subject:"RE\: WSJ \- Is This A Great Country\?"

Eugene:

 With my post I was hoping to encourage a discussion -- and
 get an answer -- of how to make clear to the vast majority
 that their dreams of being rich will never be realized.
 Any help?

Micheal Yates has a new book out: Naming the System: Inequality
and Labor in the Global Economy. It is an excellent book on this
topic and written in a simple enough language accessible to
almost anyone with a highschool education. One way of making
clear to the vast majority that their dreams of being rich will
never be realized is to publish more books like that. Maybe even
in a simpler language. Another possibility is offering courses at
universities, colleges and other public education institutions,
not on the Second Volume of Marx's Capital, but on this topic.

These are two simple examples that I came up with after a few
seconds of thinking. Many more can be found.

Best,

Sabri

RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?

It sounds like a formula for political
failure:  telling people they can never
do much better than they're doing at
present.  What a bummer.

It's doubly problematic, as all here can
appreciate, for a worker to hear this from
a middle class intellectual type.

I suggest that hope will always spring
eternal, even if your only shot is winning
an unfair lottery.

Better, I say, to have a political program
that speaks to individuals' ability to take
the most practical route out of wage slavery --
going into business for themselves.  I suggest
that people are not stupid -- they are conscious
of the odds against getting rich.  What they don't
want to hear is all the reasons their chances are
zero, which they know is not true.  What might
interest them is how government might facilitate
their prospects against predatory corporations
and parasitic finance.

mbs



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sabri Oncu
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 1:36 PM
To: PEN-L
Subject: [PEN-L:36409] Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?


Eugene:

 With my post I was hoping to encourage a discussion -- and
 get an answer -- of how to make clear to the vast majority
 that their dreams of being rich will never be realized.
 Any help?

Micheal Yates has a new book out: Naming the System: Inequality
and Labor in the Global Economy. It is an excellent book on this
topic and written in a simple enough language accessible to
almost anyone with a highschool education. One way of making
clear to the vast majority that their dreams of being rich will
never be realized is to publish more books like that. Maybe even
in a simpler language. Another possibility is offering courses at
universities, colleges and other public education institutions,
not on the Second Volume of Marx's Capital, but on this topic.

These are two simple examples that I came up with after a few
seconds of thinking. Many more can be found.

Best,

Sabri

Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?

Max:

 Better, I say, to have a political program
 that speaks to individuals' ability to take
 the most practical route out of wage slavery --
 going into business for themselves.

I did that Max. I am the President and CEO of my own consulting
company. It doesn't help, believe me.

Or maybe, I am not sufficiently able and this is why! (I can give
you some details of my own experience in private if you like.)

On the other hand, I agree with you that it is not enough to tell
people that they are doomed to fail. I have never been against
utopias, as long as they are realistic, whatever realistic
means.

Hope is the only thing that keeps us going!

Sabri

Re: Re: RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?

In a message dated 4/1/03 2:56:55 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

With my post I was hoping to encourage a discussion -- and get an answer
-- of how to make clear to the vast majority that their dreams of being
rich will never be realized. Any help?

Gene Coyle

The capitalist will do this for us.

There is no argument that can convince millions of people that economic prosperity does not lay around the corner. The ideology or ideological struggle or the manner in which people think things out, is in the last instance supported by their actual life cycle and how people understand the mechanics of living and what they have collectively experienced. It is not so much "I can get rich" as it is a concept of being able to "make it."

We Americans are the most imperial of all peoples on earth. Imperial is not a bad word to me but a historical evolved relationship that a people exist in. That is to say the export of our historical advance means of production, whether in the form of products or capital as investment (the mode of accumulation) has always served as the basis for the rise in the standard of living of the Anglo-American working class. Anglo-American working class means all the people within the Northern United States of North America, without regard to color, nationality, and gender of sexual orientation. Without question the rise of America is written in blood ink on a parchment of genocide.

The imperial people instinctively understand that their material conditions of living are connected - exist in interactive relations, with the poverty of rest of the world. Millions of American workers will explain to anyone that ask why war if good for the economy. War boost production for all kinds of goods and services, that in the last instance are destroyed in war and has to be produced once again - goes the thinking. It does not require deep thinking to understand why the workers at the various tank-manufacturing centers are not protesting the war, even when their union leaders condemn the Bush Jr. war plans. Sure there is moral indignation, but it is the indignation of imperial workers. As a general rule one tends to follow their stomach because in the fight between the head and the stomach, the stomach generally wins.

The issue is complex, but tied to the curve of development peculiar to America. What set the basis for the American ideology is the aftermath of the Civil War and the ascendancy of Wall Street Imperialism - finance capital. This is not so much a Marxist approach as it is a materialist approach to social phenomenon. After the Civil War, roughly 11 million people in the South were converted into sharecroppers, of which 5 million were former slaves. The shattered slave oligarchy never lost political power in any fundamental way. To hold 5 million former slaves at the absolute bottom of the social ladder and in the hole of extreme poverty required 6 million white share croppers to jump into the hole of poverty and physically hold them down.

