the poor are taxed almost as heavily as the rich are and even more heavily than the super rich. It seems all the more reason to consider
Re: Free Martha!
We have to wait to see if Martha is. Gene Doug Henwood wrote: Devine, James wrote: so Ms. Stewart is to Lieutenant Calley as Wall Street is to the US war against Vietnam? Calley really was guilty, no? Doug
Re: Nixon and Labor
Michael, In the interview Lakoff mentions that he has a thing called The Rockridge Institute -- presumably in the Rockridge area of Berkeley/Oakland -- maybe he'll take us on as a project. Gene Michael Perelman wrote: Lakoff's framing is very important. We don't know how to do it -- at least I have not figured out how. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Query -- book on JFK death?
Back around September or so I read about a forthcoming book that would assert that LBJ was behind the assassination of JFK. What made it most interesting was that the author was the father of Bush's press spokesperson. Can't recall if it is the current one or the previous one. But I haven't heard anything about this book since. Anybody know what happened? Gene Coyle
Re: Investment question?
I did not see the origin of this thread. But I assume the pundits foresee higher interest rates ahead, in which case the value of the bonds in the funds will drop. Value goes down as interest rates go up. Gene joanna bujes wrote: Why is it that financial pundits are saying that fixed income funds are a bad idea going forward? If the current decade 2000-2010 is similar to the 1970-1980 decade, which it seems to me it kind of is, why wouldn't a fixed income fund do well? Joanna
Re: Nixon and Labor
A friend sent me this interview with George Lakoff, which goes towards answering your question, Michael. Inside the Frame http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=17574 Inside the Frame BuzzFlash January 15, 2004 Viewed on January 16, 2004 George Lakoff, a professor of linguistics and cognitive science at the University of California Berkeley, is a specialist in the technique of "framing," a communication tool that creates a "frame" for a message that defines the terms of the debate. Lakoff believes that the Republicans are experts at framing, while the Democrats hardly appear to understand how the technique works at all. Take almost any major political issue, and the Democrats react to how the Bush Cartel has "framed the issue," rather than forcing the GOP to respond to a Democratic "frame." Gene Michael Perelman wrote: I have been looking over an interesting article Cowie, Jefferson. 2002. "Nixon's Class Struggle: Strategic Formulations of the New-Right Worker." Labor History (August). You can read it on line http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0348/3_43/91201898/p1/article.jhtml?term= It suggests that Nixon was able to get a good feel for how to communicate with labor. Let me know what you think about it. If a Nixon can figure out how to reach out effectively, why can't we be equally creative??? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Brazilian fingerprinting
When I landed in Sao Paulo I was fingerprinted and photographed -- took only 3 extra minutes and I wondered if the prints would go immediately into the circular file and I mentally questioned whether there was film in the camera. Very friendly police who understood the politics of it. They told me, however, that I was fortunate to come into the country there because it was taking two hours in Rio to get through the process. The colleagues I was meeting in Brazil were quite interested to learn whether I had been fingerprinted. Playing the piano on the black keys? they asked. Actually Brazil only printed one thumb. Landing in Miami yesterday on my return I was amused and delighted to find that an American Airlines pilot had been taken into custody and ultimately fined $12,500 - yes dollars -- for an obscene gesture at the Sao Paulo entry point. The photo in the Miami Herald showed him in the entry photo holding the ID paper with his middle finger extended. The police took this as an insulting gesture and locked him up and detained the rest of the crew -- later sending all dead-heading back to the USA. The pilot's mindset -- if I can interpret it -- seems to be the typical American arrogance and self-rightousness. Sad. Gene Coyle
Re: Heresy....
The last place to seek refuge as this unfolds is in Nice. That's where the Marines will land in the first wave of the invasion of France. Gene Coyle Max B. Sawicky wrote: I saw that movie. Denzel Washington arrests Bruce Willis in the end, and everything goes back to normal. Subject: Re: Heresy Here's the scenario: 1. Police engage in violent assaults on demonstrators at GOP convention 2. Supposed terrorist plot to bomb convention is interdicted or successful 3. Iraq resistance increases. 4. Economy tanks, follows China into black hole. 5. Staged "terrorist" attack(s) on US on govt officials and offices. 6. National emergency declared. 7. Congress supports declaration. 8. Yours truly offers refuge and use of extra room in Nice, France apt. to one or two lucky people. Film at 11. dms
[Fwd: A view on California electricity
Here's a perspective from Local Power on the unfolding California electric scene. Gene Coyle Original Message Subject: local power news: REGULATORS DELAY $ MULTI-BILLION UTILITY POWER CONTRACT DECISION UNTIL JANUARY 8 Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:17:39 -0800 From: Paul Fenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] local power newsdecember 29, 2003 CPUC Delays Decision to Put Ratepayers on Hook for Power Contracts January 8 Vote on Multi-Year Electric Utility Procurement Dwarfs Recent $8 Billion Bailout of PGE On January 8 the California Public Utilities Commission will follow up its recent $ 8 Billion ratepayer bailout of Pacific Gas Electric by voting on a new framework to entrust PGE with buying Northern California ratepayers electricity once again. After over $16 Billion in total bailouts billed to PGEs customers since 1998, the CPUCs new electric utility procurement framework would put ratepayers on the hook for new long-term power purchase contracts that PGE and the other electric monopolies negotiate. Smelling a disaster, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution shortly before the CPUCs December 18 meeting asking the Commissioners not to put the Citys ratepayers on the hook for any new multi-year PGE contracts. After this was followed by the Marin County Board of Supervisors, Los Angeles County and ten Los Angeles area cities (representing over 10 Million residents), the CPUC responded by limiting the procurement authorization to one year - 2004. Yet CPUC President Michael Peevey has scheduled a new five-year utility procurement framework for a vote a week from Thursday without explaining its urgency. When the CPUC approved PGEs second major bailout in December, Commissioner Peevey claimed that forcing ratepayers to pay PGEs creditors would bring an end to Californias Energy Crisis. Yet the new framework being rushed to a vote next week may expose ratepayers to yet another round of bailouts should power markets destabilize again in the next five years - and Peeveys plan already includes provisions for a non-bypassable surcharge to be imposed on customers who seek to escape their utility. If approved, California ratepayers may face a new kind of semi-regulated captivity and face exposure to a third round of$ multi-billion bailouts in coming years. Unfortunately, this outcome is not merely possible but likely. The long-term power contracts that PGE would sign on its customers credit line consists of virtually all natural gas-fired generation. If you have not already heard, everyone from Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to Bush Administration Energy Czar Spencer Abraham have predicted a prolonged natural gas crisis starting later this year. Should this happen, the price of natural gas-fired electricity will rise dramatically. Guess who will pay for the difference under Peeveys new framework? Thats right - you will. San Francisco leaders have other plans. Under a new Community Choice law approved by the state legislature and former Governor Gray Davis in 2002, San Francisco leaders are now seeking to break away from PGE power procurement to find an independent electric service provider, and to invest San Franciscans' energy dollars in solar power, wind power, energy efficiency and conservation technologies that will permanently reduce their exposure to volatile energy markets. Combined with voter-approved Proposition H of 2001, the City has the authority to finance these new investments with revenue bonds in a manner that will not increase electric rates, while putting in place permanent infrastructure to make San Francisco truly energy independent. After the City's Local Agency Formation Commission received promising results from a commissioned study on the opportunities for Community Choice last year, Local Power and Supervisor Tom Ammiano prepared an implementation ordinance for the Board of Supervisors to move forward, and more recently City Attorney Dennis Herrera has expressed his support for implementing Community Choice Aggregation in the City. Finally, San Francisco and other California cities have found a way out of the Energy Crisis that has been proven in other states. Yet the CPUC appears more eager to hand a monopoly back to Californias bailed-out electric utilities, fast-tracking both monopoly bailouts and the new electric procurement framework while waiting until very recently to even begin working on regulations for municipalities to implement the Community Choice law. This must stop immediately. The CPUC does not have authority to choose which laws of the legislature to enforce, and must not proceed with an electric utility procurement framework until the regulations are completed that would allow municipalities to leave electric procurement . San Francisco and other
the PGE bankruptcy
