Re: Peter Lindert
I bought it after I saw the article. I looked at it briefly (it looks good), will read it this summer, and expect to use it in my doctoral social welfare policy seminar. Joel Blau Michael Perelman wrote: A few weeks ago, Jim Devine posted Jeff Madrick's New York Times article about Peter Lindert's new book, Growing Public. I am only halfway through the book -- covering the history of welfare when public schooling. As Madrick says, Lindert is no leftist by any means, but his book is an amazing compendium of information about the history of the public sector. I would think that Max Sawicky would find this book right up his alley. Is anybody else familiar with this book? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: What's the difference?
This isn't surprising. Beers coteaches a class at Georgetown in national security issues with Richard Clarke. Joel Blau Louis Proyect wrote: Boston Globe, April 26, 2004 Kerry faces PR fight over foreign policy By Farah Stockman, Globe Staff | April 26, 2004 Their main goal: ''To show that we can protect America better than George Bush, said Rand Beers, Kerry's chief national security adviser. In a presidential race dominated by national security issues, Kerry's success may hinge on whether voters are convinced that his ability to forge ties with allies can make America safer than President Bush's more unilateral approach. Lately, the differences between the candidates have sometimes been hard to detect.
Re: From Your Friends at Dissent
True. I drew from it in my text for exactly that reason. And in lieu of a book that combines accessibility and a subtle analysis, I'd assign it to students, who gravitate to its counter-narrative. I also recognize that the left sometimes has a tendency to shoot down its few successful interventions into popular culture. Nevertheless, even if few can do it, I really wish there was another book that more closely approximates the gold standard (`writing about economics at a popular level') that you laid out. Joel Blau Michael Perelman wrote: But it appeals to young people. It is very effective for students.I am negotiating with an agent now. She is insisting that I makeeverything "dumber" to make the work popular. To do so would requireopening me up to the kind of questions that Zinn is getting -- but it isan art form to be able to do that.Doug Henwood has been able to write about economics at a popular level.I have not. Nor have most of us.On Sun, Apr 04, 2004 at 11:39:13PM -0400, Joel Blau wrote: Although it's good to have the alternative narrative all in one place,Zinn's book is not very good history--neither subtle nor sophisticated.You can read it for a while, but then it begins to feel as if he issimply stringing together a series of tales about people fighting back.Ultimately, it seems more journalism than history--good for the storieshe tells, but in the end, rather unsatisfying.Joel Blauandie nachgeborenen wrote: "Chris Doss" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "Zinn reducesthe past to a Manichean fable and makes no seriousattempt to address thebiggest question a leftist can ask about U.S.history: why have mostAmericans accepted the legitimacy of the capitalistrepublic in which theylive?"--What's so daunting about that question? Don't mostpeople accept the legitimacy of whatever socialsystem they are socialized in, provided it isstable? I'm also not sure that Z doesn't make an attempt toanswer this question. It's just that he had noparticularly startlingly new answers, just the usualones, right? Racism, ethnic division, repression andcooption of radical organizing, individualistideology, backwards labor laws, the lack of a laborparty and the historical attachment of the main partof the labor movement to the Democratic Party, etc.,first past the post winner-take-all elections, bigmoney in politics, etc. We all know know this stiff,it's just that it's not really obvious what to doabout it.Zinn talks about all this stuff. It is true that hismain task, as he takes it in the PHUS is todelegitimate official ideologies by attacking the ideathat American history is the the story of the shiningcity on the hill.I consider myself a patriot, and I even admire a lotof aspects of American elite history, but I'm notoff ended by Zinn's deflationary approach, and itmystifies my why many self-styled social democrats andliberals are. It's not at all in the same category asraving about fascist Amerikkka. Besides, far as I knowno one really questions Zinn's accuracy andscholarship except for an incidental detail here andthere, isn't that right?Sparking of which, let me put in a nother plug, forNew Yorkers and those living nearby, for the Broadwayproduction of Stephen Sondheim's Assassins, _now openand running,_ the only musical ever made about peoplewho have assasissinated or attempted to assassinatePresidents of the US. It's about the dark side of theAmerican dream. One chorus is called "The OtherNational Anthem." The good guy in show, the only onewho offers a trace of hope or an alternative todesperation, murder, or resignation, failure, andlies, is Emma Goldman. Sondheim's no Marxist oranarchist, but this show is very much in our ballpark. The music is beautiful and the songs are great.Check it out.jks---__Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveawayhttp://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/ --Michael PerelmanEconomics DepartmentCalifornia State UniversityChico, CA 95929Tel. 530-898-5321E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Readable books
Ellen: Can I see a table of contents?Besides deficits, inflation, and wealth, do you cover anything social welfare-y, such as poverty, privatization of social security, etc? I am looking for a new text for my Political Economy of Social Welfare class (undergraduate juniors, most of whom have little or no economics background)? Joel Blau Frank, Ellen wrote: Let me make a plug for my new book The Raw Deal: How Myths and Misinformation About Deficits, Inflation and Wealth Impoverish America, due out from Beacon Press next month. It is written for a lay reader and could easily be used in an intro college course. Ellen Frank i found steal this idea quite readable, as a layperson. the one unasked for piece of advice that i would give all of you technical authors is to not assume that the general audience understands and subscribes to the axioms or assumptions or models (of thought, analysis) of your field. also, IMHO, your reader's understanding of your book boils down to her/his ability to reduce your reasoning down to some basic convictions she/he holds. often these are political and moral convictions and admittedly are extremely difficult to contest/displace. but ignoring them altogether, results in limiting your readership to the converted (those that share your moral/political positions). i was recently reading peter singer's analysis of george w bush's positions on various moral issues, in his (singer's) new book. though some might disagree with his reasoning, (again IMHO) his style is comprehensive yet readable. --ravi
Re: Bush's economic policies
As we discuss every couple of years on PEN-L, we should be careful about repeating the myth that European unemployment is twice that of the U.S. It isn't. The figures are calculated differently. If we calculate ours the way the Europeans did, they'd be about the same. Bush just announced an expansion of job training, but quite apart from the issue that this is a supply-side solution to the problem of unemployment, nothing is going to happen that violates my one-in-twenty rule, i.e. that for most social welfare programs like job training, there is just one slot for every 20 eligible applicants. Moreover, the problem with specific programs extends far behind the Transitional Assistance for NAFTA, a provision that was added to defuse trade union opposition in the close 1993 NAFTA congressional vote. In the mid-1990s, the General Accounting Office found that the U.S., making a series of ad hoc exceptions to its ostensible policy of labor market laissez-faire, had somehow ended up with 163 different employment programs, many duplicative of one another, all scattered among half dozen agencies of the federal bureaucracy. So in an effort to make the U.S. more competitive, they tried to rationalize the system. The outcome of this effort, the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, did drop summer youth programs (the ones that were always funded in the spring after someone in Congress got up to warn of a hot summer in the inner city), and replaced the Job Training Partnership Act (the bill Dan Quayle enacted with the help of Ted Kennedy), but it otherwise left the job training system pretty much intact. Not only did WIA keep the same funding arrangements for the remaining programs, but it essentially requires applicants to fail twice (can't get a job on their own, and then can't get a job with counseling) before they are eligible for job training. So now a very modestly reformed bureaucracy has still another layer over it, and despite the nominal goal of WIA, we're no closer than ever to a policy of universally available job training. Joel Blau Joel Wendland wrote: http://www.laborresearch.org/story2.php/352 Bush Policies Guarantee Long-Term High Unemployment European nations commonly post unemployment rates nearly double those in the U.S., but the effects of temporary joblessness are softened by employer and government programs. _ Persistent heartburn? Check out Digestive Health Wellness for information and advice. http://gerd.msn.com/default.asp
Re: US health care query
And it is about 74 million who are uninsured at some point in any given year. Joel Blau Joel Wendland wrote: Hey PEN-L: I am looking for the current data on the number of Americans without health care insurance. Any ideas where this info can be found? With advance thanks, Seth Sandronsky The AFL-CIO's special report on jobs which came out last month cites the US Census Bureau, Health Insurance Coverage in the United States, 2002 which was apparently publishe in September 2003; 43.6 million (and doesn't include figures on the underinsured). There must be a website. joel _ Watch LIVE baseball games on your computer with MLB.TV, included with MSN Premium! http://join.msn.com/?page=features/mlbpgmarket=en-us/go/onm00200439ave/direct/01/
Re: From Your Friends at Dissent
Although it's good to have the alternative narrative all in one place, Zinn's book is not very good history--neither subtle nor sophisticated. You can read it for a while, but then it begins to feel as if he is simply stringing together a series of tales about people fighting back. Ultimately, it seems more journalism than history--good for the stories he tells, but in the end, rather unsatisfying. Joel Blau andie nachgeborenen wrote: "Chris Doss" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "Zinn reducesthe past to a Manichean fable and makes no seriousattempt to address thebiggest question a leftist can ask about U.S.history: why have mostAmericans accepted the legitimacy of the capitalistrepublic in which theylive?"--What's so daunting about that question? Don't mostpeople accept the legitimacy of whatever socialsystem they are socialized in, provided it isstable? I'm also not sure that Z doesn't make an attempt toanswer this question. It's just that he had noparticularly startlingly new answers, just the usualones, right? Racism, ethnic division, repression andcooption of radical organizing, individualistideology, backwards labor laws, the lack of a laborparty and the historical attachment of the main partof the labor movement to the Democratic Party, etc.,first past the post winner-take-all elections, bigmoney in politics, etc. We all know know this stiff,it's just that it's not really obvious what to doabout it.Zinn talks about all this stuff. It is true that hismain task, as he takes it in the PHUS is todelegitimate official ideologies by attacking the ideathat American history is the the story of the shiningcity on the hill.I consider myself a patriot, and I even admire a lotof aspects of American elite history, but I'm not offended by Zinn's deflationary approach, and itmystifies my why many self-styled social democrats andliberals are. It's not at all in the same category asraving about fascist Amerikkka. Besides, far as I knowno one really questions Zinn's accuracy andscholarship except for an incidental detail here andthere, isn't that right?Sparking of which, let me put in a nother plug, forNew Yorkers and those living nearby, for the Broadwayproduction of Stephen Sondheim's Assassins, _now openand running,_ the only musical ever made about peoplewho have assasissinated or attempted to assassinatePresidents of the US. It's about the dark side of theAmerican dream. One chorus is called "The OtherNational Anthem." The good guy in show, the only onewho offers a trace of hope or an alternative todesperation, murder, or resignation, failure, andlies, is Emma Goldman. Sondheim's no Marxist oranarchist, but this show i s very much in our ballpark. The music is beautiful and the songs are great.Check it out.jks---__Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveawayhttp://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
Re: Observations on the Socialist Scholars Conference
Could we introduce a little perspective here? I spent Saturday afternoon at the conference too. Some interesting information, a few sharp insights, certainly worth a Saturday afternoon. But it was just a conference of 2000 predominantly academic leftists--not a sit-in, march, demonstration, or any other kind of real organizing activity. Quite rightly, it has never pretended to be anything else. May be it is in the nature of list serve threads that PEN-L is now debating revolutionary vs. reformism socialism, but isn't another sign of political impotence that a conference--yes, a weekend conference!--has so quickly degenerated into this debate? Joel Blau Doug Henwood wrote: Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Michael Hoover wrote: i confess to not knowing what constitutes revolutionary socialism Me either, and I wish someone would explain it to me. Armed takeover of the White House and the New York Stock Exchange? Really, could some self-identified RS clarify? Doug The first thing to do is to quit asking fake questions in which you aren't really interested. Those are real questions. Who are you to declare them fake? I could just as easily declare your reaction to be one of someone caught holding an incoherent, fantastic point of view. The idea of revolution in the U.S. or any of its imperial peers seems like the stuff of a drug-induced reverie right now. I'd like to hear someone argue to the contrary. Doug
Re: Psychoanalysis Re: happiness is a transitory state
No, following the Frankfurt School, the search for the "good father" produces submissiveness (a.ka. false consciousness), a desire to be protected from external threatening forces (Bush's invocation of terrorists), and rage at anyone who would end the possibility of repairing the damage inflicted during childhood. Joel Blau Bill Lear wrote: On Monday, February 9, 2004 at 10:28:36 (-0500) Doug Henwood writes: ...Or, if you want to take it further, there's Judith Butler's argument- rooted in that silly doctrine called psychoanalysis - that subjectsare formed in subjection (through deference to authority figures,like parents, and their successors, like language and law), and thatattitude of deference to authority persists through life, for fear ofthe disintegration of the subject. So, our chains become part of us, and attempts to break the chainstherefore hurt?Bill
Re: Psychoanalysis Re: happiness is a transitory state
Surely this is not an either or proposition. Precisely because we are dealing with a social problem, it is incumbent upon us to examine from as many different perspectives as possible, why they don't react the way we prescribe. Joel Blau Louis Proyect wrote: joanna bujes wrote: No. I never said anything about adjustment. I was speaking about one's ability to be present: to present injustice, to present beauty, to present poverty, to present uglyness, to present stupidity... I said that the neurotic is unable to experience the present. I have no idea what it means to experience the present. A friend of mine who is clinically depressed experiences the present just as keenly as me. His problem, however, is that he is in a perpetual gloom. In any case, we seem to be dealing with a social problem. There are more psychotherapists per capita in NYC than anywhere else in the world in history, I'm sure. Just as people looked inwardly for solutions to economic depression in the early 1930s, so do they look inwardly for solutions to psychological depression today. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: disabilty
Michael: You want "Laid-Off Workers Swelling the Cost of Disability Pay," written by Louis Uchitelle, and published on the first page of The New York Times on September 1, 2002. Joel Blau MICHAEL YATES wrote: I am looking for articles showing a rise in disability claims by workers in the US. I seem to remember one from the NYT arguing that this was a from of disguised unemployment. Any help appreciated. Michael Yates
Re: disabilty
Michael: You want "Laid-Off Workers Swelling the Cost of Disability Pay," written by Louis Uchitelle, and published on the first page of The New York Times on September 1, 2002. Joel Blau MICHAEL YATES wrote: I am looking for articles showing a rise in disability claims by workers in the US. I seem to remember one from the NYT arguing that this was a from of disguised unemployment. Any help appreciated. Michael Yates
Re: Dean and the Iowa primary
There are also two dimensions to this anger. One is that turned inward, it produces feelings of depression and political impotence. On those occasions when its expressions is allowed, it almost always directed downward in a sadistic way toward the safest targets. Over time, this form of expression often acquires an obsessional quality (repeated and ever more harsh denunciations of welfare recipients or illegal aliens), because 1) its upward expression is blocked; 2) reaffirmation of the anger distinguishes the person expressing it from his or her stated target (I'm not a welfare recipient, I'm not an illegal alien); and 3) the repeated expression of this anger reflects the internalization of an authoritarian political culture: it demonstrates that the speaker is safe, will not turned his anger upward, and begs to be treated kindly. Joel Blau joanna bujes wrote: Yoshie went a long ways to replying to the question it is obviously OK to be angry at welfare mothers, immigrants, and terrorists; it is not OK to be angry at thieving plutocrats, polluters, gulag builders etc. It may be worthwhile for progressives to have a better understanding of the multi-layeredness of emotions. Few emotions are pure; for example, anger toward victims is the socially acceptable form of grief/ shame, and it is the socially sanctioned redirection of anger away from threatening subjects and towards safe subjects. Anger toward the plutocrats is dangerous in the sense that everybody understands that if they are punished for their crimes, the whole system and its real values is threatened. I would add that to the extent that we all feel ourselves to be implicated in this system, anger is a difficult emotion to experience or to channel into effective action. Getting back to Lakoff's framing issue, I would guess that the most helpful way to re-frame anger for the working class is to cast it, not in terms of the slighted/frustrated/resentful individual (which implicitly supports the underlying ideology of individualism), but in terms of the violation of the rights of the children of this country/earth and of their future. That is, try as much as possible to talk about anger in social rather than individual terms. If we cannot shift the terms of the discussion away from the individual, we are doomed to fail. Joanna ravi wrote: Louis Proyect wrote: A Lexis-Nexis search for articles that contain the words Howard Dean and angry within the past 3 months returned 494 articles. Going into the Iowa primary, the label angry had reached a critical mass. It probably was one of the factors that made the largely white, religious and rural Democratic voters shy away from him. They would seem to prefer somebody bland like John Kerry. i hear this a lot -- that the average white american family is turned off by angry or aggressive rhetoric or acts. but when i look at reality, it seems quite different: the black guy who just got released from jail, after spending 20 years for a crime he did not commit, seems coinciliatory. he talks about not holding on to his anger, about moving on, etc. in the meantime, the same white people who angrily demanded for his imprisonment continue to angrily call for him to be sent back (see for instance the case of the 4 young black men who were wrongly convicted in the central park jogger case). it was american anger, driven by 9/11, that led to the mindless invasion of afghanistan and iraq. but it seems the iraqi people are not that angry at americans who (indirectly) caused the deaths of thousands of iraqis. on a progessive list, i do not expect that there will be much disagreement with my view above. what i want to know is, if you agree with the above, how do you think this notion (of average white people being turned off by anger) is sustained even in their own minds? --ravi
Re: [Fwd: Lbo-talk digest, Vol 1 #2013 - 9 msgs]
The poll seems to have to backfired on the American Family Association. Two days ago, a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage led 75% to 20%. Now, support for gay marriage has catapulted into the lead by something like 149,000 to 145,000 votes. Joel Blau joanna bujes wrote: I got an e-mail this morning from a parishioner about an online poll being taken by the American Family Assn. about homosexual marriage, the results of which they are going to submit to Congress. The parishioner hoped that if enough people responded in favor, the whole thing might backfire on them. I responded and found that they're publishing actual results, it would seem. So here's the link to respond to the poll: http://www.afa.net/petitions/marriagepoll.asp Please pass it on.
