Re: Klebnikov
The Chechen resistance movement is an outgrowth of the Chechen Mafia. Nukhayev is a former mobster who has been in and out of prison since the 1970s. The Mafia and the oligarchs are not exactly unacquainted. Read Klebnikov's book on Berezovsky (Godfather of the Kremlin)! It's all in there. --- Michael was just asking how the Russian oligarchs would go about making use of Chechen freedom fighters; my point was only that, in general, there is a surprisingly efficient global community of violent men and no particular instance of thugs of two kinds working together ought to necessarily be regarded as surprising. The Korea-Birmingham(UK) connection was the subject of an episode of Panorama a couple of weeks ago, which is why it stuck in my mind. NB that the Official IRA is not the same thing as the Provisional IRA which put the bombs in pubs (and neither is the same as the Real IRA which is the only currently active nationalist terrorist group), and that the Officials have been basically dormant since the 1980s. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Fool Me Once . . . : Race, Class, and Betrayal
'Fool Me Once . . . ': Race, Class, and Betrayal: http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/07/fool-me-once-race-class-and-betrayal.html -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Africa should not pay its debts - Jeffrey Sachs
From: Daniel Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have not followed Sachs closely in most recent times but I think he would strongly object to being called a 'man of the left'. maybe I was being too charitable on this point ... I'd say he's a man of the left in the same sense in which Brad DeLong is ... [In other words, a man of the left as perceived by someone who needs a hit of clozapine. Here, chosen at random, is a recent selection from Brad-the-Celebrated Lefty's windy blog:] It may be because Barbara Ehrenreich is a typical voice of the American left that it will in all probability be a waste of ink and paper to put her on the Times op-ed page, but a waste of ink and paper it will most likely be. I agree that Barbara Ehrenreich is a very smart and graceful writer, a keen analyst of American culture and society--she is worth, say, ten of David Brooks. But her brand of left-wing politics is an infantile disorder. [More, much more, at: http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/] Carl Well, Sachs writes better than DeLong, with much fewer cliches. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
absolute general law of capitalist accumulation
Thanks for your comment, Gil. Please excuse a layperson's question, but I have never quite been able to understand this economist's use of secular. What is the definition of secular. Charles by Gil Skillman You could certainly point to recent economic phenomena supporting an affirmative answer to this question. E.g., in the US, the fact that significant increases in productivity have helped make it possible for capitalist firms to make do with their existing workforces rather than increasing employment in proportion to the increase in national output. However, I'd argue that such changes, where they occur, are not *secular* as Marx's general law requires. Specifically: Marx understands his law to apply to the situation of developed capitalist economies. His statement of the law implies secularly or tendentially increasing rates of poverty and unemployment in such economies. I don't think we've seen secularly increasing rates of poverty and unemployment in developed capitalist economies (though I'd be interested to hear others' assessments of the long-run trends for these phenomena), despite overall population growth and consequent increases in the size of the working class. -clip-
Re: absolute general law of capitalist accumulation
as opposed to cyclical. It's a statistical concept at base; the idea is that if you were able to perfectly control for the business cycle then what you'd be left with is the secular trend. dd -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Charles Brown Sent: 12 July 2004 13:47 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: absolute general law of capitalist accumulation Thanks for your comment, Gil. Please excuse a layperson's question, but I have never quite been able to understand this economist's use of secular. What is the definition of secular. Charles by Gil Skillman You could certainly point to recent economic phenomena supporting an affirmative answer to this question. E.g., in the US, the fact that significant increases in productivity have helped make it possible for capitalist firms to make do with their existing workforces rather than increasing employment in proportion to the increase in national output. However, I'd argue that such changes, where they occur, are not *secular* as Marx's general law requires. Specifically: Marx understands his law to apply to the situation of developed capitalist economies. His statement of the law implies secularly or tendentially increasing rates of poverty and unemployment in such economies. I don't think we've seen secularly increasing rates of poverty and unemployment in developed capitalist economies (though I'd be interested to hear others' assessments of the long-run trends for these phenomena), despite overall population growth and consequent increases in the size of the working class. -clip-
The latest good reason to vote for Nader
