Blair 'oversold' Iraq threat
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,995928,00.html
even newer Labour
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,992833,00.html
Re: if you line up all the economists from end to end........
As an example, he said, researchers making revisions to price indexes may have been pushed to understate inflation, as such a change would result in smaller liabilities in the Social Security system when the baby-boom generation retires. In reality, those kinds of things do play some role. I agree with Professor Mitchell. The spontaneous tendency of capitalism is to dehistoricize its own existence, including making good statistical time series of social and economic activity difficult to construct. It is interesting to note, that the practice of collecting statistics through social surveys itself originated from a branch of inquiry called political arithmetick. One of the main reasons why censuses were done originally, was to provide a rational basis for government taxation policy, a very politically sensitive area; and at least in Europe, the very formation of the bourgeois state was intimately connected to the revolt of the bourgeoisie against taxation by the absolutist feudal state - the bourgeoisie wanted to take over and modify the form of the feudal state, in good part to get more control over taxation and the government treasury, on the ground that it was responsible for the creation of a lot of social wealth, and therefore should be able to control how that portion of wealth creamed off through taxes, tolls and levies, was spent. This was particularly important because of the common interest of the bourgeoisie in creating a larger unified market, and the removal of impediments to that process. The material basis of nationalist ideology was precisely this concern to eradicate the impediments created by small principalities, fiefdoms, city-states and so forth (each having their own rules and regulations) to a national market with one standard set of rules governing trade. Of course, what the epoch of specifically industrial capitalist imperialism is about, is the transcending of national markets, the competition for the world market, in which a conflict develops between the interests of the largest corporations (which seek maximum free trade) and the national state apparatus (which has a territorial economic responsibility, and seeks to ensure a balanced development of the national economy reflecting citizens interests on the basis of the democratic principle). To smash protectionism, ultimately you have to smash democracy, because it is governments which implement protectionism, and these governments are elected on the basis of a majority vote, and if the voters consider free trade is not in their interests, they will support protectionist measures. The corporations are organisationally not democratically based, but the government apparatus is. The corporation provides limited accountability to shareholders, the government provides accountability through democratic elections, and the public service also contains some democratic principles in its organisation. But insofar as the corporations grow in power, the state apparatus begins to reflect this, and corporate organisational principles begin to be introduced within the state apparatus itself. This is not illogical, since the CEO's of government departments are often recruited out of the corporations. But this has the effect, that the total amount of democratic input gradually shrinks - more and more, the lower levels are subordinated to the higher levels on the basis of corporate, rather than democratic principles. Plus, the very difference between corporate organisational principles and democratic organisational principles starts to be fudged. You might ask me, why tell this story ? Is this not an irrelevant digression...? Well the reason is, that this whole process I describe, is directly reflected back into the very survey methods, the collection process and the presentation of social and economic statistics. Statistics are supposed to be objective, neutral, unbiased and impartial, but in fact they are not, because the corporate influence seeks indeed to alter the very way in which statistical observations are categorised - and if Statistics Departments themselves become corporate entities, this whole process is facilitated and speeded up. The Corporations have no strong interest in historical time series, they are mainly interested in the latest, most up-to-date information, and possibly some figures dating back a few years for comparative purposes, just as with company balance-sheets. The Corporate view is that there is no strong interest in the independent interpretation of data by Statistics Departments themselves, rather the Statistics Departments should just provide the data on a cost-efficient, market basis, with the minimum amount of interpretation. Indeed, there are disputes about the very need for an independent Statistics Department anyhow, since many of its operations can be contracted out to private survey agencies as a profit-making activity. The debate then centres on the issue of, in which cases the quality of survey
another wto case goes against US
July 11, 2003 W.T.O. Rules That U.S. Steel Duties Are Illegal By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 10:50 a.m. ET GENEVA (AP) -- The World Trade Organization ruled against heavy duties on steel imports imposed by the Bush administration, saying Friday that they violate global trade rules. The European Union and seven other countries that had opposed the tariffs demanded Washington immediately lift the duties, which were supposed to protect the U.S. steel industry from cheap imports. The EU said it was ready to impose $2.2 billion in retaliatory duties on U.S. imports, ranging from footwear to fruit and vegetables. ``This is not just a partial victory, this is a full victory. We have been given satisfaction on all accounts,'' said EU spokeswoman Arancha Gonzalez. Bush introduced the ``safeguard'' duties of up to 30 percent on steel products in March 2002. During his presidential campaign, Bush had vowed to protect the domestic steel industry, a pledge seen as key to his victory in important steel-producing states. But the tariffs raised sharp criticism abroad: European nations said the duties hurt their industries, and many saw the step as part of a pattern of unilateral acts by the Bush administration. In the United States, some carmakers complained that the tariffs increased steel prices. There was no immediate reaction from Washington to Friday's ruling, which confirmed an interim ruling released in March. At that time, U.S. officials said they would appeal, which would allow the duties to remain a while longer. The Bush administration had argued the tariffs met WTO provisions allowing temporary duties for up to three years to protect a domestic industry from a flood of cheap imports and give it time to restructure. The European Union and its allies complained the move breached a raft of WTO rules. In its ruling, the WTO panel, headed by Stefan Johannesson of Iceland, said Washington failed to prove its measures were necessary because of ``unseen developments'' in the world steel market. The United States said the unforeseen developments were created by the combination of the Russian and Asian financial crises, the strong U.S. dollar and the strong U.S. economy. But the panel said Washington did not show how these events led to a sudden increase in imports -- the primary requirement before safeguard duties can be imposed. It also said the United States had acted illegally by exempting imports from certain countries from the duties. Canada and Mexico -- Washington's partners in the North American Trade Agreement -- were excluded, as were Israel and Jordan. Last month, the European Union's top trade official warned the Bush administration that the 15 EU members would will not hesitate to impose billions of dollars of sanctions on American products if the United States did not remove the tariffs. ``These safeguards have cost us a lot of (steel) exports and a lot of money and (they) should disappear as soon as possible,'' Pascal Lamy said in Washington. Gonzalez said Friday that the EU was ready to impose its retaliatory duties unless the United States removes the duties within five days of the WTO's adopting the report. Retaliatory duties could be delayed if the United States appeals. The other countries that appealed the U.S. action were Japan, South Korea, China, Switzerland, Norway, New Zealand and Brazil. It was the first time China or Switzerland had taken a complaint to the WTO.