Michael asked for some thoughts about the PGE bankruptcy, which the California CPUC just signed off on, in a vote that was, I think, 3-2. I wasn't involved in the bankruptcy proceedings, so these remarks are from a casual observer, but of course I follow the industry and know many of the people involved in this. The background to the bankruptcy will be very sketchy here. It is a long story. PGE agreed to (some would say designed) the deregulation plan that brought it down. In the California deregulation scheme, PGE was protected from the anticipated effects of competition -- i. e. that new vendors would lower prices of kWhs so that the PGE plants would not be able to operate profitably. This protection was called "recovery of stranded costs." Electric rates were frozen at a high level, so that PGE was able to collect much more per kWh than it cost to produce, thus generating in a couple of years a fund of several billion (yes, that's a b) dollars. When the agreed upon amount of stranded costs were collected, the agreement was, then the frozen rates would end, customers could buy from any vendor, and glorious free market wonders would ensue. PGE also agreed that it was taking all the risk -- the still president, Gordon Smith, said that publicly. If they hadn't collected all their stranded costs, too bad. As it turned out, before the stranded costs were collected (though PGE, realizing what was about to happen, suddenly asserted that it had fully collected) the price of wholesale power shot up, even higher than the high level that retail prices had been frozen at. Now PGE was delivering power to customers at a retail price significantly lower than it was buying the kWhs at at wholesale. Hence the eventual bankruptcy. [As an aside, Southern California Edison, the other giant California IOU, was in the same fix, but rather than go bankrupt it early-on accepted a deal with Gov Davis for a bailout.] In effect, PGE bet the company on the hope of collecting all the stranded costs before wholesale prices shot up. The company lost, missed by several months. But though they bet the company and events unfolded badly, they didn't lose. The bankruptcy court made them whole. I learned that a bankruptcy judge is there to protect the creditors. Period. No public policy concerns beyond protecting creditors enter the calculation. PGE immediatly surfaced a clever plan. The company has owned for most of a century, an extensive hydro-electric system in the Sierras -- an extraordinarily valuable asset. Free water spins the turbines, the dams are depreciated but fully functional -- in short, they spin water into gold. PGE said it would turn the hydro system over to a new company, owned by its own parent, PGE, and then sell the low-cost kWhs on the open market at a high prices. Of course the customers, having paid for the hydro system and expecting to get the kWhs at cost, not market prices, would be screwed. The creditors, seeing that they would get their money, and not caring at all about the customers, immediately embraced the idea. I'll skip the story of how this was stopped, but it did use up some of the vigor of the enviros and consumer advocates who, at the same time, felt that they had won something by stopping it. And of course they had, but it wasn't something that should have required a fight at all. The proposal was absurd, but of course the bankruptcy judge didn't care, so long as money was generated for the creditors. The bankruptcy proceeding ran on. Fairly early the judge ruled that consumers had no stranding -- the only players were to be PGE and the creditors, with the CPUC also involved because it would have to make sure the customers paid enough for future kWhs to satisfy what ever the judge required. During the proceedings, the "Creditors' committee" got official standing and its lawyers were paid all along out of "the estate," to use a legal phrase which I'm not sure is the right one. At any rate, as the hearing went on, the creditors' committee had full representation and it was paid for. The creditors in the creditors' committee were the big banks and big energy companies that PGE owed. There were other creditors not in the creditors' committee. These smaller ones had to pay their own legal bills along the way. PGE's lawyers and its Wall Street consultants were also paid along the way. Of coures PGE's executives were paid regularly, including the afore-mentioned Gordon Smith and also the CEO and officers of the parent. From a dim memory, I think the executives got extra bonuses to retain them during these troubled times. Exactly who would have tempted them away is unclear. Or, rather, unfathomable. They had done a number of stupid things along the way in the past thirty years, and many recently. So, after a long process, PGE's proposed settlement was embraced by the creditors' committee and found favor with the judge. The fact that the creditors got 100% out of a bankrupt company
Re: Brazil: the view from the WB
This from the World Bank is interesting because Brazil seems determined to roll back the privatization of electric power by opening the generation market to the publically owned utility. The new president of Eletrobras has complained of the destatization of the neo-liberal agenda -- and talks of the symbolism of ending the constraint on government investment. This while the staffers at the WB still publish studies about how (not whether) privatization can work. Studies which are unaware of much of the literature. Maybe the word hasn't trickled down yet. I'm going to Brazil in a couple of weeks and will report in late Januray on what I hope is the unwinding of the privatization rules. Gene Coyle Eubulides wrote: The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com Why eyes are on Brazil David de Ferranti and Vinod Thomas IHT Wednesday, December 24, 2003 A new model of growth BRASILIA Call it the BrasÃlia consensus. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who began his term as president of Brazil on the first of this year, is building a new development model to replace the late, unlamented Washington consensus - the vision of development that emerged from Western advisers in the 80's and 90's. This new strategy is that economic and social progress are inseparable. This may sound like no more than common sense. Yet, following the conventional wisdom of many economists, developing countries for years have had to endure austerity plans before seeking improvements in basic living conditions. Desperately needed advances in health, education and employment were all too often slowed in an efforts to pay down debt or reach economic growth targets. Can Brazil's new model work? Can a Latin American country progress economically while simultaneously investing in the welfare of its people? In Brazil, early indications are positive. The government has protected health, education and other vital programs from financing reductions, and it is taking important steps to strengthen the impact of a cash transfer program for the poor, preventing serious deterioration in conditions during a year of slow economic growth. But at the same time, President da Silva's administration has also succeeded in reassuring international markets that it is committed to macroeconomic stability and improvements in efficiency. Since the administration took over, the spread between the interest rates on Brazilian debt and U.S. Treasury debt, a key measure of economic confidence, has shrunk by two-thirds, while domestic interest rates are down more than one-third. The value of Brazilian currency has risen strongly, and the public debt has stabilized in relation to GDP. There is still, of course, a long way to go. For all of its clout as the world's ninth-largest economy, Brazil remains among the world's most unequal countries in income distribution. Given the implied social disparities, it is easy to see why a lifelong social activist who reached the presidency might have been tempted to leap into crash programs of redistributing wealth. Instead, the administration is moving carefully and systematically to expand social assistance while making it more efficient and better targeted. This is not glamorous work, yet it promises long-lasting results. Goals are specific and the level of achievement will be measurable. Examples are providing potable water to 3.7 million people in Brazil's poorest Northeast region, building 1.2 million housing units for the poor, forming 30,000 family health teams to deliver essential comprehensive care to those in need. And the government is looking at expanding a school financing program that already helped get most of Brazil's children into primary schools, so that it will also cover secondary education - a step toward a more educated work force. President da Silva has been able to build on a sturdy foundation. The previous administration devised the cash transfers and managed to tame inflation, which had been was a millstone around the necks of millions of Brazilians. The new government is now dealing with another longstanding problem - extraordinarily generous and costly pensions for civil servants. Public employees are not pleased by plans for change. But the administration is managing to maintain the bulk of its support from ordinary Brazilians, as well as from investors and business leaders at home and abroad. This is a critical achievement in a region marked by political instability and the sharpening of class tensions. The fortunes of Brazil's development strategy are not exactly headline news in the industrialized world. But make no mistake, throughout the global South, all eyes are on Brazil. Achieving measurable gains in health, education, employment and government accountability, while accelerating socially and environmentally sustainable growth, is the hope of the early 21st century. Success for the BrasÃlia consensus would affect development efforts everywhere. Fortunately, indicators so far are
Re: the capture of saddam
Micheal, re your point about throwing a stun grenade into the hole: A Scottish newspaper (also picked up by The AGE in Melbourne) raises the argument that Saddam was actually captured by the Kurds -- perhaps weeks before -- and drugged and placed in the hole for the US hunters. Sort of like that turkey shoot Cheney went on in Pennsylvania recently. Separately, a friend mentions a news item or video scene where a US soldier was poised with a grenade, ready to toss it in the hole -- but it wasn't necessary. Gene michael wrote: J. Edgar Hoover used to to reenactments of the capture of famous criminal, where he would heroically appear to apprehend the evil doer. Why did Bush not fly his fighter plane to Iraq and pull Saddam out of the hole on prime time tv? Is Karl Rove getting stale? By the way, I suspect that the soldiers would not just climb down into a hole and find SH with his hands up. The would certainly throw in a stun grenade or gas him before bringing him up. Of course, none of this is germane to pen-l, but nobody seems interested in the real economy. Does anybody have any feel for the types of jobs that are being created now? Is the international economy stable enough to carry Bush till next October? Are we in the midst of a new stock market bubble? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: something new/Waldheim
That's ok, the new governor of California stood by Waldheim even when it became public. Paul wrote: True, although it was probably only a secret from the public. As I recall, after war the Yugoslavs filed a formal complaint against him as a war criminal with the Allied war crimes tribunal (U.S., Soviet, UK, French). Since was he then was a career diplomat being posted to the key capitals rising to Foreign Minister of Austria and since neutral Vienna was the center of Cold War clandestine contact and monitoring for both sides, it is hard to believe that the key players had not worked up many a profile on him long before he was ran for UN Sec Gen. To put things in context, I believe the charges never went beyond being in the chain of command for atrocities (I think against partisans and British commandos). Although it was never charged that he actually initiated an atrocity or personally supervised one, it is still a war crime to be participate in the chain of command of one - let us remind people often. At 03:23 PM 12/21/2003 -0800, you wrote: Waldheim was a secret demon. That does not count. On Sun, Dec 21, 2003 at 05:57:45PM -0500, dmschanoes wrote: Kurt Waldeheim? - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 5:26 PM Subject: [PEN-L] something new??? Is Qadhafi the first person in US history to make the transition from demon to statesman? Usually, it goes the other way. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On the economy (was on the capture of Saddam)