Re: Query
I'd try Barbara Miner in Milwaukee. If she doesn't know herself, she will surely know someone who does. Joel Blau Eugene Coyle wrote: 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
Re: New anti-war slogan
The functions of hand-outs are ambiguous. At one and the same time, they both provide a measure of independence from the marketplace and maintain the reserve army of labor. Since it is impossible to resolve this ambiguity with each individual, pressure from below for full employment at higher wages plus universalistic social benefits is a far better interim strategy. Joel Blau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hand-outs don't enable people for self-suffiency. Those who are capable of self-sufficiency ought to be. I work in a psychiatrice emergency room at the county hospital in Minneapolis, MN. Many of the patients who come through here expect us to give them handouts--bus fare, food, money for cigarettes, etc. By giving them hand-outs we enable them to be bottom feeders, and don't restore them to a functional place within society. Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for social welfare programs. But in my experience if the hand-out comes at no cost to the recipient, the recipient is less likely to take responsibility for his role within society. Benjamin
Re: Role of Sov. Un. welfare state in West
There was also a special issue on this topic in the Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, volume 15, no 2 (1988). In general, both warfare and welfare require centralization of administrative capacity. Welfare may also be used to mobilize popular opinion with the promise of a decent life for everyone after the war (the 1943 Beveridge Report in England, promising a guaranteed income and the national health services). And, of course, it is probably not a coincidence that the end of the Soviet Union boosted the U.S. reliance on the private sector and reduced our dependence on the public.. Joel Devine, James wrote: there's a book co-authored by Phil Klinkner that argues that in general, when the US has been involved in a big war or cold war, the deal that Blacks received improved, including improvements in the Welfare State. Ian Gough's book on the Welfare State may also be of use. Jim -Original Message- From: dave dorkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sat 11/15/2003 8:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: [PEN-L] Role of Sov. Un. welfare state in West Does anyone have any articles, websites or citations for books or articles discussing the possible role of the Soviet Union as a stimulus for the creation or extension of welfare state provisions in the West? Thanks Dave __ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
Re: Heavy pressure to back a Democrat
Fine. I would agree with this longer, and more precise, formulation. Joel Blau John Gulick wrote: Joel Blau wrote: Well, not really. The mix of state subsidies is somewhat different with the Democrats--more social welfare-y, even if the social welfare itself is increasingly designed on a market model. People can debate whether this difference qualifies as significant, but it is misleading to deny that it doesn't exist at all. Gulick writes: My intemperance with the author kept me from successfully getting across what I was trying to get across: to impugn the Bushies for their devotion to laissez-faire capitalism is grossly mistaken because the Bushies have not pushed laissez-faire capitalism. Apart from the fact that laissez-faire capitalism is an ideological construct to begin with, based on a false notion of early Nineteenth Century Britain as a nation of small pin factory owners, the record shows that the Bushies have supported all kinds of administrative policies and legislative acts that involve market interference, albeit market interference mainly on behalf of well-positioned business cronies and electorally critical sectors of capital. And of course it should be noted that this is not simply a function of the Bushies' political philosophy or domestic base, but rather a typical policy response of a (capitalist-dominated) capitalist state to a stagnant economic situation in which profits are threatened. I predict that the centerpiece of the Democratric nominee's platform will be fiscal rectitude -- i.e., critiquing the Bushies for accelerating U.S. imperial decline by delivering us and our children and grandchildren into the hands of creditors, especially overseas creditors. This line bears a lot more similarity to the textbook fantasy of laissez-faire capitalism than does the actual resume of the Bushies. As far as I'm concerned, my analysis as is stands has no implications in terms of whether the left should hop on the Democratic Party bandwagon this go-around -- I actually believe in the fact vs. value distinction of bourgeois social science, unlike my youthful days of ultra-dialecticism. Gulick _ Instant message during games with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com
Re: re: Iraqs weapons of mass destruction
It may be a bit of a stretch, but it is entirely within the realm of possibility that WMD are this war's Gulf of Tonkin resolution. No attack on U.S. destroyers, no WMD, but the truth doesn't matter once you've got your war. Just came back from the New York march, where the stream of people took 2 hours to pass. Joel Blau Hari Kumar wrote: Ken: The point was made to the 'Great Liberator Franks' - by the CBC press and one other reporter (could not catch who) as to whether or not the Iraqis really had WMD, or was this a lie allowing the invasion? Franks evaded the question's thrust, merely saying that they are waiting to see what happens, and that undoubtedly weapons will be found. He stated also that 6 SCUDS have been fired to date - 6! It might behove the Weapons Inspectorate to draw up very careful plans to verify the inevitable claims that will emerge, that the USA and UK Have found the smoking guns. Naturally - the Liberators MUST provide this proof now. Hari
Re: Re: Re: RE: G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing?
Domhoff names names in the structure without conceptualizing it adequately. It's a much more "American" way of going at the issue. At the other extreme, people conceptualize the structure elaborately but do not name any names. Though each has its advantages and disadvantages, a blend of both is best. Joel Blau Michael Hoover wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/21/03 11:52 AM Devine, James wrote: Instead of being pelted with petty personal attacks, Domhoff should be given credit for doing excellent research to produce his books. What for? Professors are paid to do excellent research. whatever gave you above idea?re. domhoff, his study of social backgrounds of powerful white men was significant contribution to wright's 'power elite' theory in indicated further interlocking directorate of such types...still, if origins of this theory were leftist, it wasattractive and popular enough to be appropriated bypolitical right via dye's 'irony of democracy' notion that "masses are asses" such that it is 'responsible elite' that guarantees democracy as well as more generalized rightist claim of 'eastern liberal establishment'... michael hoover
Re: Re: Re: War test
Title: Re: [PEN-L:35400] Re: War test The last figure I think I saw was 43, mostly (37?) from friendly fire. Joel Blau Dan Scanlan wrote: The answer to question 17 is incorrect. Actually there were a number of casualties inflicted by the Iraqi military---although some of those listed below may be the result of friendly fire certainly not all were... there were not 0 casualties inflicted by them. This site also shows that Iraq's defensive capabilities must be at an astonishing low level. Not much was left intact. This is a contest between a superpower and a regime that is almost defenceless. I cant understand how Hussein can appear so cool and unflappable in the face of the forces arrayed against him. Maybe at the last minute he will accept the offer of forced retirement. Then where will the US be? http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/facts/gulfwar/ Ken, Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy in the Iraqi induced body count. I have seen it reported as 0 in several places (though I can't cite them at the moment). CNN, in my mind, is not a clearly reputable source, though. They often leave out salient facts, ignore context and enthusiastically babble the spin of the day. Dan -- -- Drop Bush, Not Bombs! -- "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." George Orwell - END OF THE TRAIL SALOON Live music, comedy, call-in radio-oke Alternate Sundays, 6am GMT (10pm PDT) http://www.kvmr.org "I uke, therefore I am." -- Cool Hand Uke "I log on, therefore I seem to be." -- Rodd Gnawkin Visit Cool Hand Uke's Lava Tube: http://www.oro.net/~dscanlan
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: War test
Sure. It's rather like totalling up the military budget without including the health care and other costs of the Veterans' Administration. Joel Blau Michael Perelman wrote: Right, but aren't 100,000 or so on disability from other damage created bythe war.On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 12:12:02PM -0500, Joel Blau wrote: The last figure I think I saw was 43, mostly (37?) from friendly fire.Joel BlauDan Scanlan wrote: The answer to question 17 is incorrect. Actually there were a number of casualties inflicted by the Iraqimilitary---although some of those listed below may be the result of friendlyfire certainly not all were... there were not 0 casualties inflicted bythem.This site also shows that Iraq's defensive capabilities must be at anastonishing low level. Not much was left intact.This is a contest between a superpower and a regime that is almostdefenceless. I cant understand how Hussein can appear so cool andunflappable in the face of the forces arrayed against him. Maybe at the lastminute he will accept the offer of forced retirement. Then where will the USbe? http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/facts/gulfwar/ http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/facts/gulfwar/ Ken,Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy in the Iraqi induced body count. I have seen it reported as 0 in several places (though I can't cite them at the moment). CNN, in my mind, is not a clearly reputable source, though. They often leave out salient facts, ignore context and enthusiastically babble the spin of the day.Dan-- --Drop Bush, Not Bombs!--"During times of universal deceit,telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."George Orwell-END OF THE TRAIL SALOONLive music, comedy, call-in radio-okeAlternate Sundays, 6am GMT (10pm PDT)http://www.kvmr.org"I uke, therefore I am." -- Cool Hand Uke"I log on, therefore I seem to be." -- Rodd GnawkinVisit Cool Hand Uke's Lava Tube: http://www.oro.net/~dscanlan
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: a slip of the Fox noose
My guess is that he let Fish go on because there is submissiveness and a profound sense of inadequacy mixed with his fake populism toward the left and cultural elites. Joel Blau Doug Henwood wrote: Kendall Clark wrote: I think that it's O'Reilly who has a hard time squaring internal contradiction, however. He can't handle it when leftists are smart articulate, like Glick was. We were watching a few weeks ago when a very sharp immigration lawyer was giving him a hard time for his cretinous views on the people who cross the Rio Grande - they were parasites, etc. She pointed out that the U.S. has been abusing Mexico for ages, that NAFTA was displacing peasants who had nowhere to go. This was more than he could take, so he cut off her mike, after denouncing her as an America-hater. Of course, when he has some idiot like a Berkeley city council member who can't summon a fact or make an argument, he lets them go on. Of course, Stanley Fish walked all over him and he didn't cut him off. I wonder why he got away with it? Doug
Re: RE: RE: Re: tax theory/policy
Title: RE: [PEN-L:34061] RE: Re: tax theory/policy He may not have been, but then you have to factor in the effect of getting a $1 million advance for his textbook. Joel Blau Devine, James wrote: so Mankiw may replace Hubbard? I didn't know he was that conservative. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Max B. Sawicky [ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 6:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:34061] RE: Re: tax theory/policy career damage control. January 23, 2003 Report: Bush Economist Hubbard to Leave [Hmm, I wonder what the real story is here.] http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-White-House-Econo mist.html
Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: Re: tax theory/policy
Title: RE: [PEN-L:34061] RE: Re: tax theory/policy You're right--you don't get $1 million on signing. The typical deal is more likely structured as 50% on signing and 50% on delivery of a satisfactory manuscript. The assumption is that the advance represents the projected first year royalties. The odd thing about Mankiw's advance (I remember this quite clearly from a circa 1994 New York Times article about it, in context of replacing Samuelson) was his discussion of the need for text that was more atuned to the fluidity of the new economy, justaposed to his previous publisher's ruminations about loyalty and the propriety of leaving for $1 million. Joel Blau Devine, James wrote: hey, he's got expenses to pay! ;-) strictly speaking, I'm told that a publisher's advance is not really an advance (i.e., cash on the barrel). There are all sorts of limits on it. But I have no direct knowledge and it would be interesting to hear how advances really work. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Joel Blau[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 10:17AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:34071]Re: RE: RE: Re: tax theory/policy He may not have been,but then you have to factor in the effect of getting a $1 million advance forhis textbook. Joel Blau Devine, James wrote: so Mankiw may replace Hubbard? I didn't know he was that conservative. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Max B. Sawicky [ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 6:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:34061] RE: Re: tax theory/policy career damage control. January 23, 2003 Report: Bush Economist Hubbard to Leave [Hmm, I wonder what the real story is here.] http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-White-House-Econo mist.html
Re: RE: Re: Re: United Airlines and market socialism
Title: RE: [PEN-L:32909] Re: Re: United Airlines and market socialism
Yes, it is a worker-financed bailout with a hint of "lemon socialism," where
the state (as in Britain) or the workers in the U.S. version, get an ineffectual
toehold in a business that is sure to lose money.
Joel Blau
Devine, James wrote:
Michael Perelman writes: United Airlines does not
seem to be a clean test of market socialism. Workers got nominal ownership
and three seats on the board.
it's more of a clean test of the idea of worker-financed
bail-outs of capitalist corporations in a system that militates against democratic
workers' control.
Even so, the article that Lou posted was correct
in asserting that that the worker owned firms would have to follow market
laws and therefore not really get a chance for socialism. Marx suggested
that huge capitalist forms would create a shell from which socialist organizations
could emerge. I don't buy that idea either.
Marx actually suggested both (1) that huge capitalist
firms represented an abolition of capitalism within capitalism (see chapter
27 of volume III of CAPITAL, p. 438 of the International Publishers' edition)
and (2) that workers' cooperatives were a precursor of socialism ("within
the old form the first sprouts of the new," especially by showing that the
capitalist was "redundant" (chs. 27 23, pp. 440 387). (In ch.
27, he writes that "although they naturally reproduce, and must reproduce,
everywhere in their actual organization all the shortcomings of the prevailing
system. ... the antithesis between capital and labor is overcome within them,
if only by making the associated workers their own capitalist... They show
how a new mode of production naturally grows out of an old one." (p. 440).)
To my mind, this does not say that Marx emphasized planning
(the basic rule of the huge firms' internal organization) over workers' cooperatives,
as the apologists for the old Soviet Union said. Nor does it say that he
emphasized cooperatives over planning (as some "market socialists" do). Rather,
it says that Marx wanted _both_ society-level planning _and_ workers' control
(overcoming the antithesis between capital and labor) as complementary parts
of the same socialist package.
Of course, this simply puts a major task on the agenda
of socialists: how can we merge and reconcile central planning and decentralized
democratic cooperatives? Marx looked at precursor forms, but it seems like
we have to go further, talking about various possible schemes. I don't want
pen-l to do this at this point (unless others prevail), since SCIENCE
SOCIETY had a good issue on this subject recently.
Jim
Re: RE: Re: The Economics Biz
Title: RE: [PEN-L:32464] Re: The Economics Biz As a former resident of both 84th and 85th street, yes, though perhaps not as steeply as it used to. Joel Blau Devine, James wrote: I've noticed that on the upper west side of Manhattan, as one moves westward toward the Hudson River, the social status of the residents rises steeply. (Compare Amsterdam and West End avenues.) Is that true on 85th street? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Doug Henwood [ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 8:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:32464] Re: The Economics Biz Sachs will be my new neighbor, about a block and a half west on 85th St. Anyone want me to deliver him a message? Doug
Re: Private Education nightmare
Ediison is one of the biggest hustler frauds out there. Between rigging of test scores and its financial shenanigans, the Baltimore and HArtford school districts both fired it in the mid-1990s. But this criticism is probably related to the full-page ad that recently appeared in the New York Times. The stock has fallen, the company is hanging on by a slender thread, and as always, they fall back on some pretty tenditious PR. Joel Blau Michael Perelman wrote: Is this as bad as they say? Does anybody have more info? Published on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 by the Toronto Globe Mail For-Profit U.S. Schools Sell Off Their Textbooks by Doug Saunders Students already have to worry about exams, essay deadlines and staying awake through math class. In Philadelphia, they have a new worry: What if your school becomes a victim of the stock market meltdown? Facing an educational crisis last year, the city handed 20 of its worst-off high schools, in some of the most abject slums in the country, to a private, for-profit company called Edison Schools Inc. Now, those institutions appear to be going the way of Enron, Tyco and WorldCom. Edison, a high-flying firm that was the first school-management company traded on a stock exchange, promised to provide computers, books and new curriculums, and to raise test scores. In exchange, the school board would give the company $881 (U.S.) a student. Then came the crash. Over the summer, Edison's shares slid from the year's high of $21.68 to less than a dollar on the Nasdaq Stock Market. (The company traded yesterday at about 50 cents.) In the classroom, this has had some bizarre effects. Days before classes were to begin in September, trucks arrived to take away most of the textbooks, computers, lab supplies and musical instruments the company had provided -- Edison had to sell them off for cash. Many students were left with decades-old books and no equipment. A few weeks later, some of the company's executives moved into offices inside the schools so Edison could avoid paying the $8,750 monthly rent on its Philadelphia headquarters. They stayed only a few days, until the school board ordered them out. As a final humiliation, Chris Whittle, the company's charismatic chief executive and founder, recently told a meeting of school principals that he'd thought up an ingenious solution to the company's financial woes: Take advantage of the free supply of child labor, and force each student to work an hour a day, presumably without pay, in the school offices. We could have less adult staff, Mr. Whittle reportedly said at a summit for employees and principals in Colorado Springs. I think it's an important concept for education and economics. In a school with 600 students, he said, this unpaid work would be the equivalent of 75 adults on salary. Although Mr. Whittle said he could have the child-labor plan in place by 2004, school board officials were quick to say they would have nothing to do with the proposal. Mr. Whittle's past ventures included buying Esquire magazine in the 1970s and introducing Channel One, a commercial-sponsored educational television system, into public schools in the 1980s. But now he appears to have fallen on hard times, and has put up for sale his 4½-hectare estate in New York's Hamptons. The home, which was listed for $46-million, has eight bedrooms, a gym, an elevator, a pool, tennis and basketball courts, and guest house. Edison operates 150 schools in 23 states, but Philadelphia is its largest and most visible challenge. Last year, the school board picked the 45 worst-managed schools and announced that it would privatize them. At first, Edison was to take control of them all; later, in the face of political protests, 25 of the schools were put into the hands of non-profit school companies. Edison officials were unable to implement some of their more innovative educational policies, including longer school days and years, because of Philadelphia's unions and low budgets. School board officials in Philadelphia are now debating their options. We want to make sure they have the financial resources to sustain [the schools] through the school year, said Paul Vallas, the board's chief executive. Mr. Vallas has taken a tough disciplinary stand with the company, withholding a $5-million payment to Edison this fall because the company was seven weeks late delivering its financial statements. Edison executives say the company is sound, and that its schools will begin showing educational improvements. We are not going bankrupt. There is no threat of bankruptcy. It is simply, flatly not true, Edison president Chris Cert told Michigan school board officials last week. Mr. Whittle has predicted a profit of $20-million this year and announced Monday he intends to buy back 5.4 million of his company's shares, or 10 per cent. He also said that 84 per cent of his schools have seen increased student performance, against 8 per cent registering
Re: question about polling data
Ellen: Try Fay Lomax Cook and Edith J. Barrett, Support for the American Welfare State (NY: Columbia University Press, 1992). It was published ten years ago, but except for a slight diminution of the antipathy to welfare, I'd be surprised if you found major swings in the data. Joel Blau Ellen Frank wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]"> Can anyone point me to a good source (book,article, internet) on polling data regarding American views on socio-economic policy? I often hear it saidthat Americans support Social Security and want drugcoverage, for example, but I can't find any polls to confirmthis (on the other hand, I haven't looked very hard). Thanks for any help.Ellen Frank
Re: The family
This represents a good first step towards an analysis of the family. She might have gone on to point out that the family is the right's default institution for social reproduction--that is, it is the cheapest method of accomplishing (at least partially, and varying sharply by class) the tasks that need to be done: caretaking, socialization, education, and training. Consistent with its standing as the most reluctant of all welfate states, the U.S. has made the least accomodation to the shift in the family from a unit of production to a unit of consumption. As a result, the U.S. fails to provide a family or child allowance, day care, paid family leave, or most egregiously, some form of national health care. Americans mystify the family and demand it stand alone. Overstressed, thrown back on its own inadequate resources, and lacking the capacity to provide sufficient nurturance, families then become ever more likely to raise children with the narcisstic personality features that Mark identified: murdurous rage, self-pity, and an infuriating blankness about the effect of their behavior on anyone else.. Joel Blau Louis Proyect wrote: Nancy F. Cott. Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000. 297 pp. Notes index. $27.95 (cloth), ISBN 0-674-00875-8. Reviewed by Felice Batlan, Department of History, New York University. Published by H-Law (August, 2002) Beneath the Private Mask: Marriage as a Public Institution In the past months, a gnawing question has haunted me. Has the United States entered a period which is as conservative as, and in some respects similar to, the 1950s? Is this especially so if we look at issues of gender and the family? Let me present some anecdotal but relevant evidence. Recently I attended a party of about sixty people. Only three of the women, myself included, were employed outside of the home. The others had husbands who worked while they tended the home and raised the children. Many had recently moved to suburbia where they had their hands full driving their children to activities, decorating the house, and coordinating an ever-expanding list of play dates, chores, and sports practices. As they described their lives, the suburban kitchen, complete with sub-zeros and free standing isles, was anything but a comfortable concentration camp as Betty Friedan described it, almost thirty years ago, in The Feminine Mystique.[1] Rather, these couples had decided that the husband was to be a breadwinner and the wife, as housewife, financially dependent upon him. Interestingly none commented that in many ways this was an economically rational decision, as in most cases their husband's earning potential (as partners in major law firms, or in the upper echelons of Wall Street) far exceeded their own earning potential, although their educational achievements were similar. Rather, these couples appear to understand the choices that they have made to represent private and individual decisions. Sylvia Ann Hewlett's much-publicized new book Creating a Life: Professional Women and the Quest for Children claims that women's career success has come only at the cost of forgoing marriage and children, leaving women in their forties and fifties unfulfilled and desperately searching for love and a family life. She urges women in their twenties to set out to find a husband and to have children before their thirties, when their fertility precipitously declines.[2] In numerous conversations with acquaintances and strangers, I hear the argument--to support anything from the administration's war on terror to the further dismantling of the welfare state--that one has to think of their families first. The argument is as follows: I don't support the government's welfare spending on the poor because it doesn't benefit my family--lower taxes do. My responsibility is to my family, not to other people's families. A variant is: I feel bad if we kill civilians in Afghanistan but I need to worry about protecting my own family against terrorism. In the July 5, 2002 New York Times, the Ad Council ran an advertisement in which the text appearing below an illustration of the American flag reads in part, Your right to backyard barbeques, sleeping on Sundays and listening to any darned music you please can be just as fulfilling as your right to vote for president. Maybe even more so because you enjoy these freedoms personally and often. In the popular HBO cable television series Sex and the City, the leading characters seem ever more urgently to be searching for true romantic love. While waiting, they spend increasing sums of money, from their all-but-invisible labor, on designer fashions. In a U.S. women's history class I taught this past semester, thirteen of the fifteen self-selected, bright and motivated students had never heard the slogan