Disgusting Nation Magazine editorial
Although I don't pay much attention to the Nation Magazine nowadays, their editorial from the July 7th issue titled The War is Not Over really took me aback, especially the paragraph below. It supports a UN presence since this would legitimize US military forces. It also speaks in terms of nation-building when in fact the UN and USA (same thing basically) are only good for nation-destroying. Basically, the Nation is putting forward the same bullshit you can read in a NY Times op-ed. These people should be taken out and horse-whipped. http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030707s=editors The Administration also has to admit that rebuilding Iraq is beyond the capability of the United States alone and that it's time to reach out to the international community for help. Turning over key aspects of Iraq's administration to the UN wouldn't solve all the many problems in Iraq, but it would provide some much-needed legitimacy for the presence of US forces, draw in the support and help of other countries with nation-building experience and allow Islamic countries to contribute peacekeepers and police forces to help restore order. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
democracy on the march!
from Microsoft SLATE's daily summary of major US newspapers: The New York Times leads with the set-up of Iraq's postwar government, expected to commence this weekend. The governing council will be made of at least 21 members and will include Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, Christians and Turkmen. The Los Angeles Times' top story says that the U.S. may pledge some of Iraq's future oil and gas revenue to secure reconstruction loans for the country--even before a new government is in place to sign off on the deal According to the NYT, the appointment of an interim Iraqi government was put on the fast track because of increased postwar hostilities against U.S. soldiers in the country. In an attempt to deflect criticism over the slow pace of reconstruction, the group will have more power than first envisioned, the [Washington Post] says. Yet ultimate authority will still rest with the U.S. and the Brits until a government is elected. When that will happen is anyone's guess, the papers note. The LAT's lead says the proposal to essentially mortgage Iraq's oil to pay for rebuilding the country has about a 50-50 chance of being approved. The plan--proposed by the Export-Import Bank and endorsed by companies like Halliburton, who want to cash in on rebuilding--has drawn opposition from a wide swath of interests, including the State and Treasury departments, who worry that should Iraq not make future payments on what it could borrow, U.S. taxpayers might end up holding the bag. Others, meanwhile, worry about the effect on already fragile Iraqi-U.S. relations. In related word, two more U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq yesterday, raising to 32 the number of GIs killed since May 1, when President Bush declared an end to major hostilities. Meanwhile, Gen. Tommy Franks told members of Congress yesterday that U.S. forces might be in Iraq for years, the LAT reports. Further news about the WMD issue: The Washington Post leads with word that the CIA, four months before President Bush's State of the Union address, asked the British government to drop claims from its intelligence dossier that Iraq attempted to buy uranium in Africa. According to the paper, which quotes a senior administration official, the Brits refused, citing their own intelligence. USA Today's lead picks up on Secretary of State Colin Powell's defense of Bush's use of the Africa claim and cites a source that says the CIA was so leery of the intel that it asked that it be credited solely to British intelligence. Powell's comments yesterday--delivered at a press conference that was originally meant to highlight U.S. initiatives in Africa--marked the Bush administration's first lengthy defense since admitting the uranium allegation was false. But as USA [TODAY] notes, Powell's comments not surprisingly raised more questions than answers about the intelligence failure. According to the WP, the CIA considered the Africa report to be sketchy. Furthermore, administration officials have never been provided with the source of Britain's information, which apparently was provided by an unidentified third country. Early drafts of Bush's speech, however, included a mention of the uranium claim but did not initially source the British government for the information. While USAT says the CIA successfully pressed for the Brits to be sourced, CBS News takes that one step further, noting that CIA analysts specifically warned the administration that the claim was false and shouldn't be included in Bush's speech. Citing senior administration officials, CBS says the White House argued that as long as the statement was attributed to the Brits, it was factually accurate. While everybody has different versions of what exactly happened, today's write-ups are a good scorecard on how the blame game will work. The WP's piece seems to suggest the White House's plan will be to blame Britain for the screw-up. [This is the thanks that Toady Blair gets?] USAT, meanwhile, blatantly notes an emerging White House strategy of suggesting that the CIA, which was shown Iraq-related portions of Bush's speech, could have objected to the uranium charge. Whether or not the CIA did object depends on which unnamed source you believe today, it seems. Meanwhile, the NYT goes inside with word from across the pond that senior aides to British Prime Minister Tony Blair now doubt that weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq. The story, which sources a BBC report, says the British government believes the weapons once existed, but were dismantled or hidden beyond discovery before allied troops entered Iraq in March. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
a profitable sector