MIchael asked about the economy. A rare subject for this list. I had the feeling that the bump this fall from the tax cut might end before carrying Bush to triumph. But the WSJ had a story the other day that the farm economy is starting to boom. High prices for cattle and grains. Leading to big purchases of tractors and other heavy equipment, and building of houses, etc. That seems to be an additional bump that may be enough to keep the expansion going for a year. I do think the new stock market bubble is inflating, because my sense is that we are in for a long period of very slow growth, world-wide and in particular in the USA. Consequently the stock market isn't going much higher on fundamentals -- so any spurt in share prices won't reward new buyers. Gene Coyle michael wrote: J. Edgar Hoover used to to reenactments of the capture of famous criminal, where he would heroically appear to apprehend the evil doer. Why did Bush not fly his fighter plane to Iraq and pull Saddam out of the hole on prime time tv? Is Karl Rove getting stale? By the way, I suspect that the soldiers would not just climb down into a hole and find SH with his hands up. The would certainly throw in a stun grenade or gas him before bringing him up. Of course, none of this is germane to pen-l, but nobody seems interested in the real economy. Does anybody have any feel for the types of jobs that are being created now? Is the international economy stable enough to carry Bush till next October? Are we in the midst of a new stock market bubble? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Query
A friend passed along this query from a European correspondent: Do you know anybody criticalof the US system of tuition fees who argues from an economic point of view: i.e. who refers to higher education as public good? We need to be backed up by critics from abroad. Otherwise benchmark with the US will lead to adopting your system. Any thoughts? Gene Coyle
Boycott Safeway
Home | Newswire |About Us | Donate | Sign-Up | Archives Wednesday, December 17, 2003 Headlines Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article Published on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 by the Los Angeles Times Union Bosses Call on Nation to Boycott Safeway Stores Leaders from around the country meet in L.A. to show support for grocery workers in the labor dispute by Nancy Cleeland Several thousand striking and locked-out supermarket workers and their supporters marched to a Pavilions store in Beverly Hills on Tuesday in the largest demonstration since the regional walkout began Oct. 11. The march followed a meeting of United Food and Commercial Workers presidents from about 150 union locals nationwide, who pledged several million dollars for the dwindling supermarket strike funds here. The union also sought to portray its fight with Safeway Inc., Albertsons Inc. and Kroger Co. parent of Ralphs as a pivotal moment for American labor. "If we lose here," said national UFCW President Doug Dority, "it will set off a corporate tidal wave that will sweep away benefits in contracts in all industries." Dority also announced there would be a national campaign to boycott Safeway, the parent company of Vons and Pavilions and the union's top public target. "We want to empty those stores," he said. "This is an old tactic that won't impact what's going on in Southern California," Safeway spokesman Brian Dowling told Associated Press. Federally mediated contract negotiations are set to resume Friday. The chains are seeking cuts in health benefits and a lower pay scale for new hires, which they say are needed to help them compete with discounter Wal-Mart Stores Inc. On Tuesday, Dority asked officers to assess their members across the country a $10-a-week surcharge for strike support to raise more funds. "We will not allow our members to be starved into submission," he said. The union is spending about $15 million in strike benefits each week, said UFCW Communications Director Greg Denier. Each of the seven union locals involved in the dispute administers its own fund. At least one local, in San Diego, announced that it would reduce strike benefits from $300 to $100 a week. And Local 1442 in Santa Monica said it had taken out loans on its buildings to keep the strike fund afloat. Some speakers, including the Rev. James Lawson, a longtime civil rights activist who worked with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in the 1960s, nudged the union to use more militant tactics. "I've been arrested many times, and if this moves to civil disobedience, I will be there," Lawson said, to an explosion of cheers from pickets. But there were no arrests during the short march from Century City to Beverly Hills, where the Pavilions parking lot was overrun with sign-toting union members. Many were clearly energized by the event. "Today was the best day yet," said Goldsborough Purnell, 45, a general-merchandise department head at an Albertsons in Hermosa Beach for three years. Purnell, who earned $9.78 an hour, said he lost his home last month because he wasn't able to pay rent. He now lives in his car. "We're making a statement here, and I'm willing to do whatever it takes," he said. Jose Sanchez, a clerk at a Ralphs in Burbank, said his father and grandfather were migrant farmworkers who marched with Cesar Chavez. "My dad picked strawberries," Sanchez said. "Now look at me. I've got a family, a house, picket fence and all, the American dream. That's what my dad and grandfather fought for. I'm not going to give up on it now." Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times inline: feature.gifinline:
Re: Texas redistricting fairness
That was Phil Burton, wasn't it? Gene Michael Perelman wrote: In all fairness, John Burton did one of the first modern redistricting in California. What is new here is that the Repugs. want to do it whenever they can rather than wait for the next census. On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 02:32:30PM -0600, Bill Lear wrote: On Friday, December 12, 2003 at 14:33:22 (-0500) Michael Hoover writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/12/03 10:14AM From today's Washington Post: Judge Patrick Higginbotham, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and one of three federal judges hearing the case, seemed skeptical of the Democrats' suggestion that redistricting had ever been a scrupulously fair undertaking. ... ... surprise, surprise, courts (or 2 major parties for that matter) have adequately addressed integrity of competitive electoral process as constitutional matter...so-called good-clean gov't/fair election types correlate competitive and meaningful which, i suppose, has some validity...of course, choices in competitive contest may/may not themselves be meaningful... I'm surprised that on a progressive econ list such as this, the motives of the gerrymanderers (er?) to escape competition have not been compared to those who undertake corporate gerrymandering of markets to avoid dread "ruinous competition" and how thereby a large percentage of our so-called market economy is anything but. Bill -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A conversation overheard
Stopped at an I-Hop for lunch on the road today. Three women, dressed as office workers, perhaps 25 - 35 years old, took the next table. They chatted, then one spoke of a friend in the service in Iraq, working on restoring the electrical grid. They'd come under attack, and one boy lost an arm, a second a leg, taken off at the very top. The second one said I'm not paying attention to that. The third one said Have you got your Christmas lights up yet? and they chatted. Gene Coyle
Re: threatened cut-backs for the disabled in California
What these cuts are about is forcing the liberals to defend the weakest -- which constituency Arnold doesn't really want to cut because it would be bad politically. Arnold wants the liberals to spend time and money protecting something he really can't destroy, so that they have to give in to him on other items. Like his $15 billion bond issue. They'll agree that it is better to not cut and, alternatively, sell the bonds. Gene Doug Henwood wrote: Michael Perelman wrote: Shocking that the movie hero needs to pick on the weakest most vulnerable. Not just the disabled. Outreach for disadvantaged students. Health care for the poor. Also, Berkeley's labor studies program. So far, not one hit on the middle class or their betters. That's no surprise, really, but all those cuts won't come close to balancing the budget. What else can he do? Doug
[Fwd: Climate Equity Observer #7]
Tom Athanasiou asked me to forward this. Gene Coyle Original Message Subject: Climate Equity Observer #7 Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:54:37 -0800 From: Tom Athanasiou [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: eugene Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gene; Could you please forward this to pen-l for me? And the eadvocates list too, if you feel like it. Thanks in advance. And who knows, maybe I'll see you at a holiday party! -- toma Dear Friends; It's been a while since the last issue of Climate Equity Observer, but we've been busy, and like most everyone else, distracted by the war. Frankly, it's been interesting to watch as, against an unexpected Iraqi background, "the post Kyoto debate" finally took on form. We think you'll find this new issue well worth your time. We've been tracking both the science, which is getting fairly terrifying, and the politics, which is more than a bit terrifying itself. So we hope you'll take the time to read at least the key essays here, perhaps even with a bit of care. Taken together, they form a pretty good snapshot of the situation. Kyoto's successor must directly address the twinned problems of adequacy and equity. Each year more of us say this, and more clearly, though here in the U.S. we still mostly hear that incremental evolution alone will have to do. We've even heard people argue that the message of the recent science should be soft-pedaled, because if Moscow realizes what will actually be necessary, it will only bind itself more tightly to Washington-style denialism. This, of course, is not our position. In fact, the months since the publication of our first book, Dead Heat: Global Justice and Global Warming, have only moved us to reaffirm our core claim: there's precious little time left to make the turn into a soft-lading corridor, and we can no longer afford to put off the tough arguments: about how to fairly share the atmosphere, and about how to compensate those who will be most harmed by global warming. Anyway, here's the new issue of CEO. Feel free to write and tell us what you think! A Northern Call for Southern Leadership Let's be blunt: it's now critically important that the developing world itself put a concrete proposal for an adequate and equitable climate stabilization framework onto the negotiating table. First, the Bad News Lots of our friends are talking about drawing the line at 2C of warming. Judging by some of the rumblings we hear from the scientists, though, 2C may be harder than we've been admitting. And it may even be too high... The Writing on the Wall Just about everyone in the climate community has drawn conclusions from the North/South standoff at the last climate conference. We've drawn some too, and they may surprise you. In any case, there's more than one kind of denial in the air. There's also political denial, and we have to stop it! Adequacy and Equity: Three Focal Questions Shortly before his death, the Tellus Institute's Steve Bernow, working with Sivan Kartha, wrote this lapidary little piece. It's his last essay, and it bears reading, and not just if you miss Steve. A CEO Interview: Michael Grubb We did this interview just after COP8... Still, what's to say? There was that war... Actually, Michael's comments are only the more interesting for the delay. A CEO Book Review: The Party's Over, Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies Richard Heinberg argues that the end of the cheap-oil era is in now sight. He is, moreover, skeptical, sophisticated, and thought provoking. And brave: he even draws conclusions! And he emphatically does not think that it's going to be easy. Tom Athanasiou [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ecoequity.org Dead Heat: Global Justice and Global Warming http://www.ecoequity.org/docs/deadheat.htm
Real estate bubble?