Re: Re: Re: Poverty rates, racism/discrimination in N. Carolina
Bill: I know I have the document I referred to at home, but I can't put my hands on it, and it does not appear to be on their Website. But did you see this? http://www.cbpp.org/4-23-02sfp-nc.pdf You might also try the North Carolina Justice Center at http://www.ncjustice.org/btc/ Joel Blau Bill Lear wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]"> On Wednesday, September 11, 2002 at 13:20:19 (-0400) Joel Blau writes: The best resource to answer your questions is the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. They do a state-by-statebreakdown of poverty rates. The new rate comes out 9/30, but that's a national number,and it usually takes a while tocross-section it. Do you have any specific references to a web page that might have thisor link to it? I tried searching their site for about 20 minutes andfound nothing. Maybe I'm just not searching correctly or I'm just nototherwise seeing it.Bill
Re: Poverty rates, racism/discrimination in N. Carolina
The best resource to answer your questions is the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. They do a state-by-state breakdown of poverty rates. The new rate comes out 9/30, but that's a national number,and it usually takes a while to cross-section it. Joel Blau Bill Lear wrote: A recent story by AP tells of a white teacher who was apparently reprimanded for teaching her class the word niggardly. A black parent complained and the conservative press has been aglow with the usual sniggering. I wanted to pursue this a bit, and of course the context is all-important. In particular, the context of poverty rates among black persons, racism, and the resulting discrimination. I looked at the statistical abstract of the US for 1996, and it had poverty rates broken down by race, and by state, but not by race and state. The last ratio I could find for th US was about 11% poverty for whites, versus about 30% poverty for blacks. I'm curious if NC has higher ratios, or about the same. I'm also interested in other evidence which might shed light on why a black woman might feel uncomfortable with the word niggardly. The conservative commentators say the word means only stingy, and is completely different from the word nigger. Imagine the word ChristF*ck being used in Muslim-dominated society in which Christians were an impoverished and repressed minority as a term to mean that a Christian were nothing but an animal disguised as a human, and then imagine a Christian child being taught by a Muslim teacher in a predominantly Muslim school the word KrystFoqqer. My guess is that context would suddenly become very important and the meaning of the word would derive more from this context and less from it's literal etymology. In any case, if anyone has a bit to add to this, I'd be happy to hear. Thanks. Bill
Re: universal welfare accounts
A comprehensive welfare account is rather similar to the IDAs (individual development accounts) that have been tried in the US. Clinton actually proposed an expansion of them in his final state of the union address. Here, they are closely associated with the work of Michael Sheradeen at Washington University in St. Louis. The basic idea is that an individual saves a little, and the government matches it at ratios that vary from 9-1 (the theory) to 2-1 (the actual practice so far). The money can then be spent on tuition, a downpayment on a house, or starting a business.,etc It is very much an individualistic, human capital investment approach, which substitutes one person's failure to save for an udnerstanding based on relations between classes. Joel Blau ken hanly wrote: 005401c24dff$b538e840$5f49c8cd@hppav"> Is this a new trend? What are pen's economists take on this..Can you explain how they work a bit?Cheers, Ken Hanly "Assessing Welfare Accounts" BY: STEFAN FOELSTER Confederation of Swedish Enterprise Swedish Research Institute of Trade (HUI) ROBERT GIDEHAG Swedish Research Institute of Trade (HUI) J. MICHAEL ORSZAG Watson Wyatt Worldwide Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) DENNIS J. SNOWER University of London, Birkbeck College Department of Economics and Finance Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR)Document: Available from the SSRN Electronic Paper Collection: http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=325326 Other Electronic Document Delivery: ftp://ftp.iza.org/dps/dp533.pdf SSRN only offers technical support for papers downloaded from the SSRN Electronic Paper Collection location. When URLs wrap, you must copy and paste them into your browser eliminating all spaces.Paper ID: IZA Discussion Paper No. 533Date: July 2002 Contact: DENNIS J. SNOWER Email: Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Postal: University of London, Birkbeck College Department of Economics and Finance 7-15 Gresse Street London WIT 1LL,UNITED KINGDOM Phone: +44 171 631 6408 Fax: +44 171 631 6416 Co-Auth: STEFAN FOELSTER Email: Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]< br> Postal: Confederation of Swedish Enterprise Storgatan 19 SE-114 82 Stockholm,SWEDEN Co-Auth: ROBERT GIDEHAG Email: Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Postal: Swedish Research Institute of Trade (HUI) S-103 29 Stockholm,SWEDEN Co-Auth: J. MICHAEL ORSZAG Email: Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Postal: Watson Wyatt Worldwide 6707 Democracy Boulevard Suite 800 Bethesda, MD 20817-1129 UNITED STATESABSTRACT: The paper examines the possible effects of introducing a large-scale welfare reform in Sweden, namely, the introduction of comprehensive welfare accounts. Under this policy, individuals make mandatory contributions to accounts, which they can top up with voluntary contributi ons. In return, individuals' welfare benefits are paid from their accounts. The paper uses a large panel of individual income data to examine how the adoption of universal welfare accounts may affect economic activity. We find that this policy could be designed so as to reduce social insurance expenditure considerably, improve the incentives to work and save, all with relatively small redistributive impact. Keywords: Welfare Reform, Welfare Accounts, Social Insurance, Taxes, Welfare State Benefits
dollars held overseas
Does anyone know of a website that has data on the total amount of dollars held overseas? Thanks-- Joel Blau
Re: South Africa to become a welfare state?
Ian Murray wrote: 014201c22772$f0899a60$[EMAIL PROTECTED]"> [Patrick Bond, what's the skinny on this?]South Africa Weighs a Welfare StateSystem of Payment for All Would Be Continent's FirstBy Jon JeterWashington Post Foreign ServiceTuesday, July 9, 2002; Page A01 Though the movement is just in its infancy here, the first US B.I.G. conference was held in New York last March. See the conference papers at 014201c22772$f0899a60$[EMAIL PROTECTED]"> www.widerquist.com/usbig/workingpapers Joel Blau 014201c22772$f0899a60$[EMAIL PROTECTED]"> Nearly a century after Europe and the United States begancushioning their poorest citizens with cash and other benefits,South Africa is the first nation on this continent to earnestlyweigh whether the dole can work for a population for which povertyis not the exception but the rule. A government task force reportthat strongly supports implementation of the plan -- known as theBasic Income Grant, or BIG -- sits on President Thabo Mbeki's deskand awaits the government's response.
Re: Re: Re: Costly privatizing of firefighting
The "best case" scenario is supposed Indianapolis under Mayor Stephen Goldsmith. For an overview of the whole issue, see Elliot Sclar, You Don't Always Get What You Pay For, Cornell University Press, 2001. Joel Blau Ian Murray wrote: 001c01c2132c$1aaf9ac0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]"> - Original Message -From: "Michael Perelman" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 3:23 PMSubject: [PEN-L:26871] Re: Costly privatizing of firefighting Does anybody know of any examples where privatization has created anyefficiencies other than attacking wages and working conditions? Doesanyone know of any case where it has not increased overhead andadministrative bloat? -- How is attacking wages and working conditions efficient? "Corporatizing" the public sector [which isreally just shifting from one mode of publicness/accountability to a different mode ofpublicness/accountability] is simply asset stripping dressed up in fancy rhetoric.Ian
Re: Re: PBS series on world economy
Daniel Yergin, Beverly Hills High School, class of 1964. Joel Blau (BHHS, '62: at least when Jim has a classmate, it's Krugman, and I doubt he would trade Krugman for Yergin, even up!) Michael Perelman wrote: Warning !!! Anyone who misbehaves on the list will be forced to watch this program as a punishment. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: more of the same...
We should try to prevent Bush's tightening of the TANF regulations. At the same time, we are never going to return to anything like the AFDC program, which provided public assistance under industrial capitalism and the family configuration that went with it. It is for these very reasons that the first Congress of the U.S. Basic Income Grant (BIG) has been scheduled in New York, March 8-9. First congresses in social welfare make for an ambiguous precedent: the successful ones led to Social Security, the unsuccessful ones--well, we still don't have national health care. In any event, PEN-Lers might want to take a look at the website and the papers that accompany it. http://www.widerquist.com/usbig/announcement.html Joel Blau Devine, James wrote: from SLATE's daily news summary (of major US newspapers): The Los Angeles Times leads with the president's proposal to strengthen work requirements for welfare recipients, while also offering expanded work-training programs so that people will be better equipped to meet the tougher standards. Bush's suggested reforms also included a proposal to spend about $200 million to encourage recipients to get married. ... The NY [TIMES] notices that although Bush's welfare proposal calls for recipients to be working more, it doesn't appear to offer any additional funds for childcare. again, an intensification of the punitive approach to helping poor women and their children. The LA TIMES headline says it all, emphasizing Bush's phrase the ethic of work (designed to parallel the axis of evil??). Since when Bush and his cronies valued work among their own crew? Dubya inherited his wealth and political power. Whatever happened to richie Andrew Carnegie's proposal for strict taxes on inherited wealth, in order to prevent the creation of generations of spoiled rich kids like Dubya? I didn't see anything in Dubya's proposal to deal with the fact that some welfare recipients are hitting the ceiling and can't receive any more benefits -- at a time when unemployment is projected to continue to rise for a year or more. But perhaps my eyes were clouded by anger. Jim Devine
Re: Krugman Korruption
Jim: It was Andrew Sullivan's, with a reference to Virginia Postrel. Joel Blau Devine, James wrote: does anyone remember the web-site that reported on Paul Krugman's receipt of $50 thou from Enron and the puff-piece he wrote on Enron? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: sociological question
Michael: You might try Charles C. Harrington and Susan K. Boardman, Paths to Success: Beating the Odds in American Society (Harvard University Press, 2000). Joel Blau Michael Perelman wrote: Does anyone here know of a relatively straightforward study of the sort of social characteristics that are typical of people who managed to catapult themselves from poverty to affluence? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Gold
Michael: I don't thnk it should be pushed off list, but if it is, I'd like to be included. Joel Blau Michael Perelman wrote: David, I am not sure that anybody but you and Jim are following this discussion. What you claim would be largely orrect in a world without any credit whatsoever. Anyway, if this is not of general interest, maybe it could continue with you an Jim offlist? On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 06:59:44PM -0700, David Shemano wrote: In reply to Jim Devine: Instead of engaging in a specific point-counter-point, let me make a series of comments and ask a couple of questions that are generally responsive to your statements. 1.What is the evidence that the gold standard had anything to do with the economic contraction in the 1930s? Please explain the casual link and how not having the gold standard would have avoided the contraction. 2.More generally, what is the harm of the gold standard? In response to one of your questions, I make no claim that maintaining a gold standard will do anything else other than provide the benefit of maintaining a constant unit of account (i.e. avoid the problems created by monetary deflations and inflations). Maintaining a gold standard will not prevent the problems created by errors in fiscal policy, war, natural disaster, etc. 3.With respect to the mechanics of the gold standard, as I have said previously, there is no requirement that a government own a single bar of gold or make the dollar convertible to gold to effectuate the policy-- simply that the currency authority publicly accept and act on the assumption that if the gold price is increasing, that is a sign that too many dollars are being created and visa versa. If the currency authority has good reason to believe that a decrease in the price of gold is the result of an unusual increase in the gold supply, the currency authority can announce that belief and announce an adjusted dollar-gold price, 4.You say that a gold standard would likely be deflationary. Why? Imagine three assets in an economy: (1) dollars, (2) gold, (3) all other goods and services. For the price level, overall, to remain constant in a growing economy, the number of dollars would have to increase proportionally to the increase in overall goods and services. If the dollars did not, there would be a monetary deflation. One of the benefits of gold as a currency marker is that its annual supply increase is roughly the same as all other goods and services -- a couple of percent, and that the demand for gold for non-currency purposes is relatively stable. Therefore, as the gold supply increases annually, there would also be an increase in the money supply, all things being equal. 5.What did William Jennings Bryan say about gold? Was he for money untethered to a metal? Arguing about Bryan and the post-Civil War era is like arguing about the Great Depression -- there are two sides to the story. If you want the gold standard side, I will be happy to provide it. 6.What is the business cycle? It is probably unrealistic to ask, but please provide me a short and concise description of what you are trying to describe. 7.Debating the 90% tax rate is another thread of its own. As you acknowledge, if affected very few people. In addition, precisely because of the rate, the tax code was riddled with loopholes. Do you have any evidence that a 90% tax rate collected more money from those affected than a 30% rate would have? How about a comparison of the 90% rate and the 70% rate instituted in 1964? 8.You state that I conflate monetary inflation with actual inflation. What do you mean? Under a gold standard, prices of individual goods and services will rise and fall in response to shifts in supply and demand curves, but they will not rise because of an increase in the unit of account. What am I conflating? David Shemano -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Universal market
Martin: You might try Thomas Frank's One Market Under God (Doubleday, 2000). It goes at the issue from a slightly different angle, but is clearly written and contains at least some of what you want. Joel Blau Martin Watts wrote: Has anyone got a good contemporary reference to the universal market ie the notion of capitalism intruding into all areas of people's lives in the pursuit of profit or is Harry B/Marx the best? Kind regards Martin PS I don't need anything that's heavy going - just a clear statement of the ideas. Martin Watts Deputy Director Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE) Department of Economics University of Newcastle New South Wales 2308 Australia Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://e1.newcastle.edu.au/coffee/ Office: (61) 2 4921-5069 (Phone) Office: (61) 2 4921-6919 (Fax) Home: (61) 2 4981-8124 (Fax) Home: (61) 2 4982-9158 (Phone) Mobile: 0 414 966 751
Re: query
Jim: Try the new CBO study, as analyzed by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities: http://www.epn.org/cgi-bin/rd/epn_letter.pl?id=109 Unless you're an academic superstar (in salary, anyway!), and your wife is making a pretty high salary, 2% sounds high (roughly 90,000 is the top 20%; $200,000, is the top 4-5%; and I think I just read that the cutoff for the top 1% is $379,000). Joel Blau Jim Devine wrote: My wife asked what kind of percentile of the US income distribution we're in (since one of her friends said that we were in the top 2 percent, and thus major beneficiaries of the Bushwacker's tax cut, which is absurd). What's the best source of data for answering this question? what's the best source if the question is rephrased to be about the wealth distribution? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: RE: CA electricity rip-off
A biographical note: William Tucker is the guy who used to argue that rent control caused homelessness. Joel Blau David Shemano wrote: Jim Devine wrote: One point the fellow made, BTW, was that the situation was made worse by the California commitment to avoid blackouts at any cost. In the face of this declaration of inelastic demand, the power companies are more than willing to charge any cost... --- You say that demand is inelastic and the power companies can charge whatever they want. Well, how can you say that, as an empirical matter, when retail prices haven't risen? Epistemologically, how can you know? Aren't you saying that conservation is impossible? How about a comparison of electricity and gasoline. Gasoline retail prices are unregulated and have doubled over the past one-two years from approximately $1.00/gallon to $2.00/gallon. There are no shortages, no gas lines -- just the usual grumblings about conspiracies that will disappear when the price goes back down in several months. As I am sure all of you are too busy to read your monthly subscription to The American Spectator, I have posted below a rather detailed and interesting article about the California energy crisis from the April issue (unfortunately, the Spectator site is not setup to allow the pasting of the URL). David Shemano The American Spectator -- April 2001 California Unplugged Environmentalists dreamed of soft power. The state woke up in the dark. by William Tucker In 1986, on a sunny afternoon in May, officials of the Pacific Gas Electric Company cut the ribbon on Unit II of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Station, halfway between San Francisco and Los Angeles and right on the Pacific Ocean. It was a triumph of determination for the San Francisco-based utility. First proposed in the mid-1960s, the plant went through two decades of regulatory review before finally winning approval from the California Public Utilities Commission, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and half a dozen other county and state agencies. Things ground to a halt after 1979, when the Three Mile Island accident effectively ended the nuclear power program in the United States. Environmentalists raised the specter of earthquakes. When an inactive fault line was discovered three miles away under the Pacific, the plant was redesigned to withstand 7.2 on the Richter scale, a quake larger than the one that shook San Francisco in 1989. Still, with $5.8 billion sunk in the ground, PGE executives persisted. It was a nightmare to build but it's been a dream to operate, says Jeff Lewis, plant spokesman, today. Purring along at close to 95 percent capacity and completely immune to oil or gas prices, Diablo Canyon now produces 2,160 megawatts -- enough to power 2.16 million homes -- at a rock-bottom $30 per megawatt-hour. That spring morning fifteen years ago was the last time a central generating power station of more than 380 megawatts was added to the California grid. Fifteen years later in mid-winter -- the lowest season for electrical consumption -- the Golden State was undergoing rolling electrical blackouts. PGE and Southern California Edison had stopped paying bondholders and creditors and were essentially bankrupt. The state was enlisting the authority of the federal government to order utilities in neighboring states to ship electricity to California -- even though it was uncertain they would ever be paid. Utilities in Oregon, Washington, and Utah were raising rates to their customers in order to comply with federal orders to ship needed power to California. The head of the Independent System Operator, a politically appointed body that found itself buying one-third of the state's electricity, admitted he had no experience in wheeling and dealing in an unregulated market. Meanwhile, factories and retail stores were installing $250,000 backyard diesel generators to keep the lights on. Diesel fumes from trucks and buses already account for 70 percent of the state's air-pollution-related health problems, according to the California Air Resources Board, yet officials were reluctant to crack down because of the power shortage. There was no end of finger pointing. Pundits and politicians readily blamed what Governor Gray Davis called the disastrous experiment in deregulation of electricity the state initiated in 1996. Governor Davis also reviled out-of-state independent operators who were supposedly withholding power in order to drive up prices. Others pointed out that the purported deregulation was a halfway affair that deregulated only wholesale utility prices but forbade utilities from passing rising costs through to their retail customers. Others even more uncharitable noted that the reason many of California's power plants
Re: Re: RE: It's a Jungle In Here
After 2002, when the five year limit expires, it could easily--with a recession-- be 1932 again. There will be a surge in the homeless population, and some of the strictures on welfare will be loosened when the rest of the population trips ever more often over homeless people. For the moment, even though I disagree with its thrust, Max is probably right that all we can do is strive to improve the terms (wages, benefits, tax expenditures) under which poor people work. Joel Blau Jim Devine wrote: Max wrote: A more immediate problem is that people think the war on poverty has been won due to welfare reform. so what's going to happen with welfare reform if there's a recession? the whole program seems predicated on perpetual prosperity. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: minimum wage increases
$3.35 before 1990, $3.80 in 1990, $4.25 in 1991, and then in two stages to $5.15 (1996 and 1997). Joel Blau Martin Watts wrote: Could a kind person list the Federal minimum wage increases in the USA since the mid-1980s. Thanks. Kind regards Martin Martin Watts Deputy Director Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE) Department of Economics University of Newcastle New South Wales 2308 Australia Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://e1.newcastle.edu.au/coffee/ Office: (61) 2 4921-5069 (Phone) Office: (61) 2 4921-6919 (Fax) Home: (61) 2 4981-8124 (Fax) Home: (61) 2 4982-9158 (Phone) Mobile: 0414 966 751
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Consumer Confidence index surges
Look, I don't wish mass impoverishment on anybody, but the plain fact of the matter is that as long as the "boom" continues, the ethic of looking out for number 1 will persist, and we are just pissing into the wind. Joel Blau Doug Henwood wrote: Jim Devine wrote: Also, Doug, doesn't it get a little tiring making the same point (that leftist hope for bad times) over and over again? No more tiring than it gets to see leftists making the same point over and over again. It's stunning how this list comes alive at a hint of panic. Michael wants PEN-L to be relevant to political activists, but disaster-sniffing doesn't seem to be the way to go about it. Look, for much of the world, "disaster" is the norm. That hasn't worked to the left's advantage in too many places, at least not yet. For the more comfortable part of the world, disaster has rarely worked to the left's advantage either. In the light of that, there's something pathological and self-marginalizing about getting excited when the Dow loses 300 points - or dredging up a sucker rally from 1930 as a precedent on a day when it's up 200. Or with an alleged progressive wishing mass impoverishment on the American working class. Or with yet another saying it's all hopeless here, because the real action is in Mexico - even though the holder of that point of view is comfortably situated in the comfortable part of the world. The hell with it. I'll shut up for a long while. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Consumer Confidence index surges
That's not my take among students and other people of good will who are not leftists. Doug, I still don't understand why this view sets you off. I'd like to hear you sketch a plausible political scenario favorable to the left that doesn't include a bursting of the bubble. Joel Blau Doug Henwood wrote: Joel Blau wrote: Look, I don't wish mass impoverishment on anybody, but the plain fact of the matter is that as long as the "boom" continues, the ethic of looking out for number 1 will persist, and we are just pissing into the wind. Sally Lee, editor, Parents Magazine: "In the last two or three years, there's a sense of let's start raising kids who are not so individualistic. In a bad economy, everyone wants to raise this Horatio Alger. Now we want to raise kids who are good citizens who will help people." - quoted in Belluck, Pam (2000). "New Advice for Parents: Saying 'That's Great!' May Not Be," New York Times, October 18, p. A18.
Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Japan
Yes, I'll admit to the need for a certain amount of intellectual vindication: it gives me some satisfaction to witness the breaking of a delusional fever that has persisted for many years. But I can readily set aside any personal feelings I have for political ends. While the contradictions of food spoiling in a system with hungry people is certainly horrific, we have become such a narcissistic culture that I doubt there will be much political movement unless many people are directly affected. Observing someone else's pain is not going to be enough. That's what gets my juices going--not the pain this slow moving avalanche will cause, but the likelihood that enough people will be affected to reverse our political direction. Joel Blau Doug Henwood wrote: Forstater, Mathew wrote: Soemone on another list recently reminded me of ch. 25 of the _Grapes of Wrath_. Food spoiling while people are hungry, the incredible unreasonableness of this sick economic system. Yeah, that's the stuff to focus on, not tales of impending possible collapse. I swear, nothing seems to get PEN-Lers' juices going more than hints of 1929. Why? Some kind of intellectual vindication? A hope that the jobless masses will turn to us for guidance? They could just as easily turn to stormtroopers. The system is horrific enough when it's working reasonably well. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Japan
Doug: We have two chances: slim and none. As long as a significant number of people hold to the psychotic fantasy of the market as their personal touchstone, we'll drift rightward. Puncturing this fantasy is the sine non qua of any new political possibility. Moreover, as you yourself have said, conservatism in 2001 is a somewhat tired rerun of the Reagan era. So, while economic downturns can produce the results you describe in other countries, I doubt that that they would in the United States. The Bush administration is actually quite helpful in this regard, because there is no gauzy film over it. Its direct and unmediated exercise of power on behalf of corporate interests presents a transparently inviting target. Joel Blau Doug Henwood wrote: Joel Blau wrote: Yes, I'll admit to the need for a certain amount of intellectual vindication: it gives me some satisfaction to witness the breaking of a delusional fever that has persisted for many years. But I can readily set aside any personal feelings I have for political ends. While the contradictions of food spoiling in a system with hungry people is certainly horrific, we have become such a narcissistic culture that I doubt there will be much political movement unless many people are directly affected. Observing someone else's pain is not going to be enough. That's what gets my juices going--not the pain this slow moving avalanche will cause, but the likelihood that enough people will be affected to reverse our political direction. Why is everyone convinced that a depression in the U.S. would have benign political consequences? Africa's been in savage depression for 20 years - where's the revo? Russia's utterly collapsed, and the best they can do is some red-brown coalition. Germany in the 1920s, well, the less said about that the better. So what's the upside of throwing 10 or 20 million out of work? Doug
Re: Widow of St. Pierre
It is a very fine and thoughtful film.
Joel Blau
Louis Proyect wrote:
Late one night in 1849 a drunken sailor murders his former captain on the
forlorn, windswept island of St. Pierre in maritime Canada. As French
subjects, the local magistrates must comply with the law of the republic
and have him guillotined. Since the island lacks such a device, a
requisition order goes out to fetch both a guillotine and an executioner.
Until they arrive from St. Martinique, the prisoner will be kept under the
custody of the captain of the local jail, who is married to "Madame La," as
the local denizens refer to the wife of La Capitain. With these spare
elements of a tale based on true events, director Patrice LeConte
("Ridicule" was his credit) delivers a powerful dramatic message in "The
Widow of St. Pierre" against capital punishment and for the redemptive
power of love and compassion.
Soon after being jailed, the prisoner Neel Auguste (played by Emir
Kusturica, the Yugoslav director of "Underground") is summoned to the
apartment of the captain whose wife has taken pity on him. Since it might
take months for the guillotine to arrive, there is no reason not to make
him comfortable until that moment arrives. Played by Juliette Binoche,
Madame La is innocent of suspicion or fear. Under her supervision, Neel
builds a greenhouse in the jail's courtyard. Holding up a flower, she tells
him that the goal is to bring life and beauty into a hostile environment.
With her eyes on the hulking, withdrawn prisoner, it is clear that she
seeks to reap life and beauty from him as well. After the greenhouse is
finished, she takes him with her everywhere in the village to find other
chores to keep him busy, from repairing roofs to saving the life of a woman
on a runaway wagon.
While the captain (Daniel Auteuil) is deeply in love with his wife and
anxious to assist her in this reclamation project, he is by no means a
typical jailer. Of an aristocratic bearing, he seems to prefer riding his
horse "Salt Cod" on the rocky cliffs of St. Pierre to the mundane details
of jail-keeping. Even before Madame La ever takes an interest in the
prisoner, he decides to leave the cell door open. After all, on this remote
island there is virtually no escape.
Alongside the human drama of "The Widow of St. Pierre," the landscape and
population of the island help to shape the narrative of the film and lend
it a particularly somber tone, especially during the winter months which
anticipate the arrival of the guillotine. In their black oilskin parkas,
the local sailors and dockhands stand out vividly against the drifting snow
like hunched-over figures in a Breughel landscape. And it is these humble,
faceless and nameless men and women of St. Pierre who eventually rally to
Neel. When the local magistrates put up posters advertising for an
executioner, they tear them down one by one.
The captain and his wife are not ideologues. The only time they seem to
take notice of politics is when he sits by the fireside in their living
room reading a Paris newspaper. He mentions to Madame La that there is
strife and bloodshed in the streets, but does not connect it to the more
immediate drama facing them and the prisoner. Of course only one year
earlier all of Europe was being swept by revolution against the old order.
France, which was once in the vanguard, had now become a bastion of
reaction all in the name of the values of "the republic". The captain and
his wife seem to adhere to an earlier notion of civic duty that has not
been tainted by the guillotine or the Thermidor republic.
Essentially "Widow of St. Pierre" is not a political film, although it
speaks to a question addressing all progressives, namely how to live by a
set of principles. It is this higher calling that the main characters of
the film respond to, in the face of the callousness and brutality of the
existing order. This is also the theme of "Ridicule," LeConte's last film
which dramatized the struggle of an aristocrat in pre-1789 France to rid
his ancestral lands of the malarial swamp that is killing his subjects. To
gain an audience with the King, he discovers that he must master the art of
"ridicule", the verbal art of one-upsmanship that provides a cruel
entertainment for the court's inner circle.
Although not remarked on by the film critics, "Widow of St. Pierre" evokes
another 19th century tale of capital punishment. While Herman Melville's
"Billy Budd" also draws together an aristocratic officer and a commoner
facing execution, the decision here is to obey the law rather than a higher
justice. The captain of a British warship decides to proceed with an
execution despite all the evidence pointing to an accidental death provoked
by extreme cruelty from another officer whom the ship's crew hates and
Re: PeopleSoft
I don't have a ready reference for you, but I know PeopleSoft has been an absolute disaster at Stony Brook. Installed as a data management tool for the graduate school, it has brought the system to a halt. My understanding is that university administrators would chuck it in an instant if they had not already invested millions. Joel Blau Tim Bousquet wrote: At the repeated prodding of Michael P. I've begun research for an article on PeopleSoft, the administrative software firm. Seems the company's software system might be solely responsible for the bankruptch of Cleveland State University. I think this group may be interested in a few of the quotes below, especially how the role of the people who are supposed to run the systems was apparently entirely ignored--not unlike most every other assumption of our policy makers. Just gotta love that "those people are retiring" comment... ** Auditors have warned Cleveland State University trustees that they are threatening the solvency of the school by continuing to spend down the institution's reserve fund. John J. Boyle III, CSU's interim vice president of finance, told trustees yesterday they must hold the line on spending and find ways to replenish the reserves. Boyle suggested a hiring freeze … To brace trustees for the news, he sent a memo earlier in the week in which he said auditors warned that "the university is depleting its reserves at a rate that threatens solvency." The school had $18 million in reserves only two years ago, but by summer, the number is expected to dwindle to $5 million… The admonition is the latest throb from the school's PeopleSoft hangover. Most of the money pulled from the reserve fund has gone to correct the disastrous problems caused by that computer software. CSU's financial woes have escalated as the computer mess with PeopleSoft Inc. has played out. What was estimated to be a $4.2 million project to update the computer system will shoot past $15 million. The Plain Dealer is suing Cleveland State University to obtain a plan from a company on how to fix problems in the computer-software programs that the company sold to the university… Cleveland State refused to release the plan to the newspaper at the request of the company, PeopleSoft Inc. of Pleasanton, Calif. PeopleSoft does not want the information released because it contains trade secrets, Steve Swasey, the company's director of public relations, said yesterday. "What we bring to the customer is between us and the customer,'' he said… The Cleveland State plan, including staffing and training, would help that university manage its software. The university's Board of Trustees rejected the plan a week ago as inadequate. The company has said that the software works and that it has fulfilled its obligation to the university. ** “Denver has spent $23.4 million on the city's new financial services computer system - 67 percent over budget. Most of that -- more than $18 million -- went to consultants who trained city employees how to work the system. Just $2 million was spent on software and $1.3 million on computers.” *** In Boston—“Chief Accountant Paul J. Roman … said employee complaints are "a matter of not picking up all the little nuances that they have to pick up." "There are some people who can't accept change," Lasher said. "We have people out there in the departments who are still keeping written sets of books in addition to the computer. . . . Slowly, those people are retiring." ** … San Francisco's school district has spent more than $ 5 million on a system that initially cost less than $ 300,000. Five years later, it still isn't working right. ** Consultants hired by W.L. Gore Associates, the closely held maker of Gore-Tex fabric, entered Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck into the company's PeopleSoft payroll system as a demonstration and couldn't get them out again before the paychecks started rolling. = Subscribe to the Chico Examiner for only $30 annually or $20 for six months. Mail cash or check payabe to "Tim Bousquet" to POBox 4627, Chico CA 95927 __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Re: Re: Re: Re: farewell to academe
It is certainly unusual, but we do try--in a policy/research Ph.D. program at the School of Social Welfare, SUNY at Stony Brook. Amid a welter of policy, research, and stat courses, third year students take a seminar in teaching in the fall semester, followed by a spring teaching practicum, where they teach a course under the supervision of senior faculty. Of course, the catch is whether the mentor knows how to teach, but even the most well-intentioned curriculum planning can't control for everything. Joel Blau Doug Henwood wrote: Michael Yates wrote: Two comments: Most teachers are not very good at it and do not take the time to learn how to teach effectively. Do any graduate programs actually teach people how to teach? In my brief career as a graduate TA - one semester of composition, one semester of 20th century American literature - we were just thrown into class with virtually no preparation. Since everyone had been a student, it was simply assumed that everyone knew how to teach. Is it any different elsewhere? Doug
Re: Sugrue
Yes, it won the 1998 Bancroft prize in history and a host of other awards. It is a very good book that analyses the political/economic origins, pre-1960, of racial segregation, white flight and the urban crisis. Joel Blau Forstater, Mathew wrote: Charles (or others)- Do you know Thomas Sugrue's _The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit_, Princeton U. Press, 1996? Mat
Re: Re: New Deal planning
And you might also take a look at Margaret Weir, Politics and Jobs (Princeton, 1992). Although it belongs a little too firmly to the Skocpol polity-centered school, it is nonetheless worth reading. Joel Blau Margaret Coleman wrote: Another excellent book about the development of the social safety net and the gendered differences of legislation passed during the FDR era is "Pitied But Not Entitled" by Linda Gordon -- published in the early 1990s I believe. maggie coleman Louis Proyect wrote: H-NET BOOK REVIEW Published by [EMAIL PROTECTED] (February, 2001) Patrick D. Reagan. _Designing a New America: The Origins of New Deal Planning, 1890-1943_. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999. xii + 362pp. Illustrations, references, index. $40.00 (cloth), ISBN 1-55849-230-5. Reviewed for EH.NET by Jim Tomlinson, Brunel University, London. This book provides a detailed account of the evolution of the movement for national planning in the US between 1890 and 1943, when Congress ended funding for the National Resources Planning Board. Much of the account is woven around the careers and ideas of five key participants: Frederic A. Delano, Charles E. Merriam, Wesley C. Mitchell, Henry. S. Denison and Beardsley Ruml. During the 1920s and 1930s, these five, Patrick Reagan argues, evolved a distinctive version of planning, sharply contrasted with the plans of the contemporary authoritarian states of Europe and Japan. The impetus for this American form of planning came partly from the experience of state intervention to support the American participation in the First World War and partly from the Hoover-led attempts to deal with the unemployment problem of the immediate post-war years. New Deal planning is seen as closely following these precedents, though receiving new impetus from the great depression, and moving in a more statist direction under the stimulus of Roosevelt's actions to counteract the great depression. The key characteristic of this planning was its attempt to find a way between nineteenth-century liberalism, and especially its sharp distinction between the public and private sectors, and twentieth century collectivism. This third way embodied voluntary co-operation between organised business and government (with a token role for unions and others) guided by experts working in close co-operation with political leaders. These experts would bring to bear the knowledge created by the nascent social sciences, and in so doing would prevent the economic and social breakdown which in so many parts of the world was creating dictatorships of the right and left. This version of planning was unambiguously elitist, excluded the unorganised, and showed little concern for issues around the distribution of income and wealth. Nevertheless, it provided the foundations for much of the discussion of planning that became an important element in post World War II politics, at least down to the 1960s. The biographical approach to the evolution of planning proves an effective way of bringing into focus both the convergence of concerns and themes which underlay these ideas of planning, and the informal networks which transformed the ideas into policy initiatives. Equally, the author's aim to place planning in the mainstream of inter-war American politics (rather than an 'extremist' response to the great depression) is successfully attained. The contingencies of history are also nicely brought out in the account of the abolition of the NRPB, which was based on a combination of Congressional manoeuvrings for power, absurd ideological posturing by Republicans, and political maladroitness (and bad faith?) on the part of the President. The author is repetitive in his claims for American exceptionalism with regard to planning. (Indeed there is rather a lot of repetition even of minor points: we are told at least six times that Congress in 1943 mandated the sending of the NRPB records to the National Archives). This claim for a peculiarly American version of planning is sound where the contrast is made with authoritarian regimes like the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany or Japan. But it is less persuasive if the comparison is made with other democracies that faced economic and social crisis in the 1920s and 1930s. In Britain, for example, as Daniel Ritschel in his The Politics of Planning (Oxford, 1997) has recently emphasised, the ideology of planning was widely embraced across the political spectrum. Many of the ideas articulated at that time had close affinity with the contemporary American version of planning, though what was also striking in Britain was the wide diversity of ideas that could come under that umbrella term. In this comparative light America appears less unique, more in a common mould of democracies where, many felt, 'planning' would provi
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More privatisation
Doug: Well, if Jencks has concluded that, ask him about research such as "Ichiro Kawachi et al, "Social Capital, Income Inequality, and Mortality" The American Journal of Public Health 87 (9): 1491-1497 Richard Wilkerson (another article in the same journal) that reaches the opposite conclusion. Joel Blau Doug Henwood wrote: Bill Burgess wrote: >As it happens I am doing something very similar, as part of an >effort to figure out why personal income _inequality_ is strongly >(negatively) related to (age-adjusted) mortality rates in US cities, >but not in Canadian cities. In other words, do more -- and more >equal -- public goods in Canadian cities (schools, transit, >libraries, sewers, etc.) mitigate some of the negative effects of >personal income inequality that prevail in the US? (Of course, >personal income itself is also strongly negatively related to >mortality, but an additional? inequality effect seems to apply over >the range of income.) > >BTW, some good recent work on the relation of income inequality and >mortality is by Australian epidemiologist John Lynch. He offers a >"neo-material" explanation for this relation in place of some of the >'social capital' ideas (trust, cohesion, civic participation, etc.) >recently discussed on Pen-L. > >If anyone is working on similar points, please contact me to compare notes. My beloved's uncle is Christopher Jencks. I hear that Jencks is currently working on the relation between income distribution and health indicators, and is finding that it doesn't exist. He hasn't published anything yet, and I haven't had the chance to talk to him about it, but I'm going to get on the case very soon. Doug
Re: classroom size question
I think it is one that Virginia Postrel cited in the New York Times last week in her economics column. Apparently, there have been a couple of conservative article recently contending that class size does not matter. Joel Blau Michael Perelman wrote: Does anybody know anything about this article? Hoxby, Caroline M. 2000. "The Effects of Class Size on Student Achievement: New Evidence from Population Variation." Journal of Economics, 115: 4 (November): pp. 1239-85. She argues that class size does not have much of an effect on student achievement. - Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fwd: faith based services
Yes, it is rather like the old saying that an army and a navy is all that distinguishes a language from a dialect. That's just one reason why faith-based initiatives will quickly lead the Bush administration down a slippery definitional slope. Joel Blau Jim Devine wrote: Justin wrote: A professor at a Jesuit school compares Catholicism to Scientology . . . . ? --jks I was just explaining what's wrong with Scientology, in case someone didn't know. But to actually makes such a comparison: I predict that when Scientology is as old as Catholicism, it will be as "normal" and as respectable, applying fraudulent methods as rarely as Catholicism does. When it's been around as long as Mormonism, it will be as normal and respectable as that religion, applying fraudulent methods as rarely as the Mormons do. If they get beyond the initial cult phase, religions usually mellow out with time, under the influence of reasonable people inside and external legal forces. (Note that I am not apologizing for the Catholics or the Mormons. I can tell you stories...) BTW, the Catholic Worker movement is much better than the Catholic hierarchy, though it tends to be quite shrill. In response to my missive about the contradiction between the conservative Christian advocacy of government funding for religion-based services and the possibility that the Scientology church might want to get involved, Justin wrote: What about Catholic Workers? (Who really do provide social services.) --jks I responded: Scientology seems to provide social services, such as drug treatment. But the recipients usually join the "church" and then max out their credit cards to donate to the followers of the late L. Ron Hubbard, so that they join the ranks of modern debt peonage. They bust their butts trying to satisfy the higher-ups (who are organized in a Navy-style hierarchy). BTW, converts such as John Travolta and Tom Cruise are treated differently. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Welfare Reform, from the Horse's Mouth
Ken Hanly wrote: COMMENT: Isn't the ability to keep "extra" money an invitation to cut back welfare and use the block grants as a means to fund programs quite unrelated to helping those needing welfare? This is perverse. Yes, this is the way block grants (as opposed to federal entitlements) work. When money goes to the states freed of most federal strictures, other, more powerful groups are likely to get their hands on it, if it is spent at all. COMMENT: So what happens to those in need who are ineligible. Do they turn to crime? Might as well. The five year limit will be tested in the next recession. In fact, since the law was implemented in 1997, some recipients will reach their five year limit next year. When that happens, there will be a significant increase in homelessness, emergency food lines, and perhaps crime as well. 2. You have to be working within two years to collect benefits. COMMENT: I gather this is a minimal requirement. States can make the regulations more stringent but not less. I assume this means not that the person must be working to collect benefits for more than two years, not that if the person is not working after two years that the benefits must be paid back! That sounds pretty simple, but with every state passing its own laws, there simply is no nationwide welfare program any more. For instance: ** more than 2/3 of all states require work within less than two years, with 1/3 requiring immediate work. (so, in NYC, if you don't push that broom for the parks department, you don't get benefits) COMMENT: Well I see nothing wrong with the state providing jobs rather than welfare, it is the rates of pay that would be significant. I gather too that in some cases welfare workers are doing work for minimal pay that used to be done by unionised workers. What of persons who are not fit to work for whatever reason? Or persons who require child care? The act exempts 20% of the rolls in each state. It also says that by 2002, 50% of all one parent families and 90% of all two parent families must participate in work activities. COMMENT: I assume that this is so poor parents will not become rich through having children!!! It is a wonder they have not thought of making benefits contingent upon getting tubes tied or whatever after x number of children. Under AFDC, a welfare mother in the median state got a $70 a month "raise" for her third child. This difference of $840 a year is roughly equivalent to the value of a $2650 deduction for another dependent that other parents get. The difference is that cash for the poor is stigmatized, while benefits received through the tax code are not. COMMENT: This is an interesting phenomenon in a country where politicians continually make bleating noises about the necessity to cut down on bloated bureaucracies. At least this keeps some academics feeding from the public trough of research funds as well as generating jobs for bureaucrats. Yes. Like the privatization of social security, the phenomenon of 50 different welfare bureaucracies under the new law is infinitely more complex than any administrative mechanism ever associated with AFDC. Joel Blau