http://www.nlj.com/news/070703amlaw.shtml AM LAW 100 Profits up 6.9% despite economy Diverse practice areas and limited expansion are cited as two reasons. By Jim Schroeder AMERICAN LAWYER MEDIA NEWS SERVICE A quick question: By how much did average profits per equity partner increase last year at the 100 top grossing firms in the country-10.6%, 6.9% or 1.5%? If you chose 10.6%, we have some hot Internet stocks we'd like to sell you. That was the rate of profit growth at the firms in The American Lawyer's Am Law 100 firms in 1999, the last full year of the stock market boom. But the 1.5% figure is wrong too. That was the rate of profit growth at Am Law 100 firms in 1992, the last time the economy languished in the second year of a downturn. The correct number is 6.9%-much closer to the 1999 rate than the 1992 rate. And the other results from the new Am Law 100, which report results from 2002, are strong too: Gross revenue increased by 8.5% and revenue per lawyer rose by 4%. (The American Lawyer, which published the Am Law 100 in its July issue, is a sister publication of The National Law Journal.) How, in the face of a lingering economic downturn, did the Am Law 100 manage to rack up robust numbers? It's not that law firms are immune to economic trends-just ask refugees from Brobeck, Phleger Harrison, which makes its final Am Law 100 appearance this year, having disbanded in February. Instead, it's a story of contingency planning. With the dark days of the early 1990s in mind, law firms planned for the worst in 2002 and scaled back their ambitions. Call it the year of living modestly. Expansion takes a back seat With mergers and acquisitions work down, managing partners sang the praises of practice-area diversification, as their firms relied on countercyclical bankruptcy and reorganization practices, as well as steady income streams from litigation and regulatory work. But 2002 was also a year in which expansion took a back seat to cost control. Head count slowed (that 8.5% increase in gross revenue was achieved with only a 4.2% increase in the number of lawyers), and firms held the line on expansion of their equity partnership ranks. The healthy composite averages mask deep pockets of pain, most notably on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley. This year's sharpest decrease in revenue per lawyer-the best measure of a firm's ability to command premium fees and top billing rates-was at New York-based Cravath, Swaine Moore, one of the premier Wall Street firms. Of the 15 firms where revenue per lawyer declined last year, seven were New York firms and two were Silicon Valley firms. Even at the firms where revenue per lawyer dropped, the bottom line stayed strong, thanks to careful expense management. Nine of them showed increases in profits per equity partner, and at the other six, the decreases in profits per partner were not nearly as steep as the drops in revenue per lawyer. (Cravath's 22% decrease in revenue per lawyer, for instance, translated into an 8% drop in profits per equity partner, and Cravath continues to be the Am Law 100's second most profitable firm.) So the question remains: In a year in which the average gross revenue of Fortune 500 companies declined by 6%, how were so many firms able to increase their revenue per lawyer? Rate increases were primarily responsible. Despite the sour economy, most firms succeeded in raising billing rates 3% to 6% last year. We obtained appropriate rate increases in certain markets where we were billing well below our competitors, said Warren Gorrell, chair of Washington's Hogan Hartson, which had a 10% increase in revenue per lawyer. Strict cost controls Higher margins paid off as well. We focused on obtaining high-value work, said R. Bruce McLean, chairman of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld, where revenue per lawyer increased by 13.7% last year. Many firms also took a hard line on collections, decreeing that what Hildebrandt International consultant William Johnston calls the willy-nilly write-offs of the past couldn't continue. Cost controls ensured that revenue enhancements went straight to the bottom line. Early on, it was quite clear that 2002 was going to be slow, so we instituted a fair number of cost controls, said Latham Watkins managing partner Robert Dell, whose firm had an 8.1% increase in profits per partner and a 1.5% drop in revenue per lawyer. Latham identified areas where purchases could be deferred, Dell said; only expenses affecting client service and business development were exempted from review. Said Dell: If I thought I could stall [an expenditure], I did. Firms delayed major technology purchases and took advantage of the soft commercial real estate market by renegotiating leases. The largest single expense at law firms is personnel, and there managing partners held the line as well. During the late 1990s, average annual head count increases of 9% to 10% were common, and in 2001 the average size of Am Law 100 firms grew by
ATCA redux
http://news.findlaw.com/ Suing Saddam - And Others - In U.S. Courts: The Controversy Over the Alien Tort Claims Act By JAKE KREILKAMP Wednesday, Jul. 09, 2003 Haider Aziz Al-Sayed Jassim Ali Rasheed is an Iraqi citizen living in the United States. His father, now deceased, was a prominent Iraqi opposition leader before the War. Last week, Haider made headlines by suing Saddam Hussein in federal court in the Western District of Pennsylvania. In the lawsuit, Haider alleged that Hussein violated international law by commanding that Haider's father be imprisoned, tortured, and ultimately murdered, and that Haider himself be kidnapped and tortured. Is Haider's lawsuit valid? Can a noncitizen sue another noncitizen for damages in a U.S. court when the basis for the lawsuit is events that exclusively happened abroad, and the law allegedly violated is international law? Under the U.S.'s Alien Tort Claims Act, the answer - surprisingly - is yes. The ATCA allows any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations. But enforcing any damage award is another matter. In Haider's suit, Hussein is extremely unlikely to pay. Even now, our army is desperately trying to find him. And though Haider could, alternatively, ask the U.S. government to release funds seized from Hussein, it's far from certain the government would agree. Granted, even without an enforceable damage award, a judgment in Haider's favor would still have some declaratory meaning - as a factual adjudication