The ideology articulating this social process cloaked itself in the mantle of "saving the South." Southern slavery as an economic and political institution was a white mans government and system of wealth creation. Whites lived better as compared to the slave or bottom of the societal infrastructure. Without question it took an enormous system of violence and terror to maintain the sharecropper system, in a much as no man will work for another when he does not have to.

After the Civil War there was a new economic-political situation. Slavery, as a poor white man's best government, was done away with. The Southern poor white was ground down almost to the level of the black, with one fundamental exception. The whites could form the lynch mobs. They had social privileges but very little economic privileges, especially compared to their Northern counterparts.

No longer was a Southern poor white able to say, "If I could just get that $250 bucks and buy a slave I can beat it out of him and go from one to the next, to the next, to the next and I can become rich." Suddenly they couldn't become rich and the only thing that held them together was the ideological conviction expressed by the movie "Birth of a Nation." What arose in the ideological realm was the extreme form of the old white supremacy now under the economic direction of Wall Street. Hence, the old white supremacy was sublated as white chauvinism, in as much as the oppression and exploitation of a region - nation, not simply a people was taking place at the hands of the Northern Anglo American imperial bourgeoisie.

The point of course is that only radical changes in the material power of production can set the basis for radical changes in the way people think things out. Our young as a stratum already intuitively know that they are not going to get rich or even "make it."

In the case of the Civil War revolutionary forces were unleashed that sought to move in the

Re: RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?

2003-04-02 Thread andie nachgeborenen

 Better, I say, to have a political programthat speaks to individuals' ability to takethe most practical route out of wage slavery --going into business for themselves. 
I presume you mean collectively, in coops and the like? jksDo you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more

Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?

In a message dated 4/1/03 9:34:19 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

The recent survey of 1,000 adults found that only 2% of Americans 
consider themselves rich today, but a whopping 31% expect to become rich 
someday. Understandably, young people are most optimistic, with 51% of 
those age 18 to 29 anticipating the life of a sort-of Rockefeller. But 
the hopefulness extends across all age groups, with even 22% of those 
between ages 50 and 64 figuring they'll hit the jackpot someday, though 
only 4% of them are rich today.

Even more revealing is the fact that many low-income people expect a fat 
future payday. The Gallup survey found that more than one in every five 
persons earning less than $30,000 a year has that belief, with the share 
climbing to 38% for those earning between $50,000 and $74,000, and all 
the way to 51% for those who make more than $75,000.




I felt the same way until I saw a couple hundred thousand dissolve into nothing. The American Dream is by definition a dream. There is a real breach between what people say and how they live out their lives. Or between the ideological form - how people think things out and express their views, and there real life circumstances. 

Maybe I will end up shorting the market and getting back my dough and more; if my pension checks keep coming forever; if the war is quick - even though I am against it; if I turn "this way" instead of "That way" next time; if I refinance and pay off all the credit cards; if I get lucky: if . . . If . . . if. 


Well, the law of value catches up with all of society but not at the same time. 

Well, maybe it won't get me if I take a computer repair class . . . . or an air conditioning furnace repair class, maybe Michael can get me a degree in something on the Master's Level . . . I could write pamplets about proletarian revolution and price them cheap . . . .

Then when the law of value catches you and not your neighbor its . . ."damn, why didn't I do this". . . .."I should have went to Ford instead of Chrysler"."I should have gotten my teeth fixed when I had medical coverage . . ." 

Then smart thinking says, " There are more billionaires and millionaires in America than at any other time in our history. I have a chance." 

Some leftist says, "There are more poor people and people not able to make it in America," and the people get pissed off because no one wants to see themselves driven into poverty. Everyone starts buying those "do what you love and the money will follow" books and the authors get rich. You say, "shit how come I didn't write the damn book" and take a class in how to write. 

The American ideology is unraveling. Things are really worse in our country than what we think and how we express things. 


Melvin P. 

Melvin P.

RE: Re: RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?




 Better, I say, to have a political program
that speaks to individuals' ability to take
the most practical route out of wage slavery --
going into business for themselves. 


I presume you mean collectively, in coops and the like? jks



Facilitating coops is important, but I also mean
individually.

mbs

RE: RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?

2003-04-02 Thread Devine, James

Title: RE: [PEN-L:36410] RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?

it makes more sense to start with existing political movements and existing discontents and try to link up and build on the ones that promise a better chance of building a movement that will change the balance of power in the direction of improvement.

I don't tell people that they'll never get rich. Rather, I present the evidence and logic that says that only a small percentage of them will.

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
stop the war now!

-Original Message-
From: Max B. Sawicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 11:41 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:36410] RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?

It sounds like a formula for political
failure: telling people they can never
do much better than they're doing at
present. What a bummer.