November 29, 2003 Apartment Glut Forces Owners to Cut Rents in Much of U.S. By DAVID LEONHARDT EMPHIS, Nov. 25 Renting an apartment in much of the country these days can feel a little like waking up on your birthday. Waiting for the tenants in some building lobbies around Memphis every morning are free cups of Starbucks coffee. In the Atlanta suburbs, people who move into one garden-style apartment building receive $500 gift certificates to Best Buy, the electronics chain. In Cleveland, Denver and many other cities, landlords have been giving new tenants gifts worth $1,000 or more: one, two or even three months of rent-free living. While rents have continued to rise in many big cities on the coasts, including New York and Los Angeles, they are falling in more than 80 percent of metropolitan areas across the country. Low interest rates in recent years have persuaded many families to move out of rented apartments and buy their first homes at the same time that developers have been putting up thousands of new rental buildings, leaving many landlords desperate to fill apartments. The portion of apartments sitting vacant this summer rose to 9.9 percent, the highest level since the Census Bureau began keeping statistics in 1956. "I've been doing this for 30 years, and this is the worst rental climate I've ever seen," said Leonard Richman, president of the Sunshine Corporation, which manages almost 4,000 apartments in Memphis. "Rents have gone down to where they were about three or four years ago." The rent decreases and the enticements, which have proliferated in the last year, are helping many younger adults, who are more likely to rent than other groups and who have suffered in the hiring slump of the last three years. Between late 2001 and this summer, the average rent per square foot fell 4.8 percent across the country, according to the National Real Estate Index, which is published by Global Real Analytics, a research company. But the declines are also a worrisome sign that the nation's housing market has begun to suffer from some of the same problems of oversupply that have already hurt manufacturers, economists say. If mortgage rates continue increasing, as is widely expected, people who might have bought houses will instead rent. That could shift the burden of the excess supply from landlords onto homeowners, hastening the end of a decade of rapidly rising house prices. "You're going to take the one bright light in the economy, and it will dim," said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Economy.com, a research company. "It's just a question of how much." The biggest rent declines have occurred mostly in cities, like Memphis, where land is abundant but building regulations are not and where housing costs were already among the least expensive of the country's urban areas. "In any city in the Southeast or Midwest, you'll drive around and see banners `One month off,' `Two months off,' `$2,000 off,' " said Mark Fogelman, president of Fogelman Management, which manages 16,000 apartments from Kansas to Florida. Last month, Andrew H. Underwood, a 24-year-old employee of a local bank, moved into a high-ceilinged one-bedroom apartment in downtown Memphis with a view from the balcony of center field at the new minor-league ballpark across the street. He signed a 13-month lease, and though the apartment was listed at almost $1,000 a month, he will pay only 10 months of rent. "It seems like everyone I talk to in the building got in on a special," Mr. Underwood said. Buildings in less trendy neighborhoods here are resorting to frills as well as discounts. In some of Fogelman Management's buildings, employees now walk the dogs of residents who are on vacation, pick up and drop off dry cleaning, maintain free fax and Internet service and set out newspapers and Starbucks coffee each morning. The company also takes $25 to $50 off the monthly rent of residents who carry baskets of muffins, Fogelman coffee mugs and advertising fliers to their workplaces. "The options are pretty much endless here," said Jenny Dail, 28, who next month will move into a brick-and-wood duplex with her husband and 10-month-old daughter. At $725 a month, the duplex is larger and less expensive than their current apartment in Memphis, and they did not even have to sign a lease, leaving them free to buy a house at any point if they choose. In many cities on the coasts, where new construction is more difficult and where an influx of highly educated people over the last two decades has driven up home prices, rents have held up better. The average rent in both Los Angeles and New York has risen about 4 percent since last year, according to Torto Wheaton Research. Rents in Boston and Washington have declined only slightly. That has widened the growing gap between the cost of living in the Northeast or parts of California and the cost of living almost anywhere else. Three years ago, for example, a
Re: Greenspan's Ponzi Scheme
The Gordon Growth model, from some ten-year old testimony of mine. Plus a little more, which I essentially learned from Robin Marris. Sorry, the drawing doesn't show up here. Gene Coyle The Valuation Of A Utility's Common Stock In order to consider how a utility's concern with competitiveness is reflected in its behavior, we now briefly turn to finance theory to consider how the utility's rate of growth, and the rate of return it earns, interact to affect the value of the shares. The interest of the shareholders of a utility is in maximizing the value of the shares on the stock market. The value of the common shares as established in the market is dependent in a significant way on policies followed by the utility. The financial decisions taken by the utility and, of particular interest here, the marketing strategy selected by the utility, are taken into consideration by the stock market. The rate of growth of the utility affects its share price. Stock Market Value and the Rate of Growth To explain how the stock market values growth in profits, as distinct from size of profits, we will use a familiar financial model. The Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) theory is widely used in CPUC proceedings determining the cost of capital. The value of a share is taken to be the Present Value of a stream of future receipts. The future receipts are the dividend in each year and the price the stock is expected to sell for at some future time. The price it is expected to sell for, though, is the Present Value at that time of the stream of future receipts then expected. Thus we can think of the value now as the Present Value of the expected dividends in each year and a liquidating dividend at the time of the sale of the share. This can be written in equation form as follows: (1) P = F(D1,(1+k)) + F(D2,(1+k)2) + . . . + F(D, (1+k)) where P is the current price of a share of stock (its Present Value), D1 is the dividend per share expected to be paid in period one, and k is the rate of return which investors require on the stock, i. e. it is the cost of equity capital. We can write this more generally as (2) P = SU(t=1,, F(Dt,(1+k)t)) where Dt is the dividend per share expected to be paid in period t. If dividends are expected to grow at a constant rate, g, in keeping with growth in earnings, equation (2) becomes (3) P = F(D0(1+g),(1+k)1) + F(D0(1+g)2,(1+k)2) + . . . + F(D0(1+g), (1+k) ) where D0 is the dividend per share at time 0. If dividends are expected to grow at rate "g", and k is greater than g, this equation can be shown to be (4) P = F(D1,(k - g)) Rearranging terms, the cost of equity capital is then (5) k = F(D1, P) + g This is the familiar form seen in cost of capital proceedings. In those proceedings, k, the cost of capital, is what the CPUC is attempting to determine. Here we are more interested in considering g. In equation (5) the value of the term g is the growth rate of dividends expected by investors. The higher the rate of growth, the higher would be the required rate of return, k, other things being equal. What exactly is "g"? In the equation it is the expected rate of growth of dividends, but it is more than that. In the long run earnings must grow at the same rate as dividends, in order to support the dividend. Productive capacity and sales must grow at the same rate as earnings so that the rate of return will not rise or fall, so that the utility has sufficient capacity to provide the service, that it does not have growing excess capacity, and so on. Thus "g" is the growth rate of dividends, earnings, capacity, and sales. In the equations we see that the cost of capital, k, depends in part on the rate of growth, i. e. we can say that k is a function of g, which we can write as k = k(g). Beyond the equations, it is fair to say that it is generally accepted in Finance theory that k is an increasing function of the rate of growth. We can make the valuation model richer by explicitly adding a term, r, the rate of return expected to be earned. The rate of return expected to be earned is dependent both on the rate the Commission allows and also on the expected rate of growth. This last is because investors may be less confident that a given rate of return can actually be realized at higher and higher rates of growth. We write r as a function of the rate of growth as r = r(g). Finally, we can add a term, "v" which is the value of the shares on the stock market, to incorporate all the relationships. We write, therefore, (6) r = r (g) (7) k = k (g) (8) v = v (r, k, g) The value of the shares, v, depends on the rate of growth of earnings, as well as on the rate of return. We are now in a position to consider how the rate of return allowed and earned affects the value of the shares. Recall that maximization of the value of the shares is the goal of the shareholders. Figure 1 depicts the relationship between the share price, the rate of growth, and the rate of return.
Re: A Bush in China...