of what happened to Haider and his father, and as a legal declaration that it violated international law. An ATCA suit, if successful, can have potent symbolic value: A court confirms the terrible harm the plaintiff has suffered. In most of ATCA cases, there isn't the slightest chance of relief in the legal system of the country where the harm occurred; U.S. courts are the only alternative. But is this symbolic value enough to justify the continued existence of the ATCA - which has lately endured criticism from the Bush Administration, among others? To answer that question, a closer look at the statute's history, and its interaction with U.S. foreign policy, is in order. The Long History of the Alien Tort Claims Act The ATCA was enacted in 1789, so that piracy claims could be adjudicated in American courts. Piracy was the terrorism of its time. (Indeed, the only explicit reference to international law in the U.S. Constitution comes in a clause granting Congress authority to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations.) For almost 200 years, the ATCA was hardly used. But in 1980, in Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit allowed two Paraguayan citizens to go forward with a suit charging a Paraguayan general with torture - plainly a violation of the law of nations. The Filartiga decision triggered an avalanche of similar ATCA human rights cases. Plaintiffs even tried (unsuccessfully) to sue Prince Charles and former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher for their involvement in the Falkland Islands conflict. Two years ago, a group of Bosnian women successfully sued Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic for human rights abuses they suffered during the Bosnian war. They won a $4.5 billion judgment. But a judgment is not the same thing as cash in hand, and they have not yet collected a cent - a recurring problem with even successful ATCA claims. ATCA Damage Awards: Collection Difficulties; Injustice to Other Victims Ironically, it may not be such a good thing even when the plaintiffs do manage to collect - usually from assets that have been seized by the U.S. government. After all, unless the group of plaintiffs is very large indeed, the award may leave out literally thousands of equally deserving victims of the very same abuses that the suit addresses. Moreover, forcing seized funds out of U.S. government hands, and into those of the plaintiffs, may have undesirable consequences. The result in a suit brought under a law similar in effect to the ATCA (the law permits plaintiffs to sue certain countries who are deemed to be supporters of terrorism) provides a cautionary tale. There, the plaintiffs sued the Cuban government for shooting down two small planes over Cuban airspace. In 1997, a U.S. district judge awarded them a $187 million judgment. They ultimately recovered the money from funds the U.S. government had seized from Cuba's nationalized telephone service. But Cuba cut off phone service to the United States - leaving numerous exiles out of phone touch with their families. Does the ATCA Undermine U.S. Foreign Policy? Besides problems of justice and fairness like these, there is another, broader problem with the ATCA: It can make it very difficult for the United States to pursue its foreign policy objectives. The foreign policy argument for abolishing the ATCA - an argument supported by the Bush
Re: ATCA redux
The statute may permit the lawsuit, but it's reasonably clear that no US court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant, who did not avail himself of US law and could not reasonably have been expected to be hauled into a US court for his actions. PJ is waivable, but if the issue were raised. I'd expect a judge to throw out the lawsuit. jks --- Eubulides [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://news.findlaw.com/ Suing Saddam - And Others - In U.S. Courts: The Controversy Over the Alien Tort Claims Act By JAKE KREILKAMP Wednesday, Jul. 09, 2003 Haider Aziz Al-Sayed Jassim Ali Rasheed is an Iraqi citizen living in the United States. His father, now deceased, was a prominent Iraqi opposition leader before the War. Last week, Haider made headlines by suing Saddam Hussein in federal court in the Western District of Pennsylvania. In the lawsuit, Haider alleged that Hussein violated international law by commanding that Haider's father be imprisoned, tortured, and ultimately murdered, and that Haider himself be kidnapped and tortured. Is Haider's lawsuit valid? Can a noncitizen sue another noncitizen for damages in a U.S. court when the basis for the lawsuit is events that exclusively happened abroad, and the law allegedly violated is international law? Under the U.S.'s Alien Tort Claims Act, the answer - surprisingly - is yes. The ATCA allows any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations. But enforcing any damage award is another matter. In Haider's suit, Hussein is extremely unlikely to pay. Even now, our army is desperately trying to find him. And though Haider could, alternatively, ask the U.S. government to release funds seized from Hussein, it's far from certain the government would agree. Granted, even without an enforceable damage award, a judgment in Haider's favor would still have some declaratory meaning - as a factual adjudication of what happened to Haider and his father, and as a legal declaration that it violated international law. An ATCA suit, if successful, can have potent symbolic value: A court confirms the terrible harm the plaintiff has suffered. In most of ATCA cases, there isn't the slightest chance of relief in the legal system of the country where the harm occurred; U.S. courts are the only alternative. But is this symbolic value enough to justify the continued existence of the ATCA - which has lately endured criticism from the Bush Administration, among others? To answer that question, a closer look at the statute's history, and its interaction with U.S. foreign policy, is in order. The Long History of the Alien Tort Claims Act The ATCA was enacted in 1789, so that piracy claims could be adjudicated in American courts. Piracy was the terrorism of its time. (Indeed, the only explicit reference to international law