It's doubly problematic, as all here can
appreciate, for a worker to hear this from
a middle class intellectual type.

I suggest that hope will always spring
eternal, even if your only shot is winning
an unfair lottery.

Better, I say, to have a political program
that speaks to individuals' ability to take
the most practical route out of wage slavery --
going into business for themselves. I suggest
that people are not stupid -- they are conscious
of the odds against getting rich. What they don't
want to hear is all the reasons their chances are
zero, which they know is not true. What might
interest them is how government might facilitate
their prospects against predatory corporations
and parasitic finance.

mbs

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Sabri Oncu
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 1:36 PM
To: PEN-L
Subject: [PEN-L:36409] Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?

Eugene:

With my post I was hoping to encourage a discussion -- and
get an answer -- of how to make clear to the vast majority
that their dreams of being rich will never be realized.
Any help?

Micheal Yates has a new book out: Naming the System: Inequality
and Labor in the Global Economy. It is an excellent book on this
topic and written in a simple enough language accessible to
almost anyone with a highschool education. One way of making
clear to the vast majority that their dreams of being rich will
never be realized is to publish more books like that. Maybe even
in a simpler language. Another possibility is offering courses at
universities, colleges and other public education institutions,
not on the Second Volume of Marx's Capital, but on this topic.

These are two simple examples that I came up with after a few
seconds of thinking. Many more can be found.

Best,

Sabri

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?

2003-04-02 Thread andie nachgeborenen

That's nuts. You know the failure rates for small business better than I do. I just know that it is veryhigh. And how amny of self-employed or entrepreneurs go into their 60s (or 70s) with enough to retire on decently? jks
"Max B. Sawicky" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Better, I say, to have a political programthat speaks to individuals' ability to takethe most practical route out of wage slavery --going into business for themselves. I presume you mean collectively, in coops and the like? jksFacilitating coops is important, but I also meanindividually.mbsDo you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more

Re: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?

In a message dated 4/2/03 10:36:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

One way of making
clear to the vast majority that their dreams of being rich will
never be realized is to publish more books like that. Maybe even
in a simpler language. Another possibility is offering courses at
universities, colleges and other public education institutions,
not on the Second Volume of Marx's Capital, but on this topic.

If I simplify Marx and concentrate on the mode of production but call it the material power of the productive forces and then explain that this means tools, technology and energy source, and why this compels society to change . . . . .maybe in a 50 page paperback with a $5.95 price and get . 25 cents . . . and add this to my pension ... and then do a series that is easy to read . . . .

I might make it pretty good.

I could go back to the Casino . . . for a little while and . . . shit . . . . .write an easy to read book on how to play Blackjack. Yeah! Most blackjack players say they "play by the book" and have never read the book.

Yes, I can call it "Blackjack: The Book" and make it only 45 pages long and charge $9.95" because gamblers will pay more. If I stop stalling and writing that crampy Marx shit on Pen-L for about a month . . .hit the library and review all the major Black Jack books, and then set up a Web Page . . . .

Wait a minute!

I could write a beginners pamphlet on dialectics and talk in a plain fashion about antagonism and what it really mean in 25 pages and . . . .oh shit, nobody else talks about the hard philosophic questions in a language the average American can understand . . . .hu m m mm mm m

Let me make sure I pay AOL on time because ... wait a minute . .. Damn . . . Waistline2 could be a brand name. Damn.

I have argued with Chris and Lou long enough and wrote enough material ... Shit . . .I have a brand name ... damn. I wonder ... if I got . . . . wait a minute... from each small booklet ... and multiplied this by at least three a year . Shit . . . . I might still be able to move to Vegas . . . . I mean Arizona . .. .its the climate.

Melvin P.

Re: RE: RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?

2003-04-02 Thread Michael Perelman

Wierdly enough, the idea that people can become rich worked less during
the 60's when the likelihood of becoming well off was higher.  How much is
the fear of being poor operative today rathern than a dream of becoming
rich?

On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 01:02:19PM -0800, Devine, James wrote:
 it makes more sense to start with existing political movements and existing
 discontents and try to link up and build on the ones that promise a better
 chance of building a movement that will change the balance of power in the
 direction of improvement. 
 

-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?

2003-04-02 Thread Devine, James

Title: RE:  WSJ - Is This A Great Country?





The benefit of rising to the top has risen, even though the possibility of doing so has fallen drastically. But people still buy lottery tickets, don't they? 

Back in the 1950s and 1960s in the US, the benefits of economic growth were more evenly distributed (among white males) than they are today. That meant a white male _didn't need to be rich_ as much as he does nowadays. A white male blue-collar worker could earn a middle class lifestyle. (And this was because of unions, the watered-down form of social democracy we had in the US, the permanent war economy, and the privileged position of the US in the world (and of white males in the US).) In the late 1960s, these benefits were even more evenly distributed, when something approximating full employment hit. 


Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
stop the war now!




 -Original Message-
 From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 1:12 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: [PEN-L:36419] Re: RE: RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great 
 Country?
 