The LA Times is a little more discreet about the sex than something I read elsewhere. Neil must be a trusting soul -- someone unknown happens to knock on the door to his hotel room and they jump in bed together. But it happened regularly, so he must have thought it happend to everybody. Gene Coyle Devine, James wrote: Bush's Brother Has Contract to Help Chinese Chip Maker By Warren Vieth and Lianne Hart Times Staff Writers L.A. TIMES/November 27, 2003 WASHINGTON Neil Bush, a younger brother of President Bush, has a $400,000-a-year contract to provide business advice to a Chinese computer chip manufacturer, according to court documents. At the same time the Bush administration is promising to crack down on alleged trade abuses by the Chinese, Neil Bush has agreed to strategize with China's Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corp., the documents show. While there is no indication he has done anything improper, Bush's arrangement could attract attention during a presidential election cycle in which Chinese business practices have become a hot-button issue. There's certainly the appearance of influence being sought, said Charles W. McMillion, a Washington business consultant who advised a congressional commission on U.S.-China policy. If nothing else, it doesn't look good. The younger Bush's relationship with Grace Semiconductor, first reported in the Houston Chronicle, is detailed in a two-page contract filed as part of divorce proceedings between Neil and Sharon Bush. The divorce was finalized in April. The China contract is not Neil Bush's first brush with controversy. In the 1980s, he was a director of Silverado Banking, Savings Loan, a Colorado thrift whose failure cost U.S. taxpayers $1 billion. He was one of 12 defendants who agreed to pay $49 million to settle a negligence lawsuit brought by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Neil Bush did not return phone messages seeking comment. Neither did his attorney, Grace Semiconductor or Sharon Bush. An attorney for Sharon Bush declined to comment. In Crawford, Texas, where the president is spending the holiday, White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said there would be no comment on the China matter. According to the consulting contract, Neil Bush was to receive $2 million worth of Grace Semiconductor preferred stock over five years, issued in annual increments of $400,000. In return, Bush agreed to provide GSMC from time to time with business strategies and policies; latest information and trends of the related industry, and other expertized advices, the contract states. In addition, Bush was to attend meetings of Grace Semiconductor's board of directors, and the firm agreed to pay him $10,000 per meeting to cover expenses. Bush signed the contract Aug. 15, 2002. It was not clear how much compensation Bush has received so far. The contract said he would receive the first $400,000 allotment within one month of the company's 2002 board meeting, provided you have duly furnished GSMC with the information and details required for the issuance or transfer of the share certificate. Grace Semiconductor, based in Shanghai, was founded in 2000 by Winston Wong, the son of Taiwanese business magnate Wang Yung-ching, and Jiang Mianheng, the son of former Chinese President Jiang Zemin. Wong co-signed the contract with Bush. The company has said its goal is to become a leading manufacturer of integrated circuits and other semiconductor products. It has invested $1.6 billion to build two fabrication plants in Shanghai. Production from the first plant began in September. During a March 2003 deposition taken as part of his divorce proceedings, as reported by the Chronicle and confirmed by an attorney in the case, the president's brother acknowledged that he knew little about the industry he had just joined. You have absolutely no educational background in semiconductors, do you? asked Sharon Bush's attorney, Marshall Davis Brown. That's correct, Bush responded. But I know a lot about business, he said at another point, and I've been working in Asia quite a long time. Disclosure of Neil Bush's consulting contract comes amid an intense debate over America's growing trade deficit with China. U.S. manufacturers have shed 2.8 million jobs since mid-2000, and many firms have blamed unfair trade practices by China. The American Electronics Assn. released a report this week showing that 49 states lost high-tech workers last year. Total losses were 540,000 in 2002 and 234,000 so far this year, leaving fewer than 6 million people employed in the industry. The Bush administration has promised to crack down on any abuses its finds. It has pressured China's government to let its currency rise in relation to the dollar, which would make Chinese exports less competitive in this country. It has agreed to impose protective quotas on several categories of Chinese textile products, and to place steep tariffs on Chinese-made televisions. I'm sure China will not
Re: How to insult a millionaire
You've got a winner! Call Fox immediately. Gene joanna bujes wrote: OK. Alternative reality show: How to Insult a Millionaire! Contestants compete for the best letter (250 words or less) telling upper management exactly what they think of them.Winner HAS to make public the name of the company and walks away with 1/2 a mill. Three left-wing Siskel and Eberts discuss the top five entries and decide the winner based on most devastating and funny critique. Wadda ya think? Plenty of spinoffs possible: How to Insult a Neo-Con!, How to Insult Your Elected Representative! Joanna __ The human race has one really effective weapon, and that is laughter. -- Mark Twain
[Fwd: small world of big war profiteers]
Original Message Subject: small world of big war profiteers Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:12:32 -0800 From: Wally Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; At Hollinger, Big Perks in A Small World http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59784-2003Nov18.html Steven Pearlstein, WASHINGTON POST - It's amazing the coincidences you find digging into Hollinger International, the publishing empire that includes Chicago's Sun-Times and London's Daily Telegraph and is quickly slipping from Conrad Black's control. Let's start with the board of directors, which includes Barbara Amiel, Conrad's wife, whose right-wing rants have managed to find an outlet in Hollinger publications. And there's Washington super hawk Richard Perle, who heads Hollinger Digital, the company's venture capital arm. Seems that Hollinger Digital put $2.5 million in a company called Trireme Partners, which aims to cash in on the big military and homeland security buildup. As luck would have it, Trireme's managing partner is none other than . . . Richard Perle. Perle, of course, has been pushing hard for just such a military buildup from his other perch at the Pentagon's secretive and influential Defense Policy Board, where there are a number of other Friends of Hollinger. There's Gerald Hillman, managing partner of Hillman Capital, which also got a $14 million investment from Hollinger, according to the Financial Times. Hillman is also a partner at Trireme. And then there's Henry Kissinger, another longtime Hollinger director, though it must be said that Henry is very busy and was only able to make one board meeting last year. Rounding out the Hollinger director-hawks is Richard Burt, the former arms negotiator and ambassador to Germany. Burt is also on the board of Archer Daniels Midland, whose former chairman, Dwayne Andreas, and director Robert Strauss, were also Hollinger directors until last year. Small world, huh? Some might consider Andreas a somewhat risky choice for corporate director, inasmuch as ADM had to pay a $100 million fine for price-fixing during his watch. But Andreas probably felt right at home at Hollinger, alongside A. Alfred Taubman, who as head of Sotheby's was nabbed for fixing art auction prices. Taubman gave up his Hollinger seat last year, around the time he checked into prison.
[Fwd: small world of big war profiteers]
Original Message Subject: small world of big war profiteers Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:12:32 -0800 From: Wally Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; At Hollinger, Big Perks in A Small World http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59784-2003Nov18.html Steven Pearlstein, WASHINGTON POST - It's amazing the coincidences you find digging into Hollinger International, the publishing empire that includes Chicago's Sun-Times and London's Daily Telegraph and is quickly slipping from Conrad Black's control. Let's start with the board of directors, which includes Barbara Amiel, Conrad's wife, whose right-wing rants have managed to find an outlet in Hollinger publications. And there's Washington super hawk Richard Perle, who heads Hollinger Digital, the company's venture capital arm. Seems that Hollinger Digital put $2.5 million in a company called Trireme Partners, which aims to cash in on the big military and homeland security buildup. As luck would have it, Trireme's managing partner is none other than . . . Richard Perle. Perle, of course, has been pushing hard for just such a military buildup from his other perch at the Pentagon's secretive and influential Defense Policy Board, where there are a number of other Friends of Hollinger. There's Gerald Hillman, managing partner of Hillman Capital, which also got a $14 million investment from Hollinger, according to the Financial Times. Hillman is also a partner at Trireme. And then there's Henry Kissinger, another longtime Hollinger director, though it must be said that Henry is very busy and was only able to make one board meeting last year. Rounding out the Hollinger director-hawks is Richard Burt, the former arms negotiator and ambassador to Germany. Burt is also on the board of Archer Daniels Midland, whose former chairman, Dwayne Andreas, and director Robert Strauss, were also Hollinger directors until last year. Small world, huh? Some might consider Andreas a somewhat risky choice for corporate director, inasmuch as ADM had to pay a $100 million fine for price-fixing during his watch. But Andreas probably felt right at home at Hollinger, alongside A. Alfred Taubman, who as head of Sotheby's was nabbed for fixing art auction prices. Taubman gave up his Hollinger seat last year, around the time he checked into prison.
Re: value and gender
I have not been reading all the posts in this thread and may have missed this. But Jurriaan gave a little bibliography and didn't list a key book -- by a New Zealand woman, no less. Marilyn Waring wrote If Women Counted, quite a moving and persuasive book on valuing women. And there is a good video interviewing her and about her. I was going to put a possessive s when I wrote "on valuing women." On valuing women's . But I couldn't think of the several words to fill in the blank. Gene Coyle. joanna bujes wrote: It's pretty clear to me that men take a very different view of it than women. At the same time, they seem to enjoy the comfort of a clean house. I don't know why we'd call it "bourgeois" -- people have been cleaning themselves and their houses for ever. Joanna ravi wrote: joanna bujes wrote: Some years ago, when I worked for a large, multinational computer company, I sent out an email to everyone in the company asking why men don't do housework. isnt most of what is called "housework" mostly a meaningless bourgeouis activity? clean this, dust that, the sink should be empty at all times, put the books away in the shelf, fix the slightly leaky faucet in the fourth bathroom, etc. at least that's my excuse ;-). --ravi
Re: new CPUSA product (was new radio product)
Thanks, Yoshie. I need new underwear. (N. B. two sentences.) Gene Coyle Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: At 2:31 PM -0800 11/11/03, Michael Perelman wrote: Marx believed that consumerism could serve a progressive purpose -- he even thought that newpapers would elevate workers. He never read our own local rag. Marx certainly overestimated the progressive nature of consumerism, but that does not seem to be something to get worked up about. http://cafeshops.com/cpusa.6591976 :- -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: BBC NEWS | Americas | Widow leaves US radio $200m
Too bad she didn't listen to Pacifica. ravi wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3248803.stm Widow leaves US radio $200m US National Public Radio (NPR) has inherited what is believed to be the largest single donation bequeathed to an American cultural institution. NPR was left more than $200m by Joan B Kroc, the philanthropist widow of the founder of worldwide fast food giant McDonalds, Ray Kroc. Joan Kroc donated millions of dollars to various causes We are inspired and humbled by this magnificent gift, said NPR President Kevin Klose. This remarkable act of generosity will help secure the future of NPR, he said. The bequest amounts to almost twice NPR's annual operating budget. NPR is a private, self-funding non-profit company which is supported mainly through membership charges, station fees and private contributions. It provides programming to more than 750 public radio stations and has an audience of about 22 million listeners each week. Mrs Kroc died from brain cancer earlier this month.