in the U.S. Constitution comes in a clause granting Congress authority to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations.) For almost 200 years, the ATCA was hardly used. But in 1980, in Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit allowed two Paraguayan citizens to go forward with a suit charging a Paraguayan general with torture - plainly a violation of the law of nations. The Filartiga decision triggered an avalanche of similar ATCA human rights cases. Plaintiffs even tried (unsuccessfully) to sue Prince Charles and former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher for their involvement in the Falkland Islands conflict. Two years ago, a group of Bosnian women successfully sued Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic for human rights abuses they suffered during the Bosnian war. They won a $4.5 billion judgment. But a judgment is not the same thing as cash in hand, and they have not yet collected a cent - a recurring problem with even successful ATCA claims. ATCA Damage Awards: Collection Difficulties; Injustice to Other Victims Ironically, it may not be such a good thing even when the plaintiffs do manage to collect - usually from assets that have been seized by the U.S. government. After all, unless the group of plaintiffs is very large indeed, the award may leave out literally thousands of equally deserving victims of the very same abuses that the suit addresses. Moreover, forcing seized funds out of U.S. government hands, and into those of the plaintiffs, may have undesirable consequences. The result in a suit brought under a law similar in effect to the ATCA (the law permits plaintiffs to sue certain countries who are deemed to be supporters of terrorism) provides a cautionary tale. There, the plaintiffs sued the Cuban government for shooting down two small planes over Cuban airspace. In 1997, a U.S. district judge awarded them a $187 million judgment. They ultimately recovered the money from funds the U.S.
productivity growth failing US
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-dispatch11jul11,1,5661366.story?c oll=la-headlines-business WASHINGTON DISPATCH Cause for U.S. Recovery Lacking Effect By Peter G. Gosselin Los Angeles Times Staff Writer July 11, 2003 WASHINGTON - Here's an economic kick in the pants for you: Mainstream economists say that the nation is finally on the road to recovery. And not just any recovery, but a splendid one fueled by technology-driven productivity gains. But the revival has yet to produce any of what matters most to people - namely, jobs. The chief reason there has been no pickup in employment: the very productivity gains that are supposed to ensure a grand comeback. High productivity means that companies can meet the current level of demand without going to the trouble of hiring new people, said Princeton economist and former Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Alan Blinder. It makes the task of providing enough demand to soak up all that productive capacity a much harder one. The lack of new jobs is just one instance of what could prove to be a new phenomenon: the evidence-free recovery. Economic turning points usually produce a welter of conflicting signals, some suggesting full revival and others further trouble. But thus far, this one has been remarkably free of the former. Although forecasters busily explain why the economy should come roaring back - near-record low interest rates, still more tax cuts and a sliding dollar to help exports - they have yet to be able to cite a solid piece of evidence that it actually is on the way back. There's not much out there to convince you we're headed into a period of strong growth, said Gregory D. Hess, a former Fed staffer who is an economist at Claremont McKenna College. What's happening to jobs and wages offers a vivid example of what's half-empty about the economy and what could put a cork in a full-fledged recovery. American employers have created no new jobs on a net basis since the presumed end of the recent recession in January 2002. Worse yet, according to Labor Department statistics, they actually have been cutting jobs, especially over the last five months, when payrolls fell by nearly half a million. The latest result came Thursday, when the department announced that the number of people collecting unemployment benefits hit a 20-year high of 3.82 million in June. Some economists maintain that recent job trends pose no threat to the recovery. They say employment and unemployment are lagging indicators that improve only after a turnaround is well underway. But at 18 months and counting, the lag is getting mighty long. Other analysts comfort themselves with the thought that the tens of millions of Americans who are still employed have continued to borrow and buy at a remarkable pace, keeping the economy afloat and primed for recovery. Even so, however, the trends are not altogether happy. Wages, which play a big role in what most of us decide we can and cannot afford, and which moved in lock step with rising productivity during the late 1990s, have broken loose in the last couple of years. Although they still are rising, they are doing so at a slower - and slowing - pace. The nation's nonfinancial corporations boosted their labor productivity - the amount of goods and services they can produce per hour of labor - by a record 5.5% last year, according to government statistics. But the working Americans who provided that labor saw their wages rise by less than one-third of that amount, and at less than half the pace of the hottest moments of the late '90s. [the print copy has a graph showing the growth of real wages growing more or less in step with labor productivity from 1999 to 2001 and then falling behind. The latter implies a rise in the rate of exploitation, associated with the rise in the size of the reserve army of unemployed labor.] Analysts say that, although painful for workers, the divergence of productivity and wages could turn out to be a good thing for the economy as a whole. That's because if people aren't reaping the benefits, then companies must be seeing them in the form of bigger profits. And bigger profits might motivate firms to begin investing, expanding and hiring again, setting off an upward spiral of growth. [that fits with Marx's theory of accumulation, but not the standard neoclassical view.] The problem is that corporate America has shown almost no interest in doing any of these things, all of which leave the economy in a nasty bind. [as I've said before, adding to Marx, unused capacity, corporate debt, and pessimistic expectations can block accumulation.] It's unlikely that consumers will be able to continue to shrug off mounting job losses, rising unemployment and diminishing wage increases for much longer, said Mark Zandi, chief economist of West Chester, Pa.-based Economy.com. In fact, other than home buying, he said, consumers appear to be growing increasingly cautious. Car sales, for example, have slipped