 
 Wierdly enough, the idea that people can become rich worked 
 less during
 the 60's when the likelihood of becoming well off was higher. 
 How much is
 the fear of being poor operative today rathern than a dream 
 of becoming
 rich?
 
 On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 01:02:19PM -0800, Devine, James wrote:
  it makes more sense to start with existing political 
 movements and existing
  discontents and try to link up and build on the ones that 
 promise a better
  chance of building a movement that will change the balance 
 of power in the
  direction of improvement. 
  
 
 -- 
 Michael Perelman
 Economics Department
 California State University
 Chico, CA 95929
 
 Tel. 530-898-5321
 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: RE: RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?

What's the difference?

The individual will prefer to be the judge of whether he or she
ought to put in the effort required to beat the odds.

mbs




I don't tell people that they'll never get rich. Rather, I present the
evidence and logic that says that only a small percentage of them will.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?

I know the failure rate is high.
But a person could fail more than once
and still make it eventually.  The real
issue I think is mobility.  We know there's
a lot of immobility.  Make it numbingly simple.
Suppose you have a 90 percent chance of getting
nowhere, and a 10 percent chance of getting
somewhere.  Somewhere in the ether is the chance
that joining the revolution will get you somewhere.

All I'm saying is that discounting the 10 percent
chance out of hand is nuts, assuming you would
like to appeal to intelligent persons.

This oversight I think is one of the fatal flaws of
socialism, broadly speaking.

Crunchy



That's nuts. You know the failure rates for small business better than I do.
I just know that it is very high. And how amny of self-employed or
entrepreneurs go into their 60s (or 70s) with enough to retire on decently?
jks

Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?

 I have argued with Chris and Lou long enough and
 wrote enough material ... Shit  . . .I have a brand
 name ... damn. I wonder ... if I got . . .  . wait a
 minute... from each small booklet ... and multiplied
 this by at least three a year. Shit . . .  . I might
 still be able to move to Vegas . . .  . I mean
 Arizona . .. .its the climate.

 Melvin P.

Hey! You figured out a way to get rich in three years. Why did I
not think about this myself?

Damn!

Sabri

Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?

Max:

 I know the failure rate is high.
 But a person could fail more than once
 and still make it eventually.  The real
 issue I think is mobility.  We know there's
 a lot of immobility.  Make it numbingly simple.
 Suppose you have a 90 percent chance of getting
 nowhere, and a 10 percent chance of getting
 somewhere.  Somewhere in the ether is the chance
 that joining the revolution will get you somewhere.

In the tradition of the economics profession, let us ASSUME that
we all have infinitely long lives. Under this assumption, I think
Max solved the problem.

Sabri

Re: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?

2003-04-02 Thread Bill Lear

On Wednesday, April 2, 2003 at 17:19:54 (-0500) Max B. Sawicky writes:
I know the failure rate is high.
But a person could fail more than once
and still make it eventually.  The real
issue I think is mobility.  We know there's
a lot of immobility.  Make it numbingly simple.
Suppose you have a 90 percent chance of getting
nowhere, and a 10 percent chance of getting
somewhere.  Somewhere in the ether is the chance
that joining the revolution will get you somewhere.

All I'm saying is that discounting the 10 percent
chance out of hand is nuts, assuming you would
like to appeal to intelligent persons.

This oversight I think is one of the fatal flaws of
socialism, broadly speaking.

Socialism, or perhaps better, deep social concern for other values
besides greed, doesn't necessarily mean all-or-nothing, all-at-once.
It could offer the (short-term) choice of:

   1) 90% chance of getting nowhere, 10% chance of getting rich, along
  with increased poverty for others, failing public schools,
  polluted air and water, health care for the few, etc.

   2) 59% chance of getting 20% better, 40% chance of staying where
  you are, 1% chance of getting rich, along with guaranteed health
  care, parks, clean air, participation in the workplace, just
  laws, fair cops, free education for all, etc.

It would be interesting to formulate these proposals and put them
to the test, Tversky-style to see if there is preference reversal,
halo effects, whatnot.  Fun and exciting for the whole family.


Bill

Re: Re: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?

2003-04-02 Thread Michael Perelman

There is a minor branch of economic (twig?) that studies the determinants
of happiness.  Happiness does not seem to increase once a society reaches
about $15,000 a year.  Happiness instead is determined by relative status.

People expect, according to surveys, more wealth to make them happy, but
happiness seems to depend upon relative status.  So if the person in the
mirror wants to get rich, on some level he needs to know that there will
be plenty of poor schmucks to make them feel good.

On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 04:40:39PM -0600, Bill Lear wrote:
 On Wednesday, April 2, 2003 at 17:19:54 (-0500) Max B. Sawicky writes:
 I know the failure rate is high.
 But a person could fail more than once
 and still make it eventually.  The real
 issue I think is mobility.  We know there's
 a lot of immobility.  Make it numbingly simple.
 Suppose you have a 90 percent chance of getting
 nowhere, and a 10 percent chance of getting
 somewhere.  Somewhere in the ether is the chance
 that joining the revolution will get you somewhere.
 