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Welfare Reform, from the Horse's Mouth
It's the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act. The block grants were fixed at the amount distributed under AFDC in 1994, until 2002 when the Act is up for renewal. Since most Republican and Democratic congresspeople think that the rolls have declined and therefore it is a success (ignoring both the reduction in the living standards of the working poor who now have jobs as well as those former recipients who have simply disappeared), no major changes are going to occur in its basic framework But groups are mobilizing in the hope that some restrictions might be eased as well as to prevent the renewal in 2002 from becoming purely celebratory. Joel Blau Margaret Coleman wrote: Michael Perelman's question about the changes in welfare laws in reprinted below. Actually, the welfare laws changed more in the summer of 1996 with the passage of PROWRA (I forget the exact name, something like personal responsibility and work recovery act) than they have since welfare was instituted under the Roosevelt administration. Basically, PROWRA set up a few loose federal guidelines within which states are allowed to pass their own welfare laws. The states receive block grants for welfare, and once they have followed the minimum federal guidelines, they get to keep the 'extra' money (within some limits) to use as they want. The basic rules are now: 1. There is a lifetime cap on cash benefits (now called TANF) of 5 years. Once you have collected 5 years of benefits, you are entitled to no more, no matter what the need. 2. You have to be working within two years to collect benefits. 3. All states must offer 'one=stop' shopping, i.e. benefit availability information and job counselling at the same location That sounds pretty simple, but with every state passing its own laws, there simply is no nationwide welfare program any more. For instance: ** more than 2/3 of all states require work within less than two years, with 1/3 requiring immediate work. (so, in NYC, if you don't push that broom for the parks department, you don't get benefits) ** almost 1/4 of all eligible adults are now ineligible because of rules infractions, so you frequently have parents with children eligible for tanf where the adults are kicked off the wlefare roles and where the state is paying the kids benefits to 3rd parties, or land lords -- and we all know how honest landlords are. **About half of all states (including California with the largest caseload in the nation) have passed family caps. So recipients who have additional children are not entitled to benefits for those children. To get a sense of the complexities, The Urban Institute has an excellent welfare rules database which lists all the state by state permutations of the new rules. Essentially, the system is now so complex that hundreds of Ph Ds are studying them nationwide and can't make head nor tails out of who's collecting, who's eligible or what. So one of the legacies of the Clinton administration is a perfect bureaucratic smokes screen which completely covers the extent of poverty in this country. Michael Perelman wrote: I was under the impression that it was not so much changes in the law, but changes in the interpretation and the implementation of the law -- as well as misperception on the part of people who might have otherwise been on welfare. Am I off base? On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 11:29:27AM -0500, Joel Blau wrote: These outcomes are perfectly consistently with a 1997 special report by the Council of Economic Advisors on this issue.. That study reported that economic growth accounted for 44 percent of the decline, while 31 percent of the decline derived from changes in the law. An appendix to the report, however, admits that changes in the law could account for as little as 13 percent. Hiliary Williamson Hoynes at Berkeley has done some useful work on this issue. She concludes that a 10 percent increase in employment growth combined with a 5 percent increase in real earnings would lead to a 16 percent decline in the welfare caseload. Joel Blau Margaret Coleman wrote: A couple of comments on the excerpts Max sent us from the prez report 1. Mathematica (a fairly conservative (imho) think tank/number crunching group) came and presented an unpublished paper to us census dweebs about a month ago. They compared the effect of the reduction of caseload under afdc (old cash benefits) and tanf (new cash benefits) rules during the recessionary late 80s and the expansion of the 90s. Their main conclusion was that the new rules explain less than 10% of the reduction in case load, while the expansionary economy explains about 40-50%. The rest is unknown. 2. I suspect that a huge portion of the non-collection of benefits like food stamps is due to a lack of information as states rush to reduce case load so
Re: Re: money wage cuts employment
Well, I don't know anyone who has the conversation on tape, but historically, I think it is pretty clear that social welfare policy has been used to channel women's labor into the home or into the labor market depending upon labor market's needs. For 60 years, the primary significance of AFDC was that the state would help poor women raise children in their own home. Implicitly, this policy assumed that the children merited caretaking, because they were going to grow up and become part of a future American workforce. Now that workforce can come from anywhere, it is far more important to extract cheap labor from the mothers in poorly paid service jobs than it is for them to stay home and take care of children who may well be economically superfluous. Put another way, AFDC was the social welfare system for an industrial economy and the family arrangements that accompanied it: mother stays home, father works, and father earns a "family wage."--a wage sufficient to support a family. By contrast, TANF is the social welfare system for a service economy in which the social wage has been contracted and everyone works or risks severe hardship. One can debate precisely how the message of this changing labor market needs got communicated, but there is no doubt that it was heard and responded to. Joel Blau Carrol Cox wrote: Margaret Coleman wrote: It is this same reasoning which answers my question of why welfare reform now -- We were running out of women to put into low wage work, and we needed to 'free' them from the bonds of welfare cheers, This makes sense, but it raises a question -- which perhaps the old base/superstructure metaphor may help phrase. On the one hand we have a capitalist need -- roughly, a need felt in the relations of production crudely conceived. On the other hand we have Clinton (with Gore's urging) and Congress passing legislation (superstructure crudely conceived) that indirectly fills that need. Can the various mediations connecting the two be described? I doubt that the CEO of Kentucky Fried Chicken or of some mail processing plant in Iowa called up their Senator and said, Hey, push some more workers our way. Or did Clinton and various thinktanks somehow intuit the need coming up? Carrol
Re: Re: Welfare Reform, from the Horse's Mouth
These outcomes are perfectly consistently with a 1997 special report by the Council of Economic Advisors on this issue.. That study reported that economic growth accounted for 44 percent of the decline, while 31 percent of the decline derived from changes in the law. An appendix to the report, however, admits that changes in the law could account for as little as 13 percent. Hiliary Williamson Hoynes at Berkeley has done some useful work on this issue. She concludes that a 10 percent increase in employment growth combined with a 5 percent increase in real earnings would lead to a 16 percent decline in the welfare caseload. Joel Blau Margaret Coleman wrote: A couple of comments on the excerpts Max sent us from the prez report 1. Mathematica (a fairly conservative (imho) think tank/number crunching group) came and presented an unpublished paper to us census dweebs about a month ago. They compared the effect of the reduction of caseload under afdc (old cash benefits) and tanf (new cash benefits) rules during the recessionary late 80s and the expansion of the 90s. Their main conclusion was that the new rules explain less than 10% of the reduction in case load, while the expansionary economy explains about 40-50%. The rest is unknown. 2. I suspect that a huge portion of the non-collection of benefits like food stamps is due to a lack of information as states rush to reduce case load so they can keep the block grant monies to spend on 'other' items. 3. Mathematica and the Urban Institute have both sent people to the field in different states and the administration of new rules is tremendously at odds with the rules as written -- in short, no one actually has any real clue at all as to how many people are eligible, how many people are collecting, and what has happened to leavers. 4, factoids: There is a provision in prowra (new rules) which gives additional block grant money to the states which reduce unwed births the most WITHOUT use of abortion (perhaps an aspirin held tightly between the knees?). Personally, I read this as an incentive to discourage legal abortions. AND in a study about school enrollment (which I am authoring, though it is not 'official' yet), using the survey of income and program participation (SIPP), there has been a small, but clear increase in the number of people not receiving benefits but living at the lowest end of the income spectrum between March, 1996 and March, 1998. maggie coleman Max Sawicky wrote: "Two of the most impressive achievements of the past 8 years have been the reduction in the number of Americans receiving welfare, and the increase in the numbers of current and former welfare recipients who are working. . . . . . The 1996 reforms have undeniably been successful in reducing the number of people receiving welfare. But reductions in caseloads are not the only measure by which to judge the reforms: the well-being of the millions of former welfare recipients is at least as important. Much of what we know about outcomes for welfare leavers comes from studies undertaken in individual States. . . . . . . Welfare leavers are unlikely to thrive in the workplace if they are no better off financially than they were before leaving the welfare rolls. Evidence from State studies indicates that, at least initially, few leavers are significantly better off. . . . . . For 44 percent of leavers, household income plus food stamps in the year following exit was more than $50 per month higher than in the months before; for 49 percent it was at least $50 lower. . . . " . . . Enrollment in the food stamp program has fallen dramatically since 1994, from a high of 27.5 million participants to 18.2 million in 1999, in part because of the strong economy. Of concern, however, is the fact that the participation rate for eligible families declined from 71 percent in September 1994 to 62 percent in September 1997. This decline is particularly marked for families with children. In 1999 only 51 percent of children in families with incomes below the poverty line received food stamps. Even among the very poorest children—those in families with incomes less than 50 percent of the poverty line—data indicate that only 58 percent received food stamps in 1999, down from 76 percent in 1993. . . . Chapter 5, Economic Report of the President, 2001 [note: a "leaver" is someone who joins the caseload of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (formerly AFDC) and separates from the program, either voluntarily or otherwise. It does not include those who never enter the program, who might have under other circumstances.]
Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Welfare Reform, from the Horse's Mouth
Yes, but the effect of the rule changes and the effect of an expansionary economy play out on different sectors of the welfare population. Since we don't know what has happened to one half of the leavers, I think it is fair to say that the economy helped to get jobs for those who were employed, while many of those who have vanished have ended up at food banks. The U.S. Conference of Mayors does an annual report on this subject. The last one in December did show a increasing reliance on emergency food. Joel Blau Max Sawicky wrote: But aren't the number of foodbanks and other supplements to welfare growing? Are the rules for eligibility more stringent? Cheers, Ken Hanly I don't know how or if the # of foodbanks has changed. Eligibility rules are now left to the states, and caseload has gone down over 40% since before the 'reform.' As important as the rules for eligibility are those for sanctions, which is one way people leave the caseload. These also are up to the states. It is possible that some supplements have grown alongside the shrinkage of 'welfare' (TANF, formerly AFDC). The EITC has definitely grown. Some states such as Wisconsin (which has reduced its caseload more than any other state) may have expanded some social services like child care. The common element to expansions is that they tend to be conditional on work. The new paradigm means work in the home, particularly child care, is disadvantaged relative to other work. The main handle on this, as Randy Albelda pointed out in her talk at the AEA meetings, is family leave policy. Paid family leave is a way to subsidize work in the home. The Clinton Administration deserves some credit for opening this crack in the wall. mbs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Welfare Reform, from the Horse's Mouth
The changes in the law are real and consequential. But consistent with the historical practice, implementation also tightens a lot in this new legal environment. At the extremes, politicians like Mayor Guliani then venture into practices that the courts later deem illegal--for example, routinely rejecting the first application in the hope that applicants will give up. Joel Blau Michael Perelman wrote: I was under the impression that it was not so much changes in the law, but changes in the interpretation and the implementation of the law -- as well as misperception on the part of people who might have otherwise been on welfare. Am I off base? On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 11:29:27AM -0500, Joel Blau wrote: These outcomes are perfectly consistently with a 1997 special report by the Council of Economic Advisors on this issue.. That study reported that economic growth accounted for 44 percent of the decline, while 31 percent of the decline derived from changes in the law. An appendix to the report, however, admits that changes in the law could account for as little as 13 percent. Hiliary Williamson Hoynes at Berkeley has done some useful work on this issue. She concludes that a 10 percent increase in employment growth combined with a 5 percent increase in real earnings would lead to a 16 percent decline in the welfare caseload. Joel Blau Margaret Coleman wrote: A couple of comments on the excerpts Max sent us from the prez report 1. Mathematica (a fairly conservative (imho) think tank/number crunching group) came and presented an unpublished paper to us census dweebs about a month ago. They compared the effect of the reduction of caseload under afdc (old cash benefits) and tanf (new cash benefits) rules during the recessionary late 80s and the expansion of the 90s. Their main conclusion was that the new rules explain less than 10% of the reduction in case load, while the expansionary economy explains about 40-50%. The rest is unknown. 2. I suspect that a huge portion of the non-collection of benefits like food stamps is due to a lack of information as states rush to reduce case load so they can keep the block grant monies to spend on 'other' items. 3. Mathematica and the Urban Institute have both sent people to the field in different states and the administration of new rules is tremendously at odds with the rules as written -- in short, no one actually has any real clue at all as to how many people are eligible, how many people are collecting, and what has happened to leavers. 4, factoids: There is a provision in prowra (new rules) which gives additional block grant money to the states which reduce unwed births the most WITHOUT use of abortion (perhaps an aspirin held tightly between the knees?). Personally, I read this as an incentive to discourage legal abortions. AND in a study about school enrollment (which I am authoring, though it is not 'official' yet), using the survey of income and program participation (SIPP), there has been a small, but clear increase in the number of people not receiving benefits but living at the lowest end of the income spectrum between March, 1996 and March, 1998. maggie coleman Max Sawicky wrote: "Two of the most impressive achievements of the past 8 years have been the reduction in the number of Americans receiving welfare, and the increase in the numbers of current and former welfare recipients who are working. . . . . . The 1996 reforms have undeniably been successful in reducing the number of people receiving welfare. But reductions in caseloads are not the only measure by which to judge the reforms: the well-being of the millions of former welfare recipients is at least as important. Much of what we know about outcomes for welfare leavers comes from studies undertaken in individual States. . . . . . . Welfare leavers are unlikely to thrive in the workplace if they are no better off financially than they were before leaving the welfare rolls. Evidence from State studies indicates that, at least initially, few leavers are significantly better off. . . . . . For 44 percent of leavers, household income plus food stamps in the year following exit was more than $50 per month higher than in the months before; for 49 percent it was at least $50 lower. . . . " . . . Enrollment in the food stamp program has fallen dramatically since 1994, from a high of 27.5 million participants to 18.2 million in 1999, in part because of the strong economy. Of concern, however, is the fact that the participation rate for eligible families declined from 71 percent in September 1994 to 62 percent in September 1997. This decline is particularly marked for families with children. In 1999 only 51 percent of children in families with incomes below the po
Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
But Bush can't have it both ways. He can't say "I'm ahead, and the purpose of any rccount is to put you ahead," and then, when Gore choses his best counties, complain that the recount omits counties favorable to him. Joel Blau David Shemano wrote: Boies is being disingenuous. The statute provides that the country canvassing board should do a manual recount if there is an error in the vote tabulation "which could affect the outcome of the election." Now think about this. You are George Bush. You are ahead. Why would you ask for a recount, if the only way you can get a recount is if the error "could affect the outcome of the election," meaning that the recount would have to show that Gore would win? Therefore, under the statute, Bush may not have even been entitled to a manual recount in Republican counties -- which all goes to show the absurdity of allowing losing candidates to pick and choose county manual recounts in a statewide election.David Shemano -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Joel Blau Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 5:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:5829] Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting) No, it is not completely cynical. As Boies argued this morning on the issue of a broader recount, it is not the plaintiff's responsibility to protect Bush from the incompetence of his own lawyers. Joel Blau David Shemano wrote: Here are the facts, more than you are ever going to want to know. Under Florida law, any candidate may request a manual recount within a county within the later of 72 hours after the election or when the county canvassing board certifies the results to the Secretary of State. Upon the request, the board has the discretion to do a 1% sample manual recount. If it does so, and discovers an "error in the vote tabulation" that could affect the election, then it must either (1) correct the error in the 1% and do a mechanical recount for the remainder of the county, (2) have the Secretary verify the software, or (3) manually recount all ballots. The Secretary of State took the position that "error in the vote tabulation" means a defect in the equipment or software. Gore, and ultimately the Florida Supreme Court, took the position that "error in the vote tabulation" includes any difference between the mechanical count and the manual recount, which will always exist if you use punch ballots, because of the problem of hanging chads. In any event, Gore had the opportunity to request a manual recount in each of the 67 counties, or even only the dozens of counties that used punch ballots. However, he was not looking for "defects" or irregularities in the equipment (because none existed), he was simply looking for instances where the machines were not counting hanging chads and dimples. The "undervote" rate in Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade were not significantly different than the dozens of other punch card counties, but they were the large Democratic counties and the remaining counties were Republican strongholds. Furthermore, after the Secretary certified the election, and Gore filed the "contest" portion of his challenge, he took the position that the court could only examine and recount the specific ballots that he (Gore) contested. Therefore, although he could have made the commonsense argument that there were over a 100,000 undervotes in an election decided by 500 votes, he made the argument that there were 13,000 undervotes in Palm Beach and Miami-Dade, and the court should pay no attention that there were tens of thousands of identical undervotes in Republican counties. He made the same argument this morning to the Florida Supreme Court. Completely cynical. In the abstract, I don't blame Gore for litigating under the circumstances. But the original question was why Republicans are not wishy-washy about the issue. I hope this explains why. David Shemano -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of kelley Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 6:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:5780] Re: RE: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting) correct me if i'm wrong, but if memory serves, there wasn't an option for a statewide manual recount, at first. there was an option for a statewide machine recount. and there was the possibility of challenging the result in particular counties. borehead's team (and shrubya's) already knew their strategies and the intricacies of state law well in advance, shrubya probably more than borehead because he was predicted to be in the boat borehead found himself in. the first thing bore's team did was scour the state in search of voting problems. (TNR covered this quite thoroughly). they then looked for grounds upon which to ask for the manual recount. if you know better, i'd appreciate it you could point me to facts
Re: Re: President-Elect Gore
Yes, but more the contortions he has to through in the process, the more he will be delegitimized, leading perhaps to the ultimate contortion, where his ascension to the presidency depends upon his own brother certifying him as the victor. Joel Blau Charles Brown wrote: Yes, but didn't the U.S Supreme rule that the Florida legislature has plenary power in this ? So when the Florida legislature's electors get to Congress , they will be favored over any from Gore based on any change of final number resulting from today's ruling, and the Republican House will be backed up by the U.S. Supreme Court based on the Florida legislature having plenary power. If so, winner Bush. Get ready to fight Bush. CB [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/08/00 04:05PM This just in: FL Supreme Court has ruled to manually count disputed ballots. mbs TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- A sharply divided Florida Supreme Court ordered manual recounts to begin in Florida's contested presidential election on Friday, breathing new life into Al Gore's quest for the White House. ``Because time is of the essence, the recount will commence immediately,'' said the court's spokesman, Craig Waters. On a ruling of 4-3, the court also added 383 votes to Gore's total. . . http://cnews.tribune.com/news/tribune/story/0,1235,tribune-nation-40996,00.h tml
Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