Re: democracy on the march! - transatlantic
Yes and the transAtlantic sequence is now unravelling the process by which the inevitability of war was created. The BBC tonight featured how even Joe Lieberman has associated himself with the issue Senator Joseph Lieberman, who unlike Mr Dean supported the war in Iraq, described the reports as troubling. We cannot and should not play fast and loose with our intelligence information and however it happened we now know that the information in the State of the Union was false, he said. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3060521.stm and I think was quoting an article in tomorrow's New York Times where he even calls for an investigation. Meanwhile it is interesting to see how each side tries to put the blame on the other. The British government has avoided getting into the spotlight over the uranium cake by referring vaguely to a third country, with the suggestion that we shuld not ditch our powerful allies the USA in public. But I see from the quotes below that vague British references to a third party were used by the Brits to defend their reference to the procurement story presumably even after the CIA had warned them early September. So why did it stay in the SOTU?SOU message. When the Brits left it out of their dodgy dossier, Powell left it out of his speech to the UN and Blair left it out of his speech to Parliament. Even the British media were not focussed enough to catch this at the time. I like the compromise that Bush was allowed to keep the reference in his SOTU speech, provided he attributed it to the tacky Brits. Chris Burford At 2003-07-11 09:40 -0700, Jim quoted: Further news about the WMD issue: The Washington Post leads with word that the CIA, four months before President Bush's State of the Union address, asked the British government to drop claims from its intelligence dossier that Iraq attempted to buy uranium in Africa. According to the paper, which quotes a senior administration official, the Brits refused, citing their own intelligence. USA Today's lead picks up on Secretary of State Colin Powell's defense of Bush's use of the Africa claim and cites a source that says the CIA was so leery of the intel that it asked that it be credited solely to British intelligence. Powell's comments yesterday--delivered at a press conference that was originally meant to highlight U.S. initiatives in Africa--marked the Bush administration's first lengthy defense since admitting the uranium allegation was false. But as USA [TODAY] notes, Powell's comments not surprisingly raised more questions than answers about the intelligence failure. According to the WP, the CIA considered the Africa report to be sketchy. Furthermore, administration officials have never been provided with the source of Britain's information, which apparently was provided by an unidentified third country. Early drafts of Bush's speech, however, included a mention of the uranium claim but did not initially source the British government for the information. While USAT says the CIA successfully pressed for the Brits to be sourced, CBS News takes that one step further, noting that CIA analysts specifically warned the administration that the claim was false and shouldn't be included in Bush's speech. Citing senior administration officials, CBS says the White House argued that as long as the statement was attributed to the Brits, it was factually accurate. While everybody has different versions of what exactly happened, today's write-ups are a good scorecard on how the blame game will work. The WP's piece seems to suggest the White House's plan will be to blame Britain for the screw-up. [This is the thanks that Toady Blair gets?] USAT, meanwhile, blatantly notes an emerging White House strategy of suggesting that the CIA, which was shown Iraq-related portions of Bush's speech, could have objected to the uranium charge. Whether or not the CIA did object depends on which unnamed source you believe today, it seems. Meanwhile, the NYT goes inside with word from across the pond that senior aides to British Prime Minister Tony Blair now doubt that weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq. The story, which sources a BBC report, says the British government believes the weapons once existed, but were dismantled or hidden beyond discovery before allied troops entered Iraq in March. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
oil redux
Economic dispatch Oil shocked A desire to loosen Opec's stranglehold on petroleum prices lies behind Bush's interest in Africa and his plans for Iraq, writes Randeep Ramesh Friday July 11, 2003 The Guardian America's new world order appears founded on a declaration of independence. George Bush, an oil man from an oil state, wants America to wean itself off a dangerous addiction to faraway hydrocarbons. As the president's national energy plan puts it, this is a condition of increased dependency on foreign powers that do not always have American interests at heart. Although admirably blunt, this statement has haunted the Bush administration since it was made in May 2001 - months before the attacks of September 11. America's war on terrorism is often viewed as a scramble for black gold. There is a logic to this. Getting gas out of the Caspian is a lot easier if you are faced with a pliant Afghanistan. If Iraq is not run by a dictator determined to use oil as a weapon of war - as Dick Cheney said [to] seek domination of the