Re: Iraqis resist ban on unions
I'll second the compliment -- But, Sasha, please tell us before the shows. I often don't think of trying to catch a show when it would be possible. Gene Coyle Sabri Oncu wrote: Sasha: Not to inundate PEN-Lers with Living Room shows, but we just did a program on this topic that people might find interesting. Since I presume you wouldn't like to advertise your own show, let me do it for you. Sasha and her co-host, whose name I don't recall now, are putting together a great radio show on KPFA every week. Their show is one of my favorites. As Michael once said, these guys really read the books they talk about. Thank you Sasha. Sabri
Re: cronysm? What cronyism?
Thanks for the best laugh of the day. Gene Coyle Eubulides wrote: washingtonpost.com No 'Cronyism' in Iraq By Steven Kelman Thursday, November 6, 2003; Page A33 There has been a series of allegations and innuendos recently to the effect that government contracts for work in Iraq and Afghanistan are being awarded in an atmosphere redolent with the stench of political favoritism and cronyism, to use the description in a report put out by the Center for Public Integrity on campaign contributions by companies doing work in those two countries. One would be hard-pressed to discover anyone with a working knowledge of how federal contracts are awarded -- whether a career civil servant working on procurement or an independent academic expert -- who doesn't regard these allegations as being somewhere between highly improbable and utterly absurd. The premise of the accusations is completely contrary to the way government contracting works, both in theory and in practice. Most contract award decisions are made by career civil servants, with no involvement by political appointees or elected officials. In some agencies, the source selection official (final decision-maker) on large contracts may be a political appointee, but such decisions are preceded by such a torrent of evaluation and other backup material prepared by career civil servants that it would be difficult to change a decision from the one indicated by the career employees' evaluation. Having served as a senior procurement policymaker in the Clinton administration, I found these charges (for which no direct evidence has been provided) implausible. To assure myself I wasn't being naive, I asked two colleagues, each with 25 years-plus experience as career civil servants in contracting (and both now out of government), whether they ever ran into situations where a political appointee tried to get work awarded to a political supporter or crony. Never did any senior official put pressure on me to give a contract to a particular firm, answered one. The other said: This did happen to me once in the early '70s. The net effect, as could be expected, was that this 'friend' lost any chance of winning fair and square. In other words, the system recoiled and prevented this firm from even being considered. Certainly government sometimes makes poor contracting decisions, but they're generally because of sloppiness or other human failings, not political interference. Many people are also under the impression that contractors take the government to the cleaners. In fact, government keeps a watchful eye on contractor profits -- and government work has low profit margins compared with the commercial work the same companies perform. Look at the annual reports of information technology companies with extensive government and nongovernment business, such as EDS Corp. or Computer Sciences Corp. You will see that margins for their government customers are regularly below those for commercial ones. As for the much-maligned Halliburton, a few days ago the company disclosed, as part of its third-quarter earnings report, operating income from its Iraq contracts of $34 million on revenue of $900 million -- a return on sales of 3.7 percent, hardly the stuff of plunder. It is legitimate to ask why these contractors gave money to political campaigns if not to influence contract awards. First, of course, companies have interests in numerous political battles whose outcomes are determined by elected officials, battles involving tax, trade and regulatory and economic policy -- and having nothing to do with contract awards. Even if General Electric (the largest contributor on the Center for Public Integrity's list) had no government contracts -- and in fact, government work is only a small fraction of GE's business -- it would have ample reason to influence congressional or presidential decisions. Second, though campaign contributions have no effect on decisions about who gets a contract, decisions about whether to appropriate money to one project as opposed to another are made by elected officials and influenced by political appointees, and these can affect the prospects of companies that already hold contracts or are well-positioned to win them, in areas that the appropriations fund. So contractors working for the U.S. Education Department's direct-loan program for college students indeed lobby against the program's being eliminated, and contractors working on the Joint Strike Fighter lobby to seek more funds for that plane. The whiff of scandal manufactured around contracting for Iraq obviously has been part of the political battle against the administration's policies there (by the way, I count myself as rather unsympathetic to these policies). But this political campaign has created extensive collateral damage. It undermines public trust in public institutions, for reasons that have no basis in fact. It insults the career civil servants who run our procurement system. Perhaps most
Re: Joan Robinson question
I don't know the answer to the question. But Keynes and Commons carried on a correspondence, so there would have been a possible connection to Joan Robinson. Gene Coyle Michael Perelman wrote: I doubt that she would read Commons. I am guessing that the capital controversy is the CC controversy. She traces the controversy to Wicksell, and even more directly to Sraffa, who I doubt read Commons. On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 08:15:26PM -0800, Eubulides wrote: Does anyone on the list know if JR read John Commons "Legal Foundations of Capitalism"? I'm re-reading Morton Horwitz' ""The Transformation of American Law: 1870-1960" and seeing intimations of the CC controversy in US court cases from the 20's and am wondering if I'm hallucinating Juriaan, I'll try to reply to your "new rules" post tomorrow. To this day, no one has come up with a set of rules for originality. There aren't any. [Les Paul] -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Power Point
For a funny put-down of Power Point lectures, look at www.edwardtufte.com. Tufte, at Yale I think, is the graphics/statistics whiz who has produced some beautiful books, one of which is The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Gene Coyle
Re: China question
This doesn't respond to your question but as I read of the same demand for commodities I wonder if China is pouring dollars back out of the country for a couple of purposes -- to hedge on commodity prices and to lower the heat on the devaluation issue. Any thoughts? Gene Coyle Michael Perelman wrote: I am reading all sorts of reports about soaring Chinese demand pushing up commodity prices. Has anybody thought abut the extent to which this effect undo the the beneficial effects of cheap Chinese imports?? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 200,000 jobs
So, Max, is the inference I am to make that this is a Snow job, to lower expectations, and to take Bush off the hook for the earlier higher prediction? I hadn't thought that Snow was that clever, but there are people who are. Gene Max B. Sawicky wrote: http://www.jobwatch.org -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Michael Perelman Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 1:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 200,000 jobs Snow(job?) is predicting job growth of 200,000 per month. Does anybody believe this prediction? What sort of jobs would be produced? In what country? Outsourcing seems rampant. Manufacturing is in decline. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: George Gilder
Does anyone know if George Gilder is a descendant of Carnegie's associate named Gilder? Gene Coyle Louis Proyect wrote: NY Times Business Section, October 19, 2003 The Revolution Is Coming, Eventually By KATIE HAFNER SHORTLY before noon on a drizzly day in late August, George Gilder had a housekeeping announcement to make during his annual technology conference at the Squaw Creek resort in Lake Tahoe. The weather forecasters had been dead wrong, he said, taking some obvious delight in this pronouncement. Lunch would be served indoors.