 All I'm saying is that discounting the 10 percent
 chance out of hand is nuts, assuming you would
 like to appeal to intelligent persons.
 
 This oversight I think is one of the fatal flaws of
 socialism, broadly speaking.
 
 Socialism, or perhaps better, deep social concern for other values
 besides greed, doesn't necessarily mean all-or-nothing, all-at-once.
 It could offer the (short-term) choice of:
 
1) 90% chance of getting nowhere, 10% chance of getting rich, along
   with increased poverty for others, failing public schools,
   polluted air and water, health care for the few, etc.
 
2) 59% chance of getting 20% better, 40% chance of staying where
   you are, 1% chance of getting rich, along with guaranteed health
   care, parks, clean air, participation in the workplace, just
   laws, fair cops, free education for all, etc.
 
 It would be interesting to formulate these proposals and put them
 to the test, Tversky-style to see if there is preference reversal,
 halo effects, whatnot.  Fun and exciting for the whole family.
 
 
 Bill
 

-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?

2003-04-02 Thread Devine, James

Title: RE: [PEN-L:36425] WSJ - Is This A Great Country?





the difference is that I just am telling the person the truth (as I see it) rather than saying it's impossible and badmouthing the American dream.


Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
stop the war now!




 -Original Message-
 From: Max B. Sawicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 2:14 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: [PEN-L:36425] RE: RE: RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great 
 Country?
 
 
 What's the difference?
 
 The individual will prefer to be the judge of whether he or she
 ought to put in the effort required to beat the odds.
 
 mbs
 
 
 
 
 I don't tell people that they'll never get rich. Rather, I present the
 evidence and logic that says that only a small percentage of 
 them will.

Re: Re: Re: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?

2003-04-02 Thread joanna bujes

At 02:53 PM 04/02/2003 -0800, you wrote:
There is a minor branch of economic (twig?) that studies the determinants
of happiness.  Happiness does not seem to increase once a society reaches
about $15,000 a year.  Happiness instead is determined by relative status.
Economists are clueless. To quote Krishnamurti, If you want to be happy, 
take drugs. Otherwise, if you want to be free and conscious, you need to 
deal with reality. In reality we are all connected and though some of us 
may grow rich at the expense of others, being rich doesn't actually bring 
happiness since you are then fated to spend the rest of your life living in 
fear. (Though the U.S. is a relatively rich country, it is also one of the 
miserable and anxious countries I've ever lived in.)

Pradoxically, you only really have those things you are willing to share.

Joanna

RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?

Your problem is that you want to solve
somebody's problem for them.

The government's problem I would say is setting
the rules to facilitate individual or cooperative
efforts, not to try to preclude them, nor to guarantee
their success.

For those who fail, there would remain social insurance.

mbs

Max:

 I know the failure rate is high.
 But a person could fail more than once
 and still make it eventually.  The real
 issue I think is mobility.  We know there's
 a lot of immobility.  Make it numbingly simple.
 Suppose you have a 90 percent chance of getting
 nowhere, and a 10 percent chance of getting
 somewhere.  Somewhere in the ether is the chance
 that joining the revolution will get you somewhere.

In the tradition of the economics profession, let us ASSUME that
we all have infinitely long lives. Under this assumption, I think
Max solved the problem.

Sabri

RE: Re: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?

Following the wisdom of my guru, the Sage of Saskatoon,
I would qualify my remarks by noting that the interest
in 'getting rich' is culture dependent in a society where
incentives are biased in favor of individual consumption
of material goods and against collective consumption of
immaterial things, against environmental and similar
amenities, and against leisure.  This I think increases
the desire to 'get rich.'  Even so, you can't function
politically by wishing it away or telling people they
have the wrong preferences.

mbs



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bill Lear
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 5:41 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:36431] Re: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?


On Wednesday, April 2, 2003 at 17:19:54 (-0500) Max B. Sawicky writes:
I know the failure rate is high.
But a person could fail more than once
and still make it eventually.  The real
issue I think is mobility.  We know there's
a lot of immobility.  Make it numbingly simple.
Suppose you have a 90 percent chance of getting
nowhere, and a 10 percent chance of getting
somewhere.  Somewhere in the ether is the chance
that joining the revolution will get you somewhere.

All I'm saying is that discounting the 10 percent
chance out of hand is nuts, assuming you would
like to appeal to intelligent persons.

This oversight I think is one of the fatal flaws of
socialism, broadly speaking.

Socialism, or perhaps better, deep social concern for other values
besides greed, doesn't necessarily mean all-or-nothing, all-at-once.
It could offer the (short-term) choice of:

   1) 90% chance of getting nowhere, 10% chance of getting rich, along
  with increased poverty for others, failing public schools,
  polluted air and water, health care for the few, etc.