No, it is not completely cynical. As Boies argued this morning on the issue of a broader recount, it is not the plaintiff's responsibility to protect Bush from the incompetence of his own lawyers. Joel Blau David Shemano wrote: Here are the facts, more than you are ever going to want to know. Under Florida law, any candidate may request a manual recount within a county within the later of 72 hours after the election or when the county canvassing board certifies the results to the Secretary of State. Upon the request, the board has the discretion to do a 1% sample manual recount. If it does so, and discovers an "error in the vote tabulation" that could affect the election, then it must either (1) correct the error in the 1% and do a mechanical recount for the remainder of the county, (2) have the Secretary verify the software, or (3) manually recount all ballots. The Secretary of State took the position that "error in the vote tabulation" means a defect in the equipment or software. Gore, and ultimately the Florida Supreme Court, took the position that "error in the vote tabulation" includes any difference between the mechanical count and the manual recount, which will always exist if you use punch ballots, because of the problem of hanging chads. In any event, Gore had the opportunity to request a manual recount in each of the 67 counties, or even only the dozens of counties that used punch ballots. However, he was not looking for "defects" or irregularities in the equipment (because none existed), he was simply looking for instances where the machines were not counting hanging chads and dimples. The "undervote" rate in Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade were not significantly different than the dozens of other punch card counties, but they were the large Democratic counties and the remaining counties were Republican strongholds. Furthermore, after the Secretary certified the election, and Gore filed the "contest" portion of his challenge, he took the position that the court could only examine and recount the specific ballots that he (Gore) contested. Therefore, although he could have made the commonsense argument that there were over a 100,000 undervotes in an election decided by 500 votes, he made the argument that there were 13,000 undervotes in Palm Beach and Miami-Dade, and the court should pay no attention that there were tens of thousands of identical undervotes in Republican counties. He made the same argument this morning to the Florida Supreme Court. Completely cynical. In the abstract, I don't blame Gore for litigating under the circumstances. But the original question was why Republicans are not wishy-washy about the issue. I hope this explains why. David Shemano -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of kelley Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 6:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:5780] Re: RE: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting) correct me if i'm wrong, but if memory serves, there wasn't an option for a statewide manual recount, at first. there was an option for a statewide machine recount. and there was the possibility of challenging the result in particular counties. borehead's team (and shrubya's) already knew their strategies and the intricacies of state law well in advance, shrubya probably more than borehead because he was predicted to be in the boat borehead found himself in. the first thing bore's team did was scour the state in search of voting problems. (TNR covered this quite thoroughly). they then looked for grounds upon which to ask for the manual recount. if you know better, i'd appreciate it you could point me to facts otherwise, but i believe you have to challenge on a county basis, since voting is a local control issue. i don't believe a statewide recount was an option unless he had evidence of some statewide problem. since elections are a local affair, it would have been unlikely that such irregularities would have been rooted at the level of the state. my county, pinellas, is heavily democratic and there were problems here. he could have asked for a manual recount here, too. but i think they chose not to because they could only chose four. similarly, he could have asked for hand recounts where there was plenty of evidence of racially motivated impediments to voting, but he didn't pursue that tack. in general, in the game of politics, as you suggest, why should anyone do something that doesn't keep their advantage just to appear noble? but, more specifically, given what you said about being sympathetic, if you were a pol who was convinced that you would have won without nader taking some of your votes, wouldn't you all that you could do to turn things in your favor, particularly if everything you were doing was provided for according to the law? and, barring that, were you convinced that you would have won had it not been f
Re: Re: Re: Re: needs
Has anyone read Ian Gough and Len Doyal's A Theory of Human Need? It is on point for this discussion. Joel Blau Ken Hanly wrote: Actually Hayek in a critique of Galbraith makes the point that capitalism often creates new ways of satisfying old needs rather than new needs per se. Capitalism produces new products to satisfy these needs. Galbraith argued that advertising creates needs and then manufactures goods that satisfy them . These needs he claims are not basic and are unnecessary. They serve only the function of creating an effective demand or at least a desire for new products. These are subsequently sold at a profit- if such desires occur in people with sufficient money to purchase the products. Hayek argues, quite rightly in my opinion, that many of these new products are obviously significant in improving the quality of peoples lives, helping them flourish. Many people feel a need to learn more about the world. New technology and companies such as Amazon.com have created new ways of satisfying that. The need for entertainment e.g. music is satisfied in new ways by the development of phonograph, 78s, lps, cds, and now dvd players.etc. But both Hayek and Galbraith ignore the most significant point. Satisfying needs is good only if it leads to human flourishing, not just individual flourishing but of the individual within a commuinity where the flourishing of one is bound up wiht the flourishing of alll. Looked at in this manner many basic needs for health, shelter, food, etc. are not met within a capitalist community while needs are satisfied of those who have money that do not really help the individual flourish, may be damaging to the environment, and may use scarce resources in a wasteful manner. Even though in nc terms they might be Pareto efficient no less. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Eugene Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 11:02 AM Subject: [PEN-L:5414] Re: Re: needs > I think I triggered off this "needs" thread by asking Justin a simple > question of why it is a good idea to "create new needs." > > Having done that, I've not been able to read most of the posts because > of other things occupying my time. But I want to ask Justin how he got > from my question to his interpretation, that I (or others) mean by that > question that I would tell first world workers that they must > sacrifice? Among the posts that I have read I didn't see anything about > sacrifice. I am quite clear that the "live simply" movement isn't and > can't go anywhere, and I never implied that in my question, though > perhaps Justin made that inference. > > I also agreewith Justin and Yoshie that sacrifice on the part of > workers is an idea that should be ridiculed. I'll let Lou sort that > out. > > Maybe it will be useful if Justin can parse the distinction between > creating new needs and satisfying old needs in creative ways. The > clothes washing machine didn't create the need to wash clothes. Even > one of the most important new consumer items of the Twentieth century, > the vibrator, didn't create a new need. Or am I making a distinction > without a difference in reference to Justin's phrasing? > > Gene Coyle > > Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: > > > Justin wrote: > > > > >I am rather inclined to agree with you, Louis, that a middle-class, > > >suburban American lifestyle is not sustainable for six or ten > > >billion people, and that a sustaianble set of needs will have to be > > >rather different from those we now have. I certainly disagree with > > >Jim H's SUV socialism, a Suburban Assault Vehicle (or two) in every > > >garage. But my point was just that even this is to say something > > >different from saying that we have all the needs we ought, too many > > >in fact, and that we ought to all cut back, live simply, etc. > > > > > >I also think that we will not get anywhere with first world workers > > >telling them that they must sacrifice; rather, the needs that > > >motivate them will have to arise rom a lived experience of common > > >struggle, so that reording of priorities will not be experienced as > > >sacrifice or renunciation of privilege. Workers in the advanced > > >countries don't feel particularly privileged, even if they are > > >better off than workers and peasants in poorer nations, and so > > >guilt-tripping them will produce resentment rather than solidarity > > >with those people in other countries. > > > > I agree with Justin here (for the moment setting aside the question > > of exactly how old new needs can be satisfied under socialism). > > There are few things that are more politically ridiculous than
Re: Re: Re: Re: Leftist (but non-Marxist) economists wanted in Europe
Max: The wealth tax is a real difference. Enacting the Ackerman/Alstott scheme might better than anything else now on the horizon. But stake or no stake, I am still wary of the notion of each individual poor person as atomized consumer/investor. It may be an accurate reflection of our social ethic, but it is not an appealing one. Joel Blau Max Sawicky wrote: response to Joel B: The Ackerman/Alstott scheme is different from IDA's in some key respects. Typically with IDA's the account holder contributes in some measure, so it would be hard to have an IDA at age 21 based on contributions from earnings prior to that age. Ackerman/Alstott propose a wealth tax to finance their 'stake.' In principle, the smartest thing many people could do with their stake would be to bank it and let it grow for 20 years or so. Starting a small business, in light of the very high failure rates associated with same, is by far not the obvious option, though w/IDA's my impression is that this is part of the goal, as with 'micro-credit.' If IDA's are not financed out of earnings, then they are more like the A/A scheme. I agree that in an important respect the 'stake' or IDA's are a conservative response. But the plain fact is that if either are financed in a redistributive fashion, they reduce poverty unless you think recipients will reduce their work effort by the amount of earnings that the stake would offset (the Charles Murray thesis). Certainly, a low-wage worker with a stake could still be a low-wage worker their entire life. But the difference is that somewhere along the way, they would have an additional $80K plus interest to use as they see fit. We could say that cash provision is 'individualistic,' but on the other hand public provision is paternalistic. There is a horde of advocates, many well-intentioned, who think they have a better idea what people need then the people do themselves. There is no reason to think the package of benefits for which a given low-income person is eligible would do him or her more good than their cash equivalent. As you know, we have these categorical, in-kind programs because of the influence of provider groups and the political unpopularity of cash aid. The A/A proposal is interesting to me because it provides a philosophical framework which could prove politically compelling for redistributive cash aid. mbs
Re: Re: Leftist (but non-Marxist) economists wanted in Europe
In addition to Ackerman, Michael Sherraden at Washington University in St.Louis has proposed Individual Development Accounts (IDAs), which Clinton actually included in his 2000 State of the Union address. Forty-four states already have small experimental versions of these IDAs, including 27 states that have enacted them for welfare recipients. Ackerman may be spinning, but Sherraden hearkens back even more explicitly to images of Jeffersonian democracy and the idea of stakeholders. Personally, I am rather dubious about these plans. In the absence of a guaranteed annual income, income maintenance programs are plainly awful, so IDAs might have a more favorable redistributive effect. Nevertheless, two primary criticisms can be addressed against them: 1) they epitomize an individualistic approach to poverty--even with a $80,000 stake, it is the resourcefulness of individual people--not a whole group or class--that is supposed to get folks out of poverty; and 2) poverty, or specifically class, is a social relation that will be continually reproduced regardless of whether or not some lucky individuals are staked to $80,000. For both these reasons, IDAs are the quintessential poverty program for a fundamentally conservative era. Joel Blau Max Sawicky wrote: This is a good article, but I want to quibble with the characterizationof the Ackerman proposal, of which I am a fan. First of all, there aretwo authors of the book and proposal, Ackerman and Anne Alstott,also a Yale law prof. Ackerman describes himself as a 'kantianliberal.' I'll leave others to parse that bit out.> . . . The idea behind Mr. Ackerman's notion of giving every 18-year-old $80,000 > is to create a contemporary version of the 19th-century homesteading notion > of 40 acres and a mule. This, he reasons, would promote equality not by > increasing government services but by making everyone a potential capitalist.Logically the $80K would replace aid to higher ed. So fromthe standpoint of a prospective college student, getting the$80K is analagous to free college education, which hardlymakes you a potential capitalist.The key departure from the status quo reflected in the proposal is thatit redresses the imbalance between higher ed support and aid to thosewho are not going to college. The $80K might start you in a business,you might choose to bank it for the sake of a fat retirement, you mightuse it to recover from premature parenthood, etc. Again, 'making youa potential capitalist' is not really the focus. What it does is create abit more parity between those of below-average incomes and thoseabove.I like the idea because it is redistributive but it also affords the individual a choice. Politically this has the advantage of escaping b.s. propaganda about'Government bureaucrats.'> . . . All the same, he maintains, his idea of giving people an $80,000 stake to > invest is in certain ways not that conceptionally different from Gov. > George W. Bush's proposal to allow young people to create investment > accounts with their Social Security contributions, what Mr. Bush referred > to in his campaign as "prosperity with a purpose." Mr. Ackerman said that > in Alaska, each year, every citizen gets about $1,900 from oil revenues - > "and it's a Republican idea."It is quite different at its core, because it is redistributive with respectto lifetime income. Bush's proposal is firstly incomplete because itdoes not grapple with transition costs, so it's not really a proposalin the first place. The foregone revenues from the carve-out thatfinances Bush's accounts have a future value analagous to thoseof the private accounts, but are 'counted' as the absence of Federaldebt, rather than as 'funded' individual accounts. In principle thepresent use of the payroll tax surplus to pay down debt 'belongs'to workers and is reflected in future benefits to which they areentitled. Ackerman may choose to portray the proposal asconservative, and in some ways he is right; in others he isspin-doctoring.mbs
Re: Class implications of recount votes
Of course, another dimension of the voting machine screw-up is the failure to invest in the public infrastructure. In the last couple of days, election commissioners from all of the country have complained that their requests to purchase more modern voting equipment have fallen on deaf ears. In this case, then, we have arrived at a point where the disinvestment strategy imperiled not just schools, hospitals, and other social welfare investments, but the most basic of democratic requirements--the simple capacity to count votes. Joel Blau Chris Burford wrote: Interesting to see the strong trend during the recount in Florida, for many more Gore votes than Bush votes to be validated out of those that had presumably previously been excluded. This is presumably an automated recount, as the Democrats are now calling for manual recounts, but perhaps with discussion about which papers rejected by the counting machines, should go in a second time. The details of the methodology may be important. Are these machines optical readers? It suggests that modern automated vote counting is biased against the demographic groups that tended to vote for Gore. What can this be? Does it imply that Gore's vote on a national basis was probably higher than it was? Presumably he has gained from ballot papers being included in the recount, that had some blemish on them from the point of view of the impartial rules of the computer, a tick instead of a cross, or whatever. Gore's supporters presumably had a tendency to lack assertive "middle class" social skills, may not have negotiated the ballot paper so effectively, may not have had the confidence to have asked for a replacement, if they had made a mistake on the first one, may have got flustered etc. May not have insisted that the polls were still open 3 minutes before the closing time, when the officials were clearing up and did not want to be bothered with a couple of old black people, who were late because one of them had just come from their unsocial cleaning job, or because they had arthritis and could not afford pain killers that do not cause gastric erosion. The 19,000 disfranchised votes in Palm Beach are also part of the same social problem. So this is an example of the principle that a bourgeois right, a narrow, mechanical right, exercised in disregard of the fact that everyone is different, is in fact a right that is inferior by comparison with the rights of people as organic members of a social network. The closer the microscope is applied to what actually happened in Florida, even if fraud is not proved, the more detail there is likely to be, showing the inherent class bias of a system based on bourgeois right. Liberals contesting the electoral result may not draw attention to the class implications. Marxist-leaning politically-concerned individuals should use opportunities to expand this debate, and shift the focus of this whole ridiculous embarrassment for the competence of the USA (I am writing from outside, you appreciate) on to the social implications of how the democratic system works as a whole, how efficient it is in really representing peoples views, who benefits. Even "For whom?" as Lenin suggested always asking. But not so stridently that other people are repelled. The art is to find ways of connecting the general to the particular, not only philosophically but in terms of effective political contributions. Dogmatic marxism is useless in a modern bourgeois democracy. Certainly a system based on narrow fragmented bourgeois right, lubricated by billions of dollars of corporate donations, is not self-evidently democratic from all points of view, despite the assertion of one of the members of the Florida recount invigilatory panel, that 90 miles south of them, in Cuba, people do not have elections at all (!) Perhaps he could be invited to go on a free fact-finding holiday to help build friendship between the US and Cuban peoples. Presumably a hand count, with a discussion over contested votes, might well favour working people still further. The electoral system is an economic question, a class question, but it can only be exposed by applying the marxist distinction between bourgeois democratic rights and social rights in a way that brings it out in understandable terms. Chris Burford London
Re: bush or gore
I agree. We are entering a period of growing political and economic instability. Better on Bush's watch than on Gore. Joel Blau Michael Perelman wrote: My preference for Nader rested on a long-term perspective. Right now, I would prefer four years of a delegitimized Bush to a delegitimized Gore, especially if Gore wins the popular vote. Whoever wins is likely to see the next congressional elections moving the other direction. Neither would accomplish much. And both would probably have one term in office. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Re: Re: bush or gore
Absolutely, but precisely what punishment did you have in mind? Perhaps a co-presidency, so that we can get a two-fer? Joel Blau Jim Devine wrote: At 03:19 PM 11/10/00 -0500, you wrote: I agree. We are entering a period of growing political and economic instability. Better on Bush's watch than on Gore. don't you think that the DLC vanguard party deserves to be punished, too? According to Christopher Hitchens, the Democratic Leadership Council originally started as "Democrats for Nixon" in 1968. Does anyone know about that? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Bush or gore
Have you been listening to the conservative talk show hosts (Rush Limbaugh et al) since Tuesday? They think the Democrats are stealing the election. As Michael said, whoever wins is going to be delegitimized. We are just coming out the other side of 20 years of fake right wing populism. The political terrain would be much tidier if a failed Gore presidency did not allow this fake right wing populism to hang on long after its time. Joel Blau "But then why does Joel think that it would be better if the masses are Bush-whacked rather than being Gored? "
Re: Perfecting the one-party system, and antidotes
A couple of points on this: Not to mystify the numbers, but this election tracks fairly closely with political realignments and 36 year election cycles (1860--Lincoln and the rise of the Republican party; 1896 defeat of the populist movement and subsequent dominance of the Republican party; 1932, Roosevelt and 36 years of the New Deal coalition; 1968, Nixon, Reagan, and the drift rightward in public policy; and 2004?). In early phase of the cycle, there is energy and a galvanized populace, followed later by stagnation/disintegration, or gridlock. With a Bush presidency, a 50-50 split in the Senate, and 5 vote majority in the House, a Bush presidency will cleave to the gridlock model. He will have authority but by comparison with other presidents, not much power--rather as if he had exported the weak model of the Texas governorship to the White House. Since there is a good chance that bad things will happen on his watch (a recession, most likely), he'll get the blame even though he is cornered politically. If the previous pattern holds, this predicament increases the likelihood that when the logjam breaks, it will break leftward--though how far, is as always--very much up for grabs. I'm not saying worse is better. Just that if the Republicans are going to hold all three branches of government, they could not do so under better circumstances and at a more appropriate point in the realignment cycle. Also, if this pattern holds, it will be ironic that for the second time in a row, it will end with a Texas politician in the White House. Joel Blau Chris Burford wrote: "The United States, such a vocal advocate of multi-party systems, has two parties that are so perfectly similar in their methods, objectives and goals that they have practically created the most perfect one-party system in the world." The logical conclusion of this, following the election, is now effectively a coalition. Bush has ditched Gingrich style confrontation, shifted to a Third Way type of middle position, called "compassionate conservativism", and is quite capable of working with Democrats temperamentally. The finely balanced Congress with the risk of Republicans losing seats in 2002 will make him reluctant and unable to push through the biggest tax reductions, and the memory of Florida will emphasise how wise it was to offer to support seniors for at least 25% of their prescription charges. The party leaders in Congress need to be replaced by less confrontational figures to enable Castro's prediction of a virtual one-party state to come about, in the interests of capital of course. So how should progressive forces take advantage of some of the inevitability of this situation, and turn it to the interests of working people? In the UK we had Charter 88 which campaigned for ten years for constitutional change. Would not this be a more effective investment of energy than in promoting third party radical candidates, in an electoral system that does not yet have proportional representation, but a particularly brutal winner-takes-all constitution? I hope no Nader support will denounce suggest a proposition as reformist, by implying that Nader, for all his honourable attacks on corporate power, could really have promoted a revolution through the ballot box. The issue is not whether to struggle for reforms. The issue is *which* reforms are inherently more beneficial and possible for radical democratic change in the way the political system works as a whole. Campaign financing, if not the electoral college, surely will come under pressure from several quarters next year. Chris Burford London
Re: Re: Krugman not reading my stuff?