Re: cooper on the Gray demise of the Lib-Dems
Peter Camejo put forward a number of progessive proposals, more important by far than anything put forward by anyone else. I am repeatedly surprised by the fascination many environmentalists have with the wonderful future world of hydrogen. Let's see, we build power plants to generate electricity to extract hydrogren, then ship, by pipe or other means the hydrogen to someplace else to make electricity? And so we end up with less energy than we started with. Why is this good? Gene Coyle Shane Mage wrote: I wouldn't take issue with the contempt displayed for the California electorate, the Lib-Dems, and Schwarzenegger personally. But. The one important progressive proposal to emerge from the entire recall circus came from... Schwarzenegger! He promised a program to provide hydrogen refueling facilities *every twenty miles* along California's major highways by 2010. How important this idea is was recognized by the NYTIMES editorially with the adjectives unrealistic and utopian. Of course, this may turn out to be campaign verbiage. But I did have an experience that reflects favorably on Schwarzenegger. In May 2001 I served on the jury in a lengthy damage trial against GM for the death of a husband in an SUV rollover. He was gruesomely crushed when the roof collapsed on his head. GM claimed that its design was not defective because reinforcing the supporting columns would do nothing for safety. We found against GM. On the next day I read in the Financial Times an article reporting that before Schwarzenegger agreed to buy a Hummer he had insisted that GM include exactly the reinforcement that had been at issue in our trial! Shane Mage Thunderbolt steers all things. Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64 Hi Pensters, My view from down here and from having known people in the rank file voting public of California is that they voted for Arnie because he promised them simple, honest good governance and a 'strong' government. The government under Davis was seen as weak, which is why so many people got screwed (the thinking goes) during the 'energy crisis (fix). The problem with the voting public is that they're, for the most part, a bunch of ignorant fools who, like the kool-aide drinkers of Jonestown, are looking for an honest guy to lead them to the simple life away from the slimy, weak polytricksters, like Davis. The ground for this kind of debacle is fertilized on a daily basis by mealy-mouthed liberals who won't stand up for what they believe--mostly because the DP is in the hands of a gang of bureaucrats beholden to various sections of the ruling class. These politicians are satisfied with playing the role of safety valve during the toboggan ride to the bottom which Capital and the Repugs are bound and determined to take the rest of us. They don't tell their constituencies that they're being ripped off royally. They tell them that businessmen and the 'free-market' can save the day, if the voters just choose to go with them on their nice toboggan ride with cushions, instead of on the 'mean old' Repugs' sled. A lot of people see through this 'propaganda'--it's all phoney--remember what Bobby D told you? But, because the major pollies in the DP, which is the only voice given credibility as an opposition by the corporate and State owned media (Camejo...who's he? Joe Shit the ragman asks as he quaffs his Bud and reads the sports section at the short bar) don't even begin to educate their constituency (because they're already bought and paid for as safety valves) the voters who vote in quantity choose Arnie because Arnie is better looking and he's like 'cool' baby. Best to all, Mike B) --- Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: obviously, Cooper doesn't like Camejo, for whatever reason. I thought, however, that one of MC's points was that the progressive wing and ethnic-minority grassroots of the DP (which are not the object of MC's derision here) sat out because Gray Davis was so bad. And most of them -- and MC, I'd guess -- are wedded to the lesser of two weevils logic which says if you're not voting for Ah-nold or Bustamente, you might as well vote for Gary Coleman or Mary Carey or Larry Flynt. Davis' explanation -- right white nativist anti-immigrant uprising fueled by talk shows -- is true, but only part of the story. It's not only who voted for der Gropenfuehrer but also who didn't vote for Davis, or Bustamente. There were also a lot of people who voted for Mr. Universe for reasons besides those highlighted by Davis. btw, MC's article is from the curent L.A. WEEKLY. Jim -Original Message- From: Doug Henwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sun 10/12/2003 2:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [PEN-L] cooper on the Gray demise of the Lib-Dems As Eudora told me, the word Camejo was not found in this piece. Why, if this was a not-unadmirable uprising, as Marc Cooper argues, was there not
Hydrogen is not a fuel!
Mike Ballard, I usually find your views dead-on but I think you are off here in a couple of dimensions. First, hydrogen is not a fuel. It is a storage medium for energy extracted from other fuels -- whether wind or nuclear or whatever. Mike Ballard wrote: Hydrogen is useful because it is not a carbon based fuel. snip Capitalists who own shares in the carbon based fuel industry will always try to convince you that converting to non carbon based fuels is utopian. It's the same argument they use against socialism i.e. TINA. It looks to me here as if you are making the mistake of thinking of a change in technology as a change in an economic system. Is hydrogen the alternative to capitalism? Amory Lovins has led a whole generation of environmentalists down the road of thinking that there is a technological fix for capitalism. In the part of your post I snipped out you made clear that you don't think that way. But why defend hydrogen? Shane Mage sees hydrogen as a way to "reconfigure our vehicle fleet." Why not think a little about getting rid of the need for "our vehicle fleet"? Forget trying to dream up technological fixes to save capitalism. Gene Coyle
Re: Guv. Gropenfuehrer and Enron (against Palast)
I think this is a pretty good piece. Of course since it was written Scharzenegger has clearly stated his intention to depend on the free market to take care of California's electric future. I. e. deregulation. By the way, the biggest cost to California was from coordinated withholding of power, not from the well-publicized gaming of the trades -- though it was all of a piece. The major California dailies seem to employ term-limits for the reporters. People covering the electric dereg fight now turn to the academic and other economists who pitched deregulatin for explanations about what to do now, without realizing that they are printing the same opinions that supported dereg in the first place.. Asking Hogan from the Kennedy School where Gov Davis went wrong -- when Davis went wrong believing in the market -- seems ahistorical. Gene Devine, James wrote: LA Weekly/OCTOBER 10 - 16, 2003 Pluggging the Latest Conspiracy Theory Internet buzzes about the recall schemes of Arnold and Enron by Howard Blume Call it the most electric scandal yet to circulate about the governor-elect. As the story goes, Arnold Schwarzenegger conspired with energy barons in May 2001 to help them keep $9 billion in ill-got gains amassed by manipulating the California energy market. The evil plan? Recall Gray Davis that well-known tiger for consumers. They also had to keep Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante from replacing Davis for their machinations to triumph. To do that, the conspirators would tar Bustamante for accepting campaign donations from Indians (instead of from Enrons Ken Lay). Great plot line. And plausible in a world where weapons of mass destruction vanish like a mirage and where theres a billion a week to spend in Iraq, but nary a dime for universal health coverage at home. But this scenario, though it rattles a skeleton in Schwarzeneggers closet, fails to put meat on those bones. The real question marks regarding Schwarzeneggers energy policy concern his future actions, not his past ones. The au courant spin comes from journalist Greg Palast, author of The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, whose online Arnold tell-all has become one of the Internets hottest forwards. The alleged smoking gun is a May 17, 2001, meeting that included Enron chairman Kenneth Lay, Arnold Schwarzenegger and others. This date fell during the latter part of the energy crisis, just after Lieutenant Governor Bustamante filed suit, as a private citizen, against energy providers. So far, so true. The meeting itself is apparently verified by internal Enron e-mails obtained by the Santa Monicabased Foundation for Taxpayer Consumer Rights. But from this point, Palast employs freewheeling speculation or at least he has yet to cite a source or document suggesting otherwise. Palast calls the meeting a tryst between Marias husband and the corporate con men, namely Lay and convicted stock swindler Mike Milken. Palast writes: It turns out that Schwarzenegger knowingly joined the hush-hush encounter as part of a campaign to sabotage a Davis-Bustamante plan to make Enron and other power pirates then ravaging California pay back the $9 billion. Palasts understanding of historical context is just plain off. In May of 2001, Davis was more than a year away from re-election, and his re-election was no sure thing. So concocting a recall was premature to say the least, or at least out of sequential order. And to suggest a Davis-Bustamante plan completely overlooks the mutual enmity between a guv and lite guv who were barely on speaking terms. Meanwhile, Bustamantes two energy-related lawsuits have gone nowhere, despite Palasts praise of Bustamantes cojones for bringing them on. A well-placed source in state government asserts in an interview that Bustamantes suit, though still active, has been a non-factor in attempts to collect from Enron, Dynegy et al. When the lawsuits were filed, cynics regarded Bustamantes litigation as rsum building for his 2006 campaign for governor. When that campaign arrived early because of the recall Bustamante predictably praised his lawsuits for helping to bring the energy giants to heel, a claim the government source characterized as complete horseshit. In other words, the litigation may not, in fact, be the biggest single threat to Ken Lay and the electricity lords, as Palast would have it. Consumer advocate Douglas Heller takes a middling view. Its a good lawsuit, one that we had talked about filing ourselves, says Heller, senior consumer advocate with the Foundation for Taxpayer Consumer Rights. Litigation takes a while. Heller declines to take Palast to task, but he also makes no grand conspiracy claim based on the e-mails. I dont know if Palast has documents other than the ones we gave him, he says diplomatically. The documents do offer compelling insights, even without leaping to a Schwarzenegger conspiracy. Ken Lays trip to California came at the height of the energy crisis. We had had three sets of
Re: California Dreaming
When Arnold finishes his term, California will have had Republican governors for 19 of 24 years. The state likes Republican governors. Gene Michael Perelman wrote: It's too early to tell if the recall will turn out badly. For example, Proposition 54 -- the racial ignorance proposition -- failed because it Bustamante got millions of dollars for his campaign, which the courts ruled to be illegal. He turned the money over to the anti-proposition 54 campaign, which probably turned the tide. California's budget last year avoided most of the pain by passing most of the budget cuts on to the following year. The hard cuts come next year. Schwarzenegger will have trouble pleasing many people with his choices, possibly discrediting Republicans even more. The negative side of the campaign is too obvious to mention. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: PK on the lump of labor fallacy
Go Tom! Tom Walker wrote: Workin' on it. Tom Walker 604 255 4812 Ian wrote: [cue to the Sandwichman] [New York Times] October 7, 2003 Lumps of Labor By PAUL KRUGMAN
Re: Allen Barra defends Limbaugh's football comments
Hey, boxing was a Jewish sport in the '30s and '40s, maybe before. Baseball seems to be revealing a genetic advantage in the Dominican Republic. Gene Martin Hart-Landsberg wrote: Michael, I would love to learn more about the notion that basketball was a jewish sport. Any reading recommendations? Marty --On Monday, October 06, 2003 8:39 AM -0700 Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As for basketball, the NBA evolved out of traveling Jewish teams. In the 20's, basketball was supposed to be a naturally Jewish sport because it put a premium on sneakiness and stealth.