entire Middle East - then Americans could sleep easier. So no surprise that when Mr Bush landed in Africa, whose western coast floats above rich oil-bearing sea beds, the image is of the president as plunderer of a continent's mineral wealth rather than provider of American benevolence. Oil is not scarce - but most of it lies under the sands of the Middle East. Since 1973, when Arab nations imposed an embargo on oil exports to the US, US presidents have been promising to end America's reliance on energy from potentially unfriendly sources. Mr Bush may succeed where his predecessors failed. The reason is simply this: America is moving swiftly from influencing the affairs of other nations to controlling them. This shift sees the dovetailing of two strategic imperatives: energy security and terrorism. The hatred and contempt of America is undoubtedly fed by US high-handedness but it can also be funded by oil revenues. So oil-rich states that have turned a blind eye to militant anti-Americanism will pay a heavy price. Any that seek to use their wealth to buy weapons of mass destruction will also be threatened with American military might. Viewed from such a perspective, it is easy to see why Iran has been targeted by the Bush administration. Unlike the imperialists of the British empire who sought control of the Middle East's vast oil reserves by owning them, America's approach is more subtle. Getting oil from many different sources - Africa's share of US imports could replace the Middle East's this decade - is not enough of an answer. It is the price of oil that can bring the American economy to its knees. To see just how destructive oil price shocks can be, it is worth noting that they have cost America $7 trillion dollars (£4.2 trillion) in the past 30 years. Oil is a fungible commodity, worth nothing until sold. How can America ensure that the price of oil is stable - low enough for its citizens to afford but high enough for producers to recoup investment costs and make tidy profits? The answer is to tame unruly regions and coax friendly oil-rich nations to pump more oil on to the world markets. Neither is easy especially given that, as populous nations such as China and India grow, the demand for energy will rise, putting upward pressure on the oil price in decades to come. From such a vantage point, it is easier to understand how America's interests are served by occupying Iraq. Sitting on top of the globe's second largest oil reserves, Iraq has the potential to become one of the world's biggest petrol pumps. Installing a US-friendly administration in Baghdad would not only serve foreign policy objectives - securing an ally in a troubled region - but also the American economy. America aspires to having the same relationship with Iraq as it had, before September 11, with Saudi Arabia. In this future scenario, Baghdad would displace Riyadh as America's friendly swing producer - able to flood the market if there was any attempt to send oil prices skyward by cutting back on production. Of course this will require massive investment and a sustained nation-building effort, but as Mr Bush puts it America is in for the long haul. All this points to the US's latent intent: to finish the oil cartel Opec. It will be interesting to see whether Mr Bush can convince Nigeria that its interests lie in an alliance with Washington not with the Middle East. If Lagos were to leave Opec or even argue America's case, then Mr Bush's African expedition would have yielded a significant gain for America. Another triumph would be if Mexico, whose president is in political trouble, allowed foreign investment into its inefficient, state-owned petrol industry. Helping Mexico to pump more oil will help loosen the grip that Opec has on the current oil price. Perhaps the most interesting American advance is that which is least talked about. US oil companies are reckoned to have brought rights to
new frontiers of 'privatization'
[James Buchanan must *really* be tired of traffic] Beltway Toll Lanes Endorsed Va. Transportation Chief Wants Plan Considered By Michael D. Shear Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, July 12, 2003; Page B01 RICHMOND, July 11 -- Virginia's top transportation official endorsed a proposal today to put toll lanes on the Capital Beltway, which would give lone drivers the opportunity to buy their way out of the traffic that clogs the region's primary thoroughfare. Under a plan offered by a private company, four high occupancy toll lanes would be added to 12 miles of the Beltway, between Springfield and the Dulles Toll Road. Carpoolers and buses would use the HOT lanes for free. Single drivers could pay $1 to $4 to get off of the congested regular lanes. The $630 million project would be paid for almost entirely by tolls. Virginia Department of Transportation Commissioner Philip A. Shucet said in an interview today that the idea is a shining example of a partnership between the state agency and a private company and merits a detailed evaluation. He said he will recommend next week that state officials work with the company, Fluor Daniel, to move the idea forward. HOT lanes represent an opportunity if people choose to use it, to move from a more congested traffic lane to a lane with some capacity, he said. The alternative may be to do nothing. Shucet has also ordered that the HOT lanes concept be among the options considered by transportation officials as they finalize a years-long environmental study of whether to widen the Beltway. The initial recommendation of that study, a $3.2 billion widening of the Beltway, was panned by Fairfax County officials and citizens. The Commonwealth Transportation Board will vote on Shucet's recommendations at its monthly meeting Thursday. Shucet's decision marks the first time Virginia's top transportation official has spoken so favorably about HOT lanes, which have been controversial in other states. Politicians sometimes call them Lexus lane s, saying they allow wealthy drivers more options than other drivers to avoid traffic. A final decision could be a year away. Discussions and negotiations with the company could take months, and VDOT will hold several public hearings on the idea as part of the environmental