Shucks, I really enjoyed them. Joel Blau Jim Devine wrote: BTW, the Krugman Kronicles are on permanent hiatus. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: debate
There is also a whole other dimension here.. Bush presumes that the family is an autonomous social unit that acts but is not acted upon--a unit of production, if you will, rather than a unit of consumption. He wants to empower it by giving it more money, as if you could, through pure force of will, secure your family a good job, adequate health care, or a decent education. Most American families cannot do this any more: their fate lies in the hands of much more powerful economic forces. So the choice is not between individual families, whose purchasing power has been slightly enhanced by $220 Republican tax cut, and some government bureaucrat, but between large economic forces and a government that might (if pushed by left social movements) address some basic human needs that few families can now satisfy themselves Jim Devine wrote: Bush's main ideological point -- that the people can make decisions better than government bureaucrats -- was never answered by Gore. Gore could have answered in two ways: (1) that when Bush talks about "the people", he's talking about the rich, since these are the folks who would get the lion's share of the tax breaks. Gore hinted at that, but never followed through, since it suggests that having more income and wealth gives one more power (which goes against the dominant ideology). Gore almost said that he didn't like the government bureaucrats making decisions for people concerning the issue of abortion, but never clearly linked this up with an attack on Bush's main ideological point. (2) that it's not the government bureaucrats who are making decisions for people, but instead that the government acts as a representative of the democratic will of the people. I think that he didn't make this point because (a) he likes the idea of technocracy, the "father-knows-best" attitude, especially since he, Gore the super-wonk, knows so much; and (b) to talk about the US government responding to the democratic will of the people would be absurd in this era of government for the dollar, by the dollar, and of the dollar. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: RE: debate
Of course, it is important to note that all these funding mechanisms come in the less visible (and individual family) form of tax expenditures, rather than in either funding a whole program or providing direct aid. Joel Blau Max Sawicky wrote: JD: Bush's main ideological point -- that the people can make decisions better than government bureaucrats -- was never answered by Gore. Gore could have answered in two ways: . . . It is distressing to see 'liberal' being redefined by Gore in terms of targeted tax relief, while 'conservative' is thereby implied to mean general tax relief. For Gore, 'targeting' is really a cover for maximal surplus generation for the sake of rapid debt repayment. It dovetails with his very limited spending proposals. Targeting isn't necessarily bad in all contexts, but as a credo it means a more complicated, less credible tax code. It also glosses over the wasted component-- some leveraged activities would have occurred in any event, so the tax break amounts to a reward for behavior, not an inducement to it. Such rewards are not founded on equity principles. The college tuition deduction, for instance, is worthless to families whose children are not college-bound, even if their incomes are low. It is quite possible to provide general tax relief that is also progressive and simplifies the tax code. To amount to much for individuals, it would cost more than any of Gore's specific tax cuts, but not necessarily more than his overall tax package. Bush's proposal to double the child credit is better than any of Gore's tax proposals. It would be better still if it was refundable, but on the whole it's still better tax social policy, in my book. Of course, Bush's tax plan overall is no less 'selective' or targeted than Gore's, and in a less defensible way, but on the point of providing unfettered aid Bush is more right than wrong. Identification of liberalism or progressivism with Gore's teaspoon budgeting is bad policy and bad politics. mbs Bizarro Republican HQ
Re: Re: FBI helps Czech cops silence dissent
If the correct analogy is to the Gilded Age, then isn't the obvious political problem how to ensure that the coming version of the "Progressive Era" does more than merely rationalize the marketplace? Joel Blau Jim Devine wrote: At 10:17 AM 9/29/00 -0400, you wrote: Keeping an eye on protesters International authorities are sharing information -- not all of it accurate -- about anti-globalization activists. speaking of which, I've noticed that the media make a lot of comparisons between the last 20 years or so and the US "gilded age" of the late 19th and very early 20th centuries. I think there's a lot of validity to these comparisons (though no analogy is perfect). In the last gilded age, the US saw a transition from the prevalence of local monopolies or oligopolies to the prevalence of nation-wide monopolies or oligopolies in manufacturing, along with a radical increase in the degree of wealth and income inequality. Now, not only do we see the latter, but there's a transition from nation-wide monopolies or oligopolies in many countries to world-wide monopolies or oligopolies in manufacturing. (Inside the US, we see a shift from monopoly/oligopoly banking on the local level to similar on the national level, inexorably creating a small number of super-banks that will all be "too big to fail," so the Fed will prop them up. Likely, the international concentration and centralization of banking will happen later. The differences in banking laws between countries slows the process.) The story that Louis posted points to another parallel. Back in the old "gilded age," there was an elite panic about "anarchists" (until 1917 or so, when the commies picked up the torch). In the new gilded age, we again see an elite panic about "anarchists." I expect someone to do a remake of the flick "Front Page," but there will be a Seattle demonstrator hiding in the roll-top desk. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Survivor
All true, but you omitted the key social ethic of "Survivor:" all alliances are temporary, and no friendships are real. When people work cooperatively to build a shelter, their real goal is to be the last one sleeping there. As a consequence, there can be neither genuine trust nor genuine human connections. "Survivors" is a uncannily accurate ( but I assume unintentional) case study of what "looking out for number 1" does to the social fabric and our sense of community. Joel Blau Louis Proyect wrote: For the last two evenings I have watched the first two episodes of the over-hyped "Survivor" television show, now in reruns. As unpaid chronicler of the decline and fall of the American empire, I was curious to see how such a cultural phenomenon fit into the big picture. It is interesting that the show depicts two groups of people organized into "tribes" on a South Pacific desert island. For capitalist economics, this is the ideal framework. It not only eliminates all ties to factors beyond the island, it also makes "survival" the goal of human economic activity. For the Adam Smith tradition, the economic actor is Robinson Crusoe rather than classes with a historically defined relationship to the means of production. The two tribes compete in various games in order to win prizes such as a spice rack, pillows, hammocks, etc. that make life on the island more comfortable. Not only do you need to be athletic, you need a certain amount of ingenuity. For example, one of the competitions last night was to capture the attention of an airplane circling the island. The winner--in this case the tribe that danced Busby Berkeley-sytle while lying on their backs on the beach--received a trunk full of goodies. At the end of each episode a member of the losing tribe is voted off the island. The final "survivor" of all this receives one million dollars as a prize. For those of you who are fortunate enough not to live in this Babylon called the United States, it might be news that the winner was a gay man in his forties who worked as a 'corporate trainer'. In the second episode he is depicted building alliances with members of his tribe in order to avoid being voted off the island. Speaking as somebody--prior to my employment at Columbia University--who has seen this kind of behavior in corporate America his entire adult working life, it is not surprising that this show has become so popular. It tends to resonate off of most people's everyday experience, except in an exotic setting where the subjects also walk around skimpily clad and talk about sex a lot. This business about competition and getting ahead is deeply engrained in American society to an amazing extent. This was driven home to me the other evening when I ran into my next door neighbor coming up in the elevator. As I have mentioned, my apartment complex is locked in a big legal battle with the landlord who is trying to take the subsidized building into the private market, as is his entitlement after 20 years of being in the Mitchell-Lama program. The net effect would be to triple most peoples' rent, including mine. My neighbor has worked with the tenants committee, so there is no question about her loyalties. Despite that, when the subject of the legal battle came up as it so often does, I told her that the landlord seemed stupid to be so greedy. If he had simply proposed a rise in rents that would have increased his profits, while leaving nobody in danger of eviction, then everybody would have been spared needless expenses and aggravation. Her response startled me. She said that "He needs to make money. He is in business." This despite the fact that she was one of the people who simply could not afford to live there, if the rents went up. I suspect that she is probably employed as some lower-level manager down in the bowels of Wall Street, where identification with the boss is pervasive. In brokerage firms, bonuses are awarded at the end of the year. This kind of paternalistic gift tends to make the employee identify strongly with the employer. All of American society is flooded with messages like this. We are in a struggle for survival. Competition is what makes the system work. Without it, we are doomed to stagnation and unhappiness. Meanwhile, the evidence of unhappiness with the current system continues to pile up all around us: prozac has become as common as alcohol while popular music virtually screams out its hatred for the system, although not in precise scientific Marxist terms. Louis Proyect The Marxism mailing-list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
These figures sound like an underestimate. I thought the figure in the latest edition of State of Working America was an additional 250 hours a year, with couples in $30,000-$75,000 range averaging 3800 hours annually. Time pressures like these mean that it is ever harder to maintain the myth that the family can stand alone, as an autonomous social unit. No wonder that for the first time in a generation, the U.S. electorate seems somewhat more receptive to an expansion of social programs. Joel Blau Timework Web wrote: > The average American employee works just 2 more hours a week than in > 1982, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But Randy E. Ilg, a > senior economist at the Bureau, says that figure probably understated > the problem because women have been surging into the work force, and > their generally shorter hours appear to have pulled down the average. > Only in the workweek statistics by households does the increase jump off > the page . . . Aside from the 2 hour figure "understating the problem", it is the only time in -- what? -- over 150 years that average annual hours INCREASED over more than a decade. It is an unprecedented reversal of what had been until recently an inexorable trend. Seen in that light, an increase of "just" 2 hours a week is extraordinary. More light will be shed on this issue by the forthcoming book _Working Time: International Trends, Theory and Policy Perspectives_, edited by Lonnie Golden and Deborah M. Figart, from Routledge in November 2000. I will gladly forward a table of contents to anyone who's interested. Tom Walker Sandwichman and Deconsultant 215-2273
Re: looking for a book on the global economy
Peter: Have you looked at the Field Guide to the Global Economy by Sarah Anderson and John Cavanagh? It might be too colloquial in its approach, but it is probably worth getting an exam copy. (The New Press, thenewpress.com). Joel Blau Peter Dorman wrote: Well, campers, my teaching team has started planning for the winter, and I'm wondering if any of you can recommend a good book on the global economy. The ideal book would: discuss the origin, management, and consequences of third world debt, the politics and economics of structural adjustment, liberalization of capital flows and instability in foreign exchange markets, debates within, between, and against the international financial institutions, the east Asian financial crisis, and the upsurge in global inequality. It would also: put all of this within a political context, and be readable by students with the equivalent of intro micro, intro macro, and political economy. It isn't necessary to have a book that "theorizes" all of this in some novel way or pushes a particular interpretation. The most important thing is to convey the facts of recent history, the political and institutional context, and the types of arguments different people are making. (Yes, I know, some degree of theoretical commitment is necessary to do these things, but I'm more interested in the planets than the telescope right now...) Peter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Reich on Vouchers
Yes, Reich has flunked political economy 101. He has been seduced by the delusion of "choice" when we already have much evidence how the notion of choice plays out among poor people. Residents of the inner city use welfare dollars to obtain housing, and get slums; they have medicaid, and uniformly poorer indices of health; and they have a choice of banks, or at least those banks who have not left for more profitable climes elsewhere. If the vouchers is small, it will fail to make a difference; if it is bigger, as Reich suggests, it will be even more vulnerable to hijacking by private interests. Either way, a few additional government dollars cannot compensate for a much broader social inequity. Joel Blau Peter Dorman wrote: My sense of Reich is that he is genuinely egalitarian and regrets that markets generate inequality, but other than that he likes how markets operate and, in particular, believes them to be creative and efficient. So the position he stakes out in the WSJ is not surprising. I agree with Michael and Jim, however, that he is too clever by half, if not a lot more: if we can't get the progressive funding for education we need in a public system, how are we going to get it when the privatizers take over and implement their vouchers? Maybe Reich thinks he can cut some kind of deal -- progressive financing for privatization -- but if so he has really flunked political economy 101. Peter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Overfishing versus Conservation
It's ironic that this post should appear on the day of my return from a summer in Nova Scotia. The Canadian govt. imposes quota total limits on tonnage of ground fish (cod, haddock, halibut if you should be lucky enough to catch one), but only in the case of lobster are licenses bought and sold. I suppose that means the process of marketization is somewhat less advanced in Canada. The effects of NAFTA, however, are increasingly visible. The last fish store in town (Yarmouth, Nova Scotia) just closed, choosing instead to concentrate exclusively on the export market. So if you want 10,000 pounds of swordfish (yes, I know it is endangered species), the rear of the last existing store will sell it to you. But if you want two pounds of haddock for dinner, you've got a problem. There is a summer ban on ground fish, so it is hard to get it directly from local fisherman (a treat in previous summers). Now, much of the time, your only choice is to beat a path to the local supermarket, which will sell you Nova Scotian fish just like consumers in the rest of the world. I came back because the academic year starts tomorrow. I want to thank you, because by discussing the economics of fishing, you have significantly eased what is otherwise always a difficult personal transition! Joel Blau Bill Rosenberg wrote: Doug Henwood wrote: Bill Rosenberg wrote: Not sure what the story is in Australia, but in New Zealand, a "total allowable catch" is calculated for each fish species, and then converted into property rights - fishing "quota" in tonnes of catch - which can be bought and sold. There are hefty penalties, including forfeiture of fishing vessels, for exceeding quota. Why is this supposed to work any better than just imposing limits without the aftermarket? Doug You know the answer to that Doug: because New Zealand is pure as driven snow when it comes to marketising anything of value. I suppose there is a real issue though as to how you would divide the limited catch in an equitable fashion, and having done that, allow in new entrants and reallocation of quota etc. For what it is worth, I include below how the Ministry of Fisheries describe it on their web site, though I am sure there are more sophisticated justifications. An OR guy here at Canterbury did a lot of the basic work for it back in the 80s. [By the way - I have just put together some MS Word 97/2000 macros that reformat cruddy text into something fit for an email message. Anyone interested, let me know and I'll email it in an attachment, all care no responsibility.] Bill http://www.fish.govt.nz/commercial/quotams.html The Quota Management System (QMS) Input Controls Output Controls How the Quota Management System works Individual Transferable Quota Recreational Fishing The Quota Management System (QMS) The QMS was introduced in 1986. It controls the total commercial catch from all the main fish stocks found within New Zealand's 200 nautical mile EEZ. It was introduced to: * prevent overfishing, which had reached dangerous levels in some inshore fisheries, and with certain species such as snapper, and * improve the economic efficiency of the fishing industry. New Zealand is not the first country to bring in quotas, but it is the first to use them on such a broad scale in a multi- species fishery. Most countries manage fisheries by controlling inputs, such as the number of boats, the size of boats, mesh size of the nets and so on. Input controls The main disadvantage with controlling inputs is that controls on one input can usually be avoided by substituting another input. Overfishing isn't necessarily prevented. For example, a restriction on the number of rock lobster pots allowed could be circumvented by using the pots more often, or a restriction on the size of boats could be circumvented by using faster, more powerful boats. Input controls can actually have a negative effect, by impeding the development of more efficient technology and making the New Zealand fishing industry less competitive. Output controls The approach used with the QMS is to directly limit the total quantity taken by the commercial fishing industry so that there are sufficient fish available for non-commercial uses and for the conservation of the resource. These are known as output controls. (The needs of recreational fishers and Maori interests are allowed for before commercial quota levels are set.) Within the commercial catch limit, access is determined by ownership of quota. Quota is a right to harvest a particular species in a defined area. Quota can be traded (bought, sold, or leased). The QMS is designed to ensure sustainable use of the fisheries resources while allowing economic efficiency in the industry. The quota system is also being used to deal with Maori claims to commercial fisheries. The Government has a responsibility to ensure that 20% of a
unresolved questions
I leave tomorrow for seven weeks in Nova Scotia, my 52nd summer there (every year since 1948). I live in a small rural fishing village: it is now possible to get e-mail (until 1986, all we could get were party telephone lines), but it seems to violate the ambience of the place. So I want to warn the Canadians (Ken, Rod??) that I am coming and offer this short explanation for my silence. As my departure approaches, I have become increasingly apprehensive. In seven weeks, at about 50 messages a day, I'll miss roughly 2500 postings. Since that quota should be enough to answer most important questions, I would ask that as a personal favor to me, perhaps a few--maybe something as simple as the future of capitalism--could be left unresolved Joel Blau
Re: Re: class in the US
Yes. Even William Julius Wilson, who legitimized the term in The Truly Disadvantaged renounced its use in an American Sociological Association presidential address circa 1990. Popularized by Ken Auletta in his 1982 book The Underclass, the term originally described 4 categories of people: 1) long welfare recipients; 2) violent street criminals; 3) hustlers; 4) drunks, released mental patients, and homeless individuals. No one on the left should use it; it just gives a fancy social science cover to a long tradition of terms describing the "unworthy poor." For anyone who is interested in this whole subject, see a fine book called The Underclass Debate, edited by Michael Katz (Princeton Univ.Press, 1993). Joel Blau Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: >Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: > >>>Or perhaps they are right. The working class is seen as and is a >>>class in the >>>middle between the capitalists and the underclass. >>> >>>Rod >> >>What's the definition of the "underclass"? Poor people of color? > >...with loose morals and a propensity towards crime. The Atlantic >has Nicholas Lemann's classic article on the topic at >http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/poverty/origin2.htm>. A concept >not unrelated to "The 'dangerous class', the social scum, that >passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old >society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a >proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it >far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue." Or, >"the lumpen proletariat, which in all big towns forms a mass sharply >differentiated from the industrial proletariat, a recruiting ground >for thieves and criminals of all kinds living on the crumbs of >society, people without a definite trade, vagabonds, gens sans et >sans aveu [men without hearth or home], varying according to the >degree of civilization of the nation to which they belong, but never >renouncing their lazzaroni character" > >Doug I hope the term "underclass" will get dropped at least from leftist discourse, if not from _The Atlantic Monthly_. Luckily, not many people use the term "lumpen proletariat" any longer. Yoshie
Re: Re: = Nader