   2) 59% chance of getting 20% better, 40% chance of staying where
  you are, 1% chance of getting rich, along with guaranteed health
  care, parks, clean air, participation in the workplace, just
  laws, fair cops, free education for all, etc.

It would be interesting to formulate these proposals and put them
to the test, Tversky-style to see if there is preference reversal,
halo effects, whatnot.  Fun and exciting for the whole family.


Bill

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?

In a message dated 4/2/03 2:17:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I know the failure rate is high.
But a person could fail more than once
and still make it eventually. The real
issue I think is mobility. We know there's
a lot of immobility. Make it numbingly simple.
Suppose you have a 90 percent chance of getting
nowhere, and a 10 percent chance of getting
somewhere. Somewhere in the ether is the chance
that joining the revolution will get you somewhere.

All I'm saying is that discounting the 10 percent
chance out of hand is nuts, assuming you would
like to appeal to intelligent persons.

This oversight I think is one of the fatal flaws of
socialism, broadly speaking.



You hit the nail on the head, accurately and sharply. The essence of this question resides in the actual class mobility of the American people since the Second Imperial World War. In America we hardly consider it, but to the rest of the world, it is one of the salient facts of American life. Shackled by the hangovers of feudalism, it is very difficult for a European worker's child to enter the bourgeoisie, and almost impossible in Asia and Africa. 

Since the Second Imperial World War, a rapidly expanding economy in our country needed managers, scientist and technicians. The education system opened up and the children of the workers flooded into universities. Many of them, or their children, went on into the bourgeoisie or at least lived a bourgeois live style. To the workers it seemed as if there were no classes since the class boundary cold in fact be crossed. 

A postwar bit of Jewish humor - yes I enjoy Jewish humor especially delicatessen jokes, makes the point. 

"What is the difference between the President of the Garment Workers Union and the President of the American Psychiatric Association?" Answer: "One generation." 

The rest of the puzzle for this unique development lies in the imperial relations and its interactivity with the indescribable poverty of the neocolonial world. The imperial relations has tremendous moral implications but cannot be reduce to simply a moral judgment. Unless one wants to lose sight of how people actually think things out based on heir life cycle. To this colonial worker the poor of American seems bourgeois. Imperialist bribery has been very good to the American people. It impoverished the world and this process has come to an end as such. 

I am very familiar with those "Marxist" - maybe without quotes, who have spent a lifetime explaining the "national wages" of the Northern worker of the US as a product of the excretion of surplus value from the workplaces in the Northern industrial centers only. Why argue with such people who are basically chauvinist? 

It is true that we are dealing with a specific and peculiar history of the development of industrial society in America, that is unlike the evolution of the industrial system of commodity production in Europe or anywhere else. 

In the successive quantitative stages in the development of the industrial infrastructure, one could make it in America, which means survive better than in Europe or the colonial/neocolonial world. People did not make immigration to their first choice because it was more difficult to live. 

Even those who did not "leap" to the head of the American Psychiatric Association, saw their lives improve and this includes the largest section of the 11 million sharecroppers liberated as a class and converted into modern proletarians. 

Is America a Great country? 

Of course. 

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times and that is our eternal paradox (contradiction). He who belittles either side of this paradox is quickly regulated to the ash bin of history. 


Melvin P. 

Aye Mike, I am ready for that honorary degree and Vegas ...I mean Arizona ... its the climate man.

Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?

Max:

 Your problem is that you want to solve
 somebody's problem for them.

Not at all! A complete misunderstanding...

I am in this revolution business mostly because I want to solve
my own problem.

I just want to go home and teach math to my beloved students.

That is all I want!

Sabri

Re: Re: Re: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?

In a message dated 4/2/03 2:54:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

People expect, according to surveys, more wealth to make them happy, but
happiness seems to depend upon relative status. So if the person in the
mirror wants to get rich, on some level he needs to know that there will
be plenty of poor schmucks to make them feel good.



That man in the mirror. 

I am asking him to change his ways. No message could have been any clearer, if you want to make the world a better place take a look in the mirror and make a change. 

That freaking Michael Jackson - with his nose and obsession about my kids. 

Melvin P.

Re: RE: Re: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?

2003-04-02 Thread Ian Murray


- Original Message -
From: Max B. Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED]



 Following the wisdom of my guru, the Sage of Saskatoon,
 I would qualify my remarks by noting that the interest
 in 'getting rich' is culture dependent in a society where
 incentives are biased in favor of individual consumption
 of material goods and against collective consumption of
 immaterial things, against environmental and similar
 amenities, and against leisure.  This I think increases
 the desire to 'get rich.'  Even so, you can't function
 politically by wishing it away or telling people they
 have the wrong preferences.

 mbs



At the same time, neither quietism about the perverse incentives nor
encouraging more people to become capitalists will solve the immobility
problems of capitalism. The environment is not an amenity.