Brad DeLong: An Infantile Disorder Timothy Noah has fallen in love with Barbara Ehrenreich: Chatterbox: ...Barbara Ehrenreich has established herself as the Times's best columnist. This is, of course, a snap judgment, but Ehrenreich has long been one of the most eloquent voices on the left, which, as distinct from liberalism, has not had much access to the mainstream press for many years. The Bush administration has revitalized the left, making it necessary for the rest of usliberals like Chatterbox as well as conservativesto keep abreast of what it's saying The Times op-ed page desperately needs her mature voice, her sharp mind, and the challenge her ideas pose to the common wisdom... I say, God, no! and PUH-LEEZE!! It may be because Barbara Ehrenreich is a typical voice of the American left that it will in all probability be a waste of ink and paper to put her on the Times op-ed page, but a waste of ink and paper it will most likely be. I agree that Barbara Ehrenreich is a very smart and graceful writer, a keen analyst of American culture and society--she is worth, say, ten of David Brooks. But her brand of left-wing politics is an infantile disorder. Left-wing politics is, for her, primarily a means of self-expression. The point is not to actually do anything to make the United States or the world a better place--not to actually help people make better lives for themselves by improving the enforcement of the Fair Labor Standards Act or to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit or to raise the minimum wage or to improve Medicaid coverage. The point, by contrast, is to assume an appropriate oppositional stance, and to feel good about oneself. Witness her argument that what upper and upper-middle class American women should do is to fire their nannies in order to avoid their children growing up with the world's class and racial hierarchies stamped on their emerging little world views--thus depriving relatively poor women of jobs and opportunities they found it worthwhile to grasp. If you genuinely worry, as you should, about the wages and working conditions of relatively poor women today, your first action item should not be to urge others to decrease demand for their labor. But let's let Barbara Ehrenreich speak for herself, in her command to all correctly-thinking people to vote for Ralph Nader that she made four years ago: Barbara Ehrenreich (2000), Vote for Nader! The Nation (August 21-8), p. 33: It must be some playful new postmodernist form of politics: First you spend years ranting about the plutocracy that has supplanted American democracy and is rapidly devouring the planet. You complain about the growing numbers of Americans who can't afford healthcare or housing; you rant about the inadequacy of wages and the arrogance of the corporate overclass. then, just as large numbers of people start tuning in and even getting excited to the point of supporting the one presidential candidate who's making the exact same points you've been trying to get across all this time--you whip around and shout, Only kidding, folks. Get out there and vote for Gore! full: http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/001173.html -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
The different domestic agendas of Tweedledum and Tweedledee
(An interesting recent piece by the NYTs Louis Uchitelle on the differing domestic programmes of the Republicans and Democrats. Their respective positions on health care, labour rights, tax policy, trade, and pensions mirror the same differences which divide social democratic and conservative parties in the English-speaking world, continental Europe, and elsewhere. Of course, we've learned to take the promises of the centre-left Democrats and their companion social democratic parties with a large bucket of salt because they are mostly unable to deliver on them. This is primarily because the conservative party, as at present in the US, either controls the legislature or, ultimately and more decisively, because there always looms beyond that the threat of a capital strike by the markets if there is a serious effort at reform. That's the likely fate of Kerry's health care promise -- the jewel of his economic plan -- as was the case earlier under Clinton. It's only when there there is countervailing pressure from below during periods of systemic instability that the possibility of a different outcome presents itself, and the subjective factors presently much emphasized by the left, like the quality of leadership, come into play.) --- It's the Economy, Right? Guess Again By Louis Uchitelle New York Times July 4, 2004 Through months of campaigning, Senator John Kerry has presented himself as a centrist on economic policy, a New Democrat directly out of the Clinton mold. He has pledged to cut the deficit, move the country toward budget surpluses and recreate the booming economy of the Clinton years. As if to underscore the point, he has recruited most of his economic advisers from the former president's administration. But centrism is an easier position to maintain when the economy is in trouble, as it seemed to be in the early days of the campaign. Back then, Mr. Kerry could convincingly denounce President Bush as a miserable manager of the American economy. That argument is harder to make now that a stronger economy has been generating jobs, although at a slower rate in June. So Mr. Kerry is talking more boldly about policy. Of course, the centrism still comes through loud and clear in speeches and in interviews. But in the heat of the policy debate, deficit reduction appears to be taking a back seat to what is easily Mr. Kerry's most significant economic proposal: an expensive expansion of government-financed health insurance. He says he would subsidize health insurance for millions of people not covered now. That is the jewel of his economic plan. An omnibus health insurance bill would be the first legislation sent to Congress in a Kerry presidency, he says. But while the centrist Kerry still advocates shrinking the budget deficit, a bolder Kerry, less noticeable