Re: An American Jubilee
Michael, Can you tell us WHY the Supreme Court so ruled? Gene PS I will look later at the reference you give. michael wrote: In light of the LDC debt problem, I have just been looking at: Kroszner, Randall S. 1999. Is It Better to Forgive than to Receive? Repudiation of the Gold Indexation Clause in Long-Term Debt during the Great Depression. Manuscript. Chicago: University of Chicago, Graduate School of Business.? http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/randall.kroszner/research/ Following the inflation during the Civil War, almost all long-term financial contracts in the U.S. came to include a gold clause which effectively indexed to gold the value of the payments to creditors. This clause protected creditors against devaluation of the dollar since they could demand payment in gold or the equivalent value of gold in nominal dollars if the price of gold were to rise during the life of the contract. On June 5, 1933, Congress passed a Joint Resolution nullifying gold clauses in both private and public debt contracts. Although the Supreme Court struck down most of Roosevelt's early New Deal programs, the Court upheld the government's ability to alter financial contracts by refusing to enforce gold clauses. Given that the price of gold rose from $20.67 per ounce to $35 per ounce when the U.S. officially devalued in 1934, the abrogation of these clauses was tantamount to a debt jubilee. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Schwarzenegger admits Hitler remarks
If Schwarzenegger had said he admired Stalin -- on the same basis as he admits admiring Hitler -- he'd be finished. Another double standard. Gene Max B. Sawicky wrote: Anti-semitism nears complete redefinition as opposition to Israeli policies. Anything you say otherwise has been redefined as inconsequential. But if you're a critic of Zionism, the slightest thing is grounds for opprobrium. It's really remarkable. Not good for the Jews, I would say. mbs -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Louis Proyect Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2003 9:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Schwarzenegger admits Hitler remarks (The double standard here is beyond belief. For years Jesse Jackson was pilloried by his use of the term hymietown, while Schwarzenegger--once again--will probably get off relatively unscathed. If 1/10th of the fury directed at Jackson was directed at him, he'd be history right now.)
Re: Allen Barra defends Limbaugh's football comments
Michael, I thought the Allan Barra piece was pretty good, till I got to this sentence near the end: Rush Limbaugh didn't say Donovan McNabb was a bad quarterback because he is black. He said that the media have overrated McNabb because he is black, and Limbaugh is right. The media over-rate a lot of players because most sports writers are just fans who grew up and got jobs writing sports. The insights are not much better than the guys I used to sit next to in bars. The local quarterback, Oakland's Rich Gannon, completely folds up in important games -- yet he is only praised. He's white. Is he over-rated because he's white? Lots of players are. Gene Michael Pollak wrote: Actually it's kind of interesting: http://slate.msn.com/id/2089193/ Barra is not a racist. And he is not denying that Limbaugh is. (On which point, see http://www.fair.org/articles/limbaugh-color.html) He's just saying Limbaugh is quite right on the facts in this case. The only difference is that Barra thinks it's perfectly normal and a good thing that people are rooting for McNabb, and Limbaugh thinks it's a bad thing. Michael
Re: untold -- till now -- conspiracy btwn Arnold Ken Lay?
I'll paste here a press release from a few days ago -- haven't seen anything about it in print, except the Greg Palast piece that Brian McKenna cites. Gene For Immediate Release October 3, 2003 Contact: Doug Heller (310) 392-0522 ext. 309 Schwarzenegger: Total Amnesia? Enron E-Mails Show Arnold Met With Ken Lay During Energy Crisis Santa Monica, CA Internal Enron e-mails confirm that Arnold Schwarzenegger was among a small group of executives who met with Lay at the posh Peninsula Beverly Hills hotel in May of 2001, in the midst of Californias energy crisis. The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, which obtained the e-mails, is calling on Schwarzenegger to acknowledge the meetings and disclose the information that was presented and discussed. The meeting with Enron occurred ten days after rolling blackouts darkened California for two consecutive days; Schwarzenegger has previously said that he does not remember such a meeting. You dont meet with Americas most well-known corporate crook in the middle of Californias biggest financial disaster and not remember, said FTCRs senior consumer advocate Douglas Heller. Mr. Schwarzenegger should come clean about what happened at that meeting and if he shares Ken Lays views on energy regulation. The documents provide a list of invitees to the hastily arranged meeting and a list of those who actually attended. Only eleven of the 45 invitees attended, including Schwarzenegger. The meeting was meant to be an opportunity to gain business community support for Enrons comprehensive solution to the energy crisis. In one e-mail, Enrons VP of Public Relations wrote: Wed like to position this meeting as an insiders conversation of whats going on with the energy situation. This meeting should be for principals only. (emphasis in original) FTCR contends that Enron policies were responsible for the severe energy crisis California faced in 2000 and 2001. The group noted that the crisis had dramatic implications on the state economy and state budget and will continue to impact consumers for years to come. FTCR has called for a repeal of the deregulation and supported SB 888 (Dunn) to re-regulate the states electricity system. FTCR has been critical of Enrons involvement in the California energy crisis, in which the company developed schemes for manipulating the power market that forced massive price spikes in the state. Since it was apparently important enough for Schwarzenegger to attend despite the last minute notice, Schwarzenegger should now explain what happened at his meeting with Enrons Ken Lay and whether or not he supports electricity re-regulation, said Heller. A copy of the documents are available from FTCR. -30- FTCR is a non-partisan, nonprofit organization. FTCR does not support or oppose candidates for office and takes no position on the California recall. - Douglas Heller Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights http: //www.consumerwatchdog.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] ph. 310/392-0522 ext. 309 Brian McKenna wrote: On this weekend, this should be the most important political story in the national news media, but it is no where to be found.fairly shocking political news to say the least. .not Arnold's Hitler-Envy and career groping behaviour http://gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=283row=0
Re: weather question
I had a good friend who disappeared -- along with the plane, a WB 50 -- penetrating a hurricane for meteorolgy research. And yesterday I got an e-mail from an alternative energy advocate who wants to collect the wind energy in hurricanes to solve all our problems. Gene Devine, James wrote: It seems to me that in previous years, I never heard of Atlantic/Caribbean hurricanes or tropical storms whose names started with letters as high as L. (Of course, the names follow alphabetical order.) This year, I've heard of one whose name starts with N. Are there more tropical storms this year than in the past? (due to global warming?) or are the media reporting them more? Previous meterologists have only interpreted hurricanes. The point is to change them! Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: The oil and gas situation - Odyssey thinks ahead
Arnold has promised to put hydrogen refueling stations every twenty miles along California freeways. And to take advantage of that, he's converting his Hummer to fuel cell. Gene Jurriaan Bendien wrote: Thanks to you all for all your input into this weighty discussion, I am a little wheezy though, must quit smoking (how could Marx pack in all those cigars ???). Here's a quote from Freeman Louca, As Time Goes By (Oxford University Press, p. 274: B.H. Klein showed that in 1900, steam and electric vehicles accounted for about three-quarters of the four thousand automobiles estimated to have been produced by 57 American firms (Klein 1977: 91). However, by 1917 about three and a half million automobiles had been registered in the United States, of which less than 50,000 were electric. Steam vehicles were disappearing; the last major steam manufacturrer, the Stanley Motor Carriage Company, produced 730 steam vehicles in 1917 - fewer than Ford produced in one day before lunch (Volti 1990: 43). The simple explanation of the decline of steam and electric vehicles seemed to be, with the benefit of hindsight, that the internal combustion (gasoline) engine was 'better' or even 'optimal'. However in his fascinating article ''Why Internal Combustion ?', Rudi Volti shows that things were by no means so simple. In the very early days both steam and electric cars had many technical advantages, and the IC automobile had some severe disadvantages, notably the sliding gear transmission. invented by Emile Levassor (the 'L' in 'P' and L') in 1891. His own description of his invention became famous: 'C'est brutal mais ca marche !'. The electric car was simpler to start and drive, having no clutch or transmission; moreover, it was quiet, reliable, and odourless. Yet by the 1920s the internal combustion engine completely dominated to car market, leavng the steamers and electrics to very specialized niche markets or museums. A longer operating range was undoubtedly one of the decisive advantages of the IC engine, but this was not purely a technical matter. The chain of refuelling stations and repair and maintenance facilities could conceivably have been organized on a different basis, given different strategies and policies of the utlities, manufacturrers, and regulators. Indeed, in the 1990s policies were being developed to cope with battery recharging services for electric cars in California and elsewhere, because of the polution problems caused by millions of IC engines. However, the 'lock-in' to the IC engine makes any such change to an alternative system a truly massive undertaking. There were over 500 million automobiles in use in the world by the mid-1990s. The availability of cheap low-cost petrol (gasoline) was a decisive advantage of the IC engine (Section 8.4), and compounded by this vast lock-in to the internal combustion engine was the success of the Ford's assembly line, which reduced the cost and price of the Model T dramatically. The price of a model T fell from $850 in 1908 to $600 in 1913 and to $360 in 1916, because of a combination of organisational, technical and social innovations. The truth is that I bought a second-hand orange Ford Escort in New Zealand, must have been 1992. Or was it 1993 ? It crapped out eventually, I could barely drive it back from the hypnotherapist that I had been to see for a quite smoking session. I got blisters on my fingers (Sir Richard Starkey, at the end of Helter Skelter by The Beatles). Jurriaan