Two points: 1) I agree--I don't think it would be wise to channel all political activity through one candidate. On the other hand, given the attenuated conception of politics that most Americans hold, electoral activity assumes an excessive prominence. From this persective, it is significant that in this election--unlike every other back to 1980 (Barry Commoner), someone who is anti-corporate is getting some media attention. In this setting, the American electoral system is both a barrier and facilitator. In a state where the vote is tight, a Nader vote would prompt much more hand-wringing. I live in New York, however, and if Gore doesn't win New York, Bush is a shoo-in any way. So for me, and for others in states with large Gore leads in the polls, it is a comparatively easy decision. 2) And yes, campaign reform is a much more profound structural issue than the Nader candidacy. The Nader candidacy will evaporate in four months, helping the Green party and maybe fostering some coalition building on the local level. But real campaign reform would have powerful long-term implications. I'd choose the second over the first in an instant. Joel Blau Chris Burford wrote: At 23:49 02/07/00 -0400, you wrote: Mark: Your argument is seriously marred by the notion of Nader as a political detour. The implication is that in his absence, the mass anger would assume a more acceptable form. I believe in critical support of Nader, but I reject both of your premises. At this time, at least in electoral politics, Nader is the most successful anti-corporate messenger we got--frightening enough to warrant a full denuciatory editorial in the New York Times. This may not speak well for the American left, but given its desultory state, what would you expect? For a reasonably large, nonsectarian movement, he is basically what there is to work with. And the notion that without him, workers would move left is as much a fantasy as the notion that trade unionists would act more militantly if they weren't held back by all those union bosses. The Nader campaign may be full of its own ambiguities, but one thing is certain: most people who vote for him do not have another more radical consciousness that they hold in secret and upon which they would act if he were not around. Joel Blau It is good that the internet provides opportunities to compare experience in many countries. From east of the Atlantic it seems obvious that good people would want to support Nader and others would want to support Gore, (all with many qualifications). Rather than striving to discredit one or other position, perhaps the important thing is to debate *how* different candidates may be supported. Basically I suggest the position taken by different candidates should be seen as the result of the balance of forces, rather than the cause of future change. It is dogmatic to rule out any interest in an electoral result, but it is reformist to focus the main thrust of political activity around one candidate. A lot depends on the bourgeois electoral system. Livingstone was running for election in a PR political system that meant a protest vote for him, did not hand the London Assembly over to the Conservative Party. Third Party politics in the USA can punish the second most popular candidate, but whether it can really shift the balance of the debate over the next decade is more questionable. The funding of the system of electoral politics has been increasingly prominent in the USA and in other countries. Would not a campaign for reform of this be more fundamentally revolutionary in weakening the hold of capital over public debate? Chris Burford London
Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in theWorld-System and National Emissions of] (fwd)
I never said liberal is left and conservative is right in the neat, schematic way you attribute to me. You're quite correct that the discourse of conservatism has a "liberal" flavor to it on cultural/reproductive issues, just as "liberals" have adopted a "conservative" conception of the marketplace as the touchstone of public policy. On the other hand, there are differences, but whether each of these individual differences has sufficiently important policy implications to dictate a change in strategy is something that must be carefully assessed. I don't know what Nader's position is on genetic engineering. It might not be something I'd like. Indeed, I'm sure with very little effort, I could come up with a whole shopping list of policy issues on which I'm to his left. It would be easy--I'm a socialist, and he is not. But I am also acutely aware of the constraints on social reform--much less revolution--in the United States--the stuff that usually comes packaged under the label "American exceptionalism." So in the absence of a magic wand that permits me to invoke the existence a militant American working class and a formidable tribune of the people, I'll support Nader, because he is giving expression to a politics that the major media would otherwise ignore. Joel Blau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: o! come on.. You folks still continue to see the political spectrum divided between "liberals" and "conservatives" in the US. Liberal is left; conservative is right. This distinction is FALSE, FALSE, FALSE! Even the political discourse of conservatism has a liberal flavour to it, especially if one thinks about the rise of _New Right_ after the 1980s. Somebody has mentioned that Nader supports reproductive freedoms thus he is progressive. What a big diffence? so does George Bush, so do neo-conservatives, so do libertarians...it has long been on _the_ agende of _new right_ that couples can choose the gender of their children freely before they are born. Initial stages of fetus formation (sex) can be modified through genetic engineering. The logical consequence of this engineering automatically matches with the religious idea that "produce more males and have less female babies". Does Nader have any problem with this sexist project of choosing your child's gender freely when he seemingly supports reproductive freedoms-- the same freedoms that are being strategically used by corporate powers in the US that design fascist genetic programs and export those programs to third world? I don't think so. They are all capitalist male pigs! they all want to control women's bodies. We should send all of them to the trash box! As a marxist feminist I am not giving any support to Nader obscurantist! (i can not vote anway so very good) Mine At this time, at least in electoral politics, Nader is the most successful anti-corporate messenger we got--frightening enough to warrant a full denuciatory editorial in the New York Times. This may not speak well for Joel Blau
Re: Re: Re: Re: = Nader
By agreement, the Labor Party is not running anyone for a while. The Socialist Party is running David McReynolds, and if you dig around (perhaps someone else on pen-l knows this) I'm sure there is a web site where 10 or so others are listed. Among the minor parties, however, besides Buchanan (Reform) and Nader (Green), I doubt that anyone will get more than a couple of hundred thousand votes. Joel Blau Rod Hay wrote: Do the other minority parties like the Labor Party, etc., have presidential candidates? And who are they? Rod Joel Blau wrote: Two points: 1) I agree--I don't think it would be wise to channel all political activity through one candidate. On the other hand, given the attenuated conception of politics that most Americans hold, electoral activity assumes an excessive prominence. From this persective, it is significant that in this election--unlike every other back to 1980 (Barry Commoner), someone who is anti-corporate is getting some media attention. In this setting, the American electoral system is both a barrier and facilitator. In a state where the vote is tight, a Nader vote would prompt much more hand-wringing. I live in New York, however, and if Gore doesn't win New York, Bush is a shoo-in any way. So for me, and for others in states with large Gore leads in the polls, it is a comparatively easy decision. 2) And yes, campaign reform is a much more profound structural issue than the Nader candidacy. The Nader candidacy will evaporate in four months, helping the Green party and maybe fostering some coalition building on the local level. But real campaign reform would have powerful long-term implications. I'd choose the second over the first in an instant. Joel Blau Chris Burford wrote: At 23:49 02/07/00 -0400, you wrote: Mark: Your argument is seriously marred by the notion of Nader as a political detour. The implication is that in his absence, the mass anger would assume a more acceptable form. I believe in critical support of Nader, but I reject both of your premises. At this time, at least in electoral politics, Nader is the most successful anti-corporate messenger we got--frightening enough to warrant a full denuciatory editorial in the New York Times. This may not speak well for the American left, but given its desultory state, what would you expect? For a reasonably large, nonsectarian movement, he is basically what there is to work with. And the notion that without him, workers would move left is as much a fantasy as the notion that trade unionists would act more militantly if they weren't held back by all those union bosses. The Nader campaign may be full of its own ambiguities, but one thing is certain: most people who vote for him do not have another more radical consciousness that they hold in secret and upon which they would act if he were not around. Joel Blau It is good that the internet provides opportunities to compare experience in many countries. From east of the Atlantic it seems obvious that good people would want to support Nader and others would want to support Gore, (all with many qualifications). Rather than striving to discredit one or other position, perhaps the important thing is to debate *how* different candidates may be supported. Basically I suggest the position taken by different candidates should be seen as the result of the balance of forces, rather than the cause of future change. It is dogmatic to rule out any interest in an electoral result, but it is reformist to focus the main thrust of political activity around one candidate. A lot depends on the bourgeois electoral system. Livingstone was running for election in a PR political system that meant a protest vote for him, did not hand the London Assembly over to the Conservative Party. Third Party politics in the USA can punish the second most popular candidate, but whether it can really shift the balance of the debate over the next decade is more questionable. The funding of the system of electoral politics has been increasingly prominent in the USA and in other countries. Would not a campaign for reform of this be more fundamentally revolutionary in weakening the hold of capital over public debate? Chris Burford London -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in theWorld-System and National Emissions of]
Mark: Your argument is seriously marred by the notion of Nader as a political detour. The implication is that in his absence, the mass anger would assume a more acceptable form. I believe in critical support of Nader, but I reject both of your premises. At this time, at least in electoral politics, Nader is the most successful anti-corporate messenger we got--frightening enough to warrant a full denuciatory editorial in the New York Times. This may not speak well for the American left, but given its desultory state, what would you expect? For a reasonably large, nonsectarian movement, he is basically what there is to work with. And the notion that without him, workers would move left is as much a fantasy as the notion that trade unionists would act more militantly if they weren't held back by all those union bosses. The Nader campaign may be full of its own ambiguities, but one thing is certain: most people who vote for him do not have another more radical consciousness that they hold in secret and upon which they would act if he were not around. Joel Blau A hundred years ago, bitter battles were fought between those who claimed the mantle of Marxist leadership (Kautsky, Bernstein etc) and those who from the margins of the movement (Luxemburg, Lenin) bitterly denounced them as impostors, bourgeois politicians and above all, "revisionists", whose purpose was to deny the possibility of capitalist crisis and the reality of proletarian revolution, and to deliver the working class bound hand and foot to its mortal enemies. The same thing is going on now, not just here but al over the place. It is part of a pre-revolutionary ferment. Mark Jones wrote: Joel Blau wrote: > > > This reading of current American politics is absolutely > breath-taking in its > misjudgments. This is the U.S. in the year 2000, not Russia in > 1902; we may have > turned the corner after 25 years gravitating right, but we are > not in anything > remotely resembling a pre-revolutionary situation; Nobody says that the US is in a prerevolutionary situation. I'm not going to bandy words with people whose seeming purpose is to obfuscate. There clearly is a colossal ferment going on not just in US campuses but in many parts of the world, many social locales. As a matter of fact, Russia in 1902 was a picture of Edwardian social quiescence by comparison. We are not in that situation, not by a long way. But the masses are not rattling the White House gates, evidently. Therefore it is necessary to use this time to agitate, to mobilise and to politically educate people. The Nader campaign is an obvious opportunity to do that. As I understand it, Joel Blau's plan is to shut up, keep mum, don't talk politics or criticise the candidate's obvious shortcomings, and in this way maximise the electorate's interest in Nader. It is unserious and it illustrates how necessary IS a principled approach: meaning, support Nader, but as the rope supports the hanged man. Nader is a detour to nowhere. You cannot make an icon of him and sit on your hands and ignore the fact that his principal role is to safely vent mass anger while delivering a Bush presidency. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in theWorld-System and National Emissions of]
This reading of current American politics is absolutely breath-taking in its misjudgments. This is the U.S. in the year 2000, not Russia in 1902; we may have turned the corner after 25 years gravitating right, but we are not in anything remotely resembling a pre-revolutionary situation; and Ralph Nader--whatever his political foibles (and there are plenty)--is probably going to get more votes as a candidate to the left of the Democratic nominee than anybody since Henry Wallace in 1948. The need to attack him because he does not have the correct political line is just another mind-boggling example of putting a Russian pre-revolutionary lens over everything, so that the Bolsheviks can once again relive their triumph over the Mensheviks. The distortion is so great that it makes Anerican politics absolutely unrecognizeable to anyone with a serious interest in changing its content and direction, and while I don't claim particular expertise on contemporary British politics, I doubt that guidelines derived from Russia in 1902 are much help there, either. Joel Blau M A Jones wrote: A hundred years ago, bitter battles were fought between those who claimed the mantle of Marxist leadership (Kautsky, Bernstein etc) and those who from the margins of the movement (Luxemburg, Lenin) bitterly denounced them as impostors, bourgeois politicians and above all, "revisionists", whose purpose was to deny the possibility of capitalist crisis and the reality of proletarian revolution, and to deliver the working class bound hand and foot to its mortal enemies. The same thing is going on now, not just here but al over the place. It is part of a pre-revolutionary ferment.
Re: query
Jim: The BLS replaced the CPI-U with the CPI-X1 in 1983 because the CPI-I included appreciation of the asset value of a home and therefore confused the investment and consumption dimensions of homeownership. The CPI-X1 tends to show a lower rate of inflation. Joel Blau Jim Devine wrote: does anyone know the specifics of the Bureau of Labor Statistics' CPI-U-X1 consumer price index? why is it preferred by mainstream macro-econometricians? thanks ahead of time. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Functional Explanation
Fine--I did not think you were an exponent of functionalISM. I just thought you omitted another, equally important function--that of providing some independence from marketplace. In fact, Piven Cloward should be cited on each side of this equation, because they conceive of welfare as a buffer against both the discipline of the labor market and as a damper of social unrest. [see my paper. "Theories of Welfare State," Social Service Review, vol. 63, March,1989] Joel Blau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 6/22/00 4:19:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perhaps you meant something else, but the following passage sure sounded like functionalism--not functional adaption-- to me. Joel Blau Thus (in the dated example of my paper), welfare is functionally explained in capitalism because of its function in damping social unrest, stabilizing the capitalist state that is itself functional for capitalist reproduction. Look, I told you I rejected functionalISM. It's true that functionists might use the particular functional explantion I used as an example, but so do Marxists like Milton Fisk and radical social democrats like Cloward and Piven. To subscribe to taht theory of welfare, at least as part of the story, does not mean you think society is a harmonious whole where everything is happily maximally functiobal. Besides, the theory is true in part. Welfare does dampen social unrest. --jks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gary Graham
Yes, together with a narcissistic hyperindividualism, projective identification and an anger that verges on the sadistic account for a depressingly large portion of the modern American psyche. Welfare recipients, gays, poor women (and sometimes women generally), the war on drugs, death row inmates, and the garrison state writ large all testify to the virulence of these psychological traits. There is enormous anger in the land, but it is all tamped down and repressed, given the risks of expressing it openly and directing it at the correct targets. Joel Blau Chris Burford wrote: At 13:22 23/06/00 -0400, you wrote: An American friend suggested that what was going on was a negativeself-identification: that in the death-row inmates American could recognise an alter ego, whose restless competitive striving had developed a dark form they wished to be obliterated." What better vehicle for this psychotic projection of capitalist competition, than a black man? Day when people are no longer condemned to death on basis of race class will be day when no one is condemned to death at all. Michael Hoover I feel Michael Hoover, who repeatedly wins the prize for content to volume ratio in his postings, touches here on the philsophical basis for opposition to the death penalty. People die for all sorts of reasons, some of them preventable, some of them accelerated by society. I doubt I could say in all circumstances that killing another human is wrong. In strict marxist terms I do not think one could support a purely moral opposition to the death penalty on purely idealistic moral grounds alone. But the idea that the murder rate in a society can be dealt with in such a mechanical way as the killing of the perpetrator is so crude as to infect the whole of civil society. It is the other side of the coin to the atomised bourgeois idea of human rights which in a class ridden society cannot but deliver class justice. At least the ritual argument for execution has some sort of socially complex argument to it. It is hard to make the connection between the death penalty and a internet list on political economy, but perhaps this extract helps from an article in today's copy of the UK paper, the Independent, entitled "Why do so many American support the death penalty?" It is by David Aaronovitch, son of the late marxist economist Sam Aaronovitch - "An American friend suggested that what was going on was a negative self-identification: that in the death-row inmates American could recognise an alter ego, whose restless competitive striving had developed a dark form they wished to be obliterated." What better vehicle for this psychotic projection of capitalist competition, than a black man? Chris Burford London
Re: Re: Functional Explanation
Perhaps you meant something else, but the following passage sure sounded like functionalism--not functional adaption-- to me. Joel Blau Thus (in the dated example of my paper), welfare is functionally explained in capitalism because of its function in damping social unrest, stabilizing the capitalist state that is itself functional for capitalist reproduction.
Re: Re: Re: Tax the Dead, They Won't Mind
Not good. In any five year period, there is only a 10% chance of somebody rising from the bottom to the middle quintile. Joel Blau Michael Perelman wrote: Doug is probably correct, but I think that the question should revolve around the chance for social mobility. I suspect that it was higher -- No, I don't have the data -- in the 1820's than today. Foner's image of the free labor ideal was not entirely a fantasy for white men. Land, even though the Turner thesis was overdone, could be had, and it could appreciate significantly with a higher probabilty than a lottery ticket. What is the likely career path for someone without a college education today. Doug Henwood wrote: Just when was it that the U.S. was not a place where inherited wealth mattered a lot? I thought U.S. income/wealth distribution started getting more unequal in the 1820s, and by the Civil War had approached European levels. Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tax the Dead, They Won't Mind
Well, perhaps not quite a graduate student who is going to be tenured some day, but it is certainly not intergenerational. On that score, my memory is that if your family is in the bottom fifth, you have about a 40% chance of rising to the middle (sorry, without rumaging around a lot, I can't give the citation for this one). Joel Blau Brad De Long wrote: Not good. In any five year period, there is only a 10% chance of somebody rising from the bottom to the middle quintile. Joel Blau That's my household from 1983 to 1988. But that *ain't* socio-economic mobility in any *real* sense... that's finishing graduate school. Brad deLong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tax the Dead, They Won't Mind
I think so. My sense is that there has been a petrification of the U.S. class structure, one which may allow some movement between the lower quintiles, but simply on a numerical basis, offers less probability of sling-shotting yourself from the bottom to the top. Joel Blau Michael Perelman wrote: My question has to do with the trends in this statistic. Is it worse today than in earlier times? Joel Blau wrote: Not good. In any five year period, there is only a 10% chance of somebody rising from the bottom to the middle quintile. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tax the Dead, They Won't Mind
Jim Devine wrote:
Michael Perelman wrote:
My question has to do with the trends in this statistic. Is it worse today
than in earlier times?
Hence the drive to reopen the frontier, through imperial expansion. If you want to
push this argument a little farther, you could even correlate the outer limits of
this expansion as marked by the defeat of the U.S. in Vietnam and the
petrification of class structure that we have seen over the last quarter century.
Of course, in some sense, the goal of most recent foreign and domestic policy
has been to figure out another way to get around those limits.
Joel Blau
Joel Blau wrote:
I think so. My sense is that there has been a petrification of the U.S. class
structure, one which may allow some movement between the lower quintiles, but
simply on a numerical basis, offers less probability of sling-shotting
yourself
from the bottom to the top.
I don't have any stats, but it seems to me when the availability of Indian
land to grab dried up ("the closing of the frontier"), the ability of
whites to rise to the top was weakened. We should also remember that upward
mobility goes with downward mobility, by definition.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: How We Live Today in America
In this genre, there is also the 1967 Fortune magazine prediction that by 2000, wages would rise another 150%. Joel Blau Jim Devine wrote: "By 2000, the machines will be producing so much that everyone in the U.S. will, in effect, be independently wealthy. With government benefits, even nonworking families will have, by one estimate, an annual income of $30,000-$40,000 (in 1966 dollars). How to use leisure meaningfully will be a major problem." -- TIME magazine, February 25, 1966. "By the year 2000, people will work no more than four days a week and less than eight hours a day. With legal holidays and long vacations, this could result in an annual working period of 147 days [on] and 218 days off." -- New York TIMES, Oct. 19, 1967. In 1999 dollars, TIME was predicting incomes of about $150,000-$200,000, whereas in reality, the 1999 median family income was about $46,000 ($29,000 for Blacks). The NYT's prediction about days of work per year is totally off, though I don't have the needed data available. (I'd make a conservative guess that on average, people work about 240 days per year.) They're closer when it comes to paid hours per day, which is about 7 hours per week in the private sector. However, that statistic ignores moonlighting, unpaid labor hours, commuting hours, work-preparation and calm-down hours, etc. Even so, they asserted that people would work for pay for 4 days a week. If we distribute the approximately 34.5 hours per week over 4 days, then that's a 8.6-hour day (to which we'd have to add in moonlighting, etc.) To come up with these predictions, they must have thought that we live in France. I'm afraid that U.S. capitalism wouldn't run very well if everyone in the U.S. were independently wealthy, since almost no-one _wants_ to work for GM, WalMart, or Microsoft (at least given the way they're currently organized). An independently wealthy individual would choose a completely different type of job. Or rather, almost all of our labor would have to be done by non-U.S. citizens. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