study. Anything Virginia decides must be approved by the federal government. But Shucet's comments reflect growing support for the HOT lanes concept in the Washington region, where elected leaders have been unable to find solutions to traffic congestion. Last year, voters in Northern Virginia turned down a proposal to increase the sales tax by a half-cent to raise $5 billion for road and transit projects. With transportation departments strapped for cash, some officials say charging user fees -- tolls -- may represent one of the few solutions left. Earlier this year, Virginia transportation officials applied to the federal government for $1 million to study the HOT lanes concept. Virginia is still waiting for grant approval. Maryland, which in 2001 canceled a study of the idea for Route 50, is taking a new look at HOT lanes on Interstate 270. Officials in Fairfax are generally supportive of the idea for moving people across the county. The Board of Supervisors voted unanimously last year to urge VDOT to study the idea. Fairfax Supervisor Gerald E. Connolly (D-Providence), who is running for chairman of the county board, was an early proponent of HOT lanes. He said today that the idea has enormous promise. It absolutely merits a serious, in-depth look. The GOP nominee, Mychele Brickner, a member of the School Board, said she supports the idea of HOT lanes but worries about the impact of widening the Beltway. I'm a little less sure about trying them there, she said. It may be easier to try them in a place where we already have the space to do it. Jim Wamsley, a member of the board of the Fairfax Coalition for Smarter Growth, said his group opposes HOT lanes as just another road-widening project. He said VDOT should turn its attention to building a light-rail system that can bring people from Springfield to Tysons Corner. What we need to do is get busy on the Metro capital improvement program, he said. Gary Groat, a spokesman for Fluor Daniel, said the company can build the extra four lanes without having to destroy more than 10 homes in the process. And he said the project could be built quickly, opening within five to six years after a final decision is made. They can do that, he said, by spending little or no money to build bigger interchanges, a key part of VDOT's original $3.2 billion widening plans. We are living within our means and putting our money where the congestion is at -- on the mainline, not the interchanges, Groat said. Shucet said HOT lanes would allow Fairfax to offer express bus service across the county. Currently, buses use other routes because Beltway traffic is unpredictable. We have a transportation problem for which there
US-EU trade squabbles redux
US and Europe on brink of trade war WTO says Bush's steel tariffs break rules · Brussels threatens to retaliate unless Washington backs down Andrew Osborn in Brussels and Larry Elliott Saturday July 12, 2003 The Guardian The European Union and the United States were teetering on the brink of a transatlantic trade war last night after Brussels threatened a $2.2bn package of sanctions unless Washington scrapped steel tariffs ruled illegal by the World Trade Organisation yesterday. Brussels claimed victory in its fight to force President George Bush to drop measures aimed at shoring up his political support in America's industrial heartlands, but the US said it would appeal against the decision. The world's two biggest trading blocks are already at loggerheads over Europe's anti-GM foods regime and America's tax breaks for multinationals. Yesterday's ruling comes as EU and US negotiators are attempting to settle their differences in the global trade liberalisation talks. A WTO disputes panel said American import tariffs of up to 30% on foreign steel could not be justified under global trade rules and that they should be abandoned as soon as possible. Within minutes, the European commission said it would seek to hit pre-selected US products with retaliatory tariffs worth up to $2.2bn (£1.3bn) a year unless Washington dismantled its offending steel tariffs within five days. If and when the US does not comply with this ruling, the EU will impose counter measures, said Arancha Gonzalez, a spokeswoman for EU trade commissioner Pascal Lamy. She said the sanctions, if used, would hit US steel products, textiles and fruit and vegetables. We would like to urge the United States to look at the wider picture - all the world's steel exporters are telling them to remove these tariffs. This is not just a partial victory - it is a full victory. The US has been caught red-handed. The WTO appeared to side with the EU and fellow complainants Japan, Korea, China, Switzerland, Norway, New Zealand and Brazil on every front. The trade watchdog said the US tariffs, announced by President Bush last March, were in breach of global trade rules in every category. The US had argued they were necessary to help America's steel industry recover from a wave of cheap Asian and European imports, but the WTO said it had found little evidence to show foreign imports had dramatically increased. Washington also contended that its hand had been forced by sudden and unforeseen circumstances, but again the WTO disagreed. Nor did it concur US steel producers had suffered any major economic injury because of alleged floods of foreign imports. US trade representative spokesman Richard Mills said: Where the panel found against the United States, we disagree, and we will appeal. In the meantime, the steel safeguard measures will remain in place. Washington now has 60 days to appeal the ruling, and may delay doing so until the last moment in an attempt to defuse some of the tension ahead of the WTO ministerial meeting in Cancun, Mexico, in September. Ms Gonzalez struck one conciliatory note when she said the commission remained ready, despite the dispute, to work constructively with the US and the OECD to tackle what she called the real problems affecting the US steel industry - global overcapacity and domestic subsidies. To rub salt in Washington's wounds, the WTO also stated that an American decision to exclude preferred trading partners Canada, Mexico, Israel and Jordan from the offending tariffs flew in the face of its rules.