Ian

RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?

Eugene:

 With my post I was hoping to encourage a discussion -- and 
 get an answer -- of how to make clear to the vast majority 
 that their dreams of being rich will never be realized. 
 Any help?

Gene,

How did you like my help?

Best,

Sabri

Re: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?

2003-04-02 Thread Bill Lear

On Wednesday, April 2, 2003 at 18:15:58 (-0500) Max B. Sawicky writes:
Following the wisdom of my guru, the Sage of Saskatoon,
I would qualify my remarks by noting that the interest
in 'getting rich' is culture dependent in a society where
incentives are biased in favor of individual consumption
of material goods and against collective consumption of
immaterial things, against environmental and similar
amenities, and against leisure.  This I think increases
the desire to 'get rich.'  Even so, you can't function
politically by wishing it away or telling people they
have the wrong preferences.

My mom is from Saskatchewan, and she would say that you don't have to
tell them they are wrong, you have to let them see the alternatives.
Above all, be honest.  It might be that the better option for many of
them would be to pursue self-interest, assuming they don't care what
happens to others.  I think most people just can't see the
alternatives and don't realize how much they are being lied to and
ripped off (though they do indeed realize that they are being lied to
and ripped off).


Bill

Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?

2003-04-02 Thread Yoshie Furuhashi

At 3:54 PM -0800 4/2/03, Ian Murray wrote:
  Following the wisdom of my guru, the Sage of Saskatoon,
 I would qualify my remarks by noting that the interest
 in 'getting rich' is culture dependent in a society where
 incentives are biased in favor of individual consumption
 of material goods and against collective consumption of
 immaterial things, against environmental and similar
 amenities, and against leisure.  This I think increases
 the desire to 'get rich.'  Even so, you can't function
 politically by wishing it away or telling people they
 have the wrong preferences.
  mbs

At the same time, neither quietism about the perverse incentives nor 
encouraging more people to become capitalists will solve the 
immobility problems of capitalism. The environment is not an 
amenity.
Today's human resources management seeks to promote employee 
appreciation of lateral moves rather than upward mobility and 
non-material rewards rather than higher wages:

*   WHERE IS YOUR CAREER HEADED?
By Kathy Thomas-Massey
Which way is up? If we define up in terms of career success, the 
trek is not always vertical. Nowadays, its about career paths and 
career itineraries, not career ladders. Studies show that Americans 
change careers an average of seven times in a lifetime. Our changing 
workplace has placed those splintering career ladders on shaky 
ground

...Through some hard-learned lessons, many of us now know that our 
employer cannot and will not always be able to reward us with money 
and promotions - even when we do an excellent job. Organizations are 
beginning to look at other ways to reward employees and increase job 
satisfaction when upward mobility and salary increases aren't 
possible.

A few vehicles for promoting job satisfaction and organizational 
mobility are lateral moves, long-term special project assignments, 
job-sharing programs, and cross training. Other vehicles are more 
holistic in their approach and are aimed at developing the whole 
person (not just from a professional standpoint). One such vehicle is 
a program called Work, Change and You, available through the Center 
for Education and Quality Assessment, in the Office of Human 
Resources.

...When employees can't move upwardly in the organization as quickly 
as they once could, agencies (and employees) have to get creative to 
develop interesting and challenging environments so employees will 
stay longer in their current jobs. Work, Change and You serves as a 
first-step in the career planning process in that it enables 
employees to gain self-awareness (What do I want to be when I grow 
up and am I there yet?), strengthen communication, and maintain 
personal effectiveness while experiencing change, uncertainty, and 
career plateaus.

Through a series of self-discovery activities, the program helps 
employees learn more about their career anchoring patterns, their 
occupational personality, the relevance of personal and professional 
relationships, and their level of appreciation for nonmonetary 
awards

http://www.state.sc.us/ohr/additionalhr/hrreviewspring99.pdf   *

Given such a management direction, Americans' desire and expectation 
to get rich someday may be a way of expressing cultural resistance 
to the idea that workers should settle for lateral moves and 
non-material rewards and forget about wages and promotions.
--
Yoshie

* Calendar of Events in Columbus: 
http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html
* Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/
* Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio
* Solidarity: http://solidarity.igc.org/

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?

2003-04-02 Thread Carrol Cox



joanna bujes wrote:
 
 At 02:53 PM 04/02/2003 -0800, you wrote:
 There is a minor branch of economic (twig?) that studies the determinants
 of happiness.  Happiness does not seem to increase once a society reaches
 about $15,000 a year.  Happiness instead is determined by relative status.
 
 Economists are clueless. To quote Krishnamurti, If you want to be happy,
 take drugs. Otherwise, if you want to be free and conscious, you need to
 deal with reality. In reality we are all connected and though some of us
 may grow rich at the expense of others, being rich doesn't actually bring
 happiness since you are then fated to spend the rest of your life living in
 fear. (Though the U.S. is a relatively rich country, it is also one of the
 miserable and anxious countries I've ever lived in.)
 
 Pradoxically, you only really have those things you are willing to share.
 
 Joanna

This is perilously close to the Platonic/Stoic conception of a true
happiness that is independent of circumstances. There has been very
little ever published on the private lives of the _real_ rich (those who
can live sumptuously off of capital and, if they 'work,' work for the
fun of it), but what little ever has been published suggests that they
are a very content, very unanxious, and very happy group of people.

Carrol

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?

2003-04-02 Thread troy cochrane

Having nothing to back this up other than observation, I think happiness is much more related to community than it is to wealth. Unfortunately, the wealthiest countries seem to lack or even have destroyed community. By community I am meaning that you know and have an investment in your neighbours and your neighbourhood. Their well-being contributes to your well-being.
Troy
Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
joanna bujes wrote: At 02:53 PM 04/02/2003 -0800, you wrote: There is a minor branch of economic (twig?) that studies the determinants of happiness. Happiness does not seem to increase once a society reaches about $15,000 a year. Happiness instead is determined by relative status. Economists are clueless. To quote Krishnamurti, "If you want to be happy, take drugs." Otherwise, if you want to be free and conscious, you need to deal with reality. In reality we are all connected and though some of us may grow rich at the expense of others, being rich doesn't actually bring happiness since you are then fated to spend the rest of your life living in fear. (Though the U.S. is a relatively rich country, it is also one of the miserable and anxious countries I've ever lived!
in.) Pradoxically, you only really have those things you are willing to share. JoannaThis is perilously close to the Platonic/Stoic conception of a "true"happiness that is independent of circumstances. There has been verylittle ever published on the private lives of the _real_ rich (those whocan live sumptuously off of capital and, if they 'work,' work for thefun of it), but what little ever has been published suggests that theyare a very content, very unanxious, and very happy group of people.CarrolPost your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals

Re: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?

2003-04-02 Thread troy cochrane

This relates to an item I saw in Adbusters once.A survey asked people how much money they would need to be happy and feel financially secure. Across the board, whether the CEO of a major corporations or some poor slob working for minimum wage, the answer was roughly "twice as much." People believed that making twice what they now make would erase their money concerns. It's like we all have a carrot hanging from a stick that will forever dangle just beyond our reach. Maybe it's time to seek other goals. Now, if I only made twice as much, I could seek other goals...
Troy
Kelley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 09:31 AM 4/1/03 -0800, Eugene Coyle wrote:An item from April 1 2003 WSJ editorial page suggests something the Left needs to deal with:The author left out what is probably most important for understanding the poll: It asked people what they thought "being rich" actually meant. Not surprisingly, what being rich means to someone making $30k is a lot different from what it means to someone making $75k or $140kThe poll also reveals that gender and age play a part in people's perceptions. Unfortunately, when I read this, it was (I thought) freely available and I didn't save the entire report.here's the clip that I do have: "A recent Gallup Poll, conducted Jan. 20-22, finds that 31% of Americans expect to get rich at some time in their lives, and another 2% volunteer that they already are rich. The public's definition!
of rich means an annual income of about $120,000 or financial assets of about $1 million (each figure is the median estimate). These figures, as well as the percentage who expect to get rich, all vary considerably by gender, age, and income." http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030311.aspKelley Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals

Re: RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?

2003-04-02 Thread Eugene Coyle

Sabri, I liked it.  I will get Michael Yates's book.

But I am thinking of institutions -- like students loans, for example -- 
that seduce people into the dream of being rich.  First, the loan 
facilitates the education that will lead to riches.  And then paying the 
loan requires the drive for more and more income to get out from under 
it while yet driving for more income to get rich.

	It is not only dreams but the framework of life that we are burdened with.

Gene

Sabri Oncu wrote:
Eugene:


With my post I was hoping to encourage a discussion -- and 
get an answer -- of how to make clear to the vast majority 
that their dreams of being rich will never be realized. 
Any help?


Gene,

How did you like my help?

Best,

Sabri

Re WSJ - Is This A Great Country?

2003-04-02 Thread Yoshie Furuhashi

At 7:48 PM -0800 4/2/03, Eugene Coyle wrote:
the loan facilitates the education that will lead to riches.
Does it?
--
Yoshie
* Calendar of Events in Columbus: 
http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html
* Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/
* Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio
* Solidarity: http://solidarity.igc.org/

Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?

 It is not only dreams but the framework of life that
 we are burdened with.

 Gene

I cannot agree more! This is what Max is missing! It is not the
players that are the problem, although some, such as the Bush
gang, are, but the game itself.

We need to attack the game or, better, the rules of the game.

Sabri

PS: When I asked whether you liked my help, I did not mean my
mention of Michael Yates book only but also the entire thread
that followed my post. By the way, I am grateful to Michael for
sharing his book with me and some friends back home much before
it got published.

Re WSJ - Is This A Great Country?