so far in the campaign rhetoric, adds that if the deficit threatens to rise rather than fall, well, so be it - he'll go ahead with his health plan anyway. Health care is sacrosanct, Mr. Kerry said in a telephone interview, offering the most explicit commitment to date to a program that he estimates would cost $650 billion. That is an amount greater than the cost of all his other economic proposals combined. Listen, he said, if worse comes to worst, you make adjustments accordingly in other priorities. And not in health care? Mr. Kerry says that he will not have to face that choice, and that in his overall economic plan there is leeway for deficit reduction and expanded, subsidized health insurance. But if a choice has to be made, deficit reduction will have less priority. Health care is too important, he said. For Mr. Kerry, who has promised to cut the budget deficit in half in four years as president, sticking his neck out on subsidized health insurance seems a shrewd shift in tactics, if not a defensive one. That is because it is tougher to blame President Bush for a bad economy when the economy has improved. Once he could charge that the president was presiding over more than two million lost jobs and would become the first president since Hoover to end his term with fewer Americans at work than when he took office. Now the odds are rising that the president may squeak through with as many jobs at the end of his term as at the start, or almost as many. JOB creation began to surge in February, just as Mr. Kerry was pushing the Hoover comparison in the early primaries. As of Friday, when the Labor Department announced employment numbers for June, the cumulative job loss since Mr. Bush took office in January 2001 was down to 1.1 million, less than half of the 2.6 million jobs that had disappeared as of last August, when employment finally began to turn up, slowly at first and then more rapidly. In response, Mr. Kerry has switched his emphasis to job quality from jobs lost - specifically, to the harder to demonstrate but apparently accurate claim that the new jobs pay less, on balance, than the ones that
Re: absolute general law of capitalist accumulation
From: Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks for your comment, Gil. Please excuse a layperson's question, but I have never quite been able to understand this economist's use of secular. What is the definition of secular. Please excuse a layperson's answer: Secular is a trend without end. Carl _ Get fast, reliable Internet access with MSN 9 Dial-up now 2 months FREE! http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/
Re: recovery fading
at this point, if there's a second dip to the recession, it's likely that Kerry will get the blame (assuming he's elected). Even if he's not elected, Bushmen will probably blame him for undermining faith in the Chief. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine From: PEN-L list on behalf of Michael Perelman Sent: Sun 7/11/2004 9:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L] recovery fading The New York Times is suggesting that the Bush boom might be fizzling. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/12/business/12slow.html -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: absolute general law of capitalist accumulation
Hello, Charles. Secular meaning over a long period of time. As dd points out, economists usually use this in the sense of as opposed to cyclical. Gil Thanks for your comment, Gil. Please excuse a layperson's question, but I have never quite been able to understand this economist's use of secular. What is the definition of secular. Charles by Gil Skillman You could certainly point to recent economic phenomena supporting an affirmative answer to this question. E.g., in the US, the fact that significant increases in productivity have helped make it possible for capitalist firms to make do with their existing workforces rather than increasing employment in proportion to the increase in national output. However, I'd argue that such changes, where they occur, are not *secular* as Marx's general law requires. Specifically: Marx understands his law to apply to the situation of developed capitalist economies. His statement of the law implies secularly or tendentially increasing rates of poverty and unemployment in such economies. I don't think we've seen secularly increasing rates of poverty and unemployment in developed capitalist economies (though I'd be interested to hear others' assessments of the long-run trends for these phenomena), despite overall population growth and consequent increases in the size of the working class. -clip-
Audio transcript of Nader-Dean debate
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3262027 -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Party animals
Special interests carve out place in convention July 12, 2004 BY LYNN SWEET Chicago Sun-Times Washington Bureau Chief Advertisement WASHINGTON -- Special interests -- corporations, labor unions and causes -- are bankrolling lush parties at the Democratic National Convention in order to buy access to public officials who gather in Boston in late July to nominate John Kerry for president. (clip) Though the convention is about nominating a president, almost every Democratic member of Congress will attend the political trade show of shows. Here are some more events designed with lawmakers in mind: *The Distilled Spirits Council of the United States is throwing a post-convention party at a club near the Fleet Center, where the convention is being held, to honor Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) *General Motors Acceptance Corp. is hosting a brunch for lawmakers to honor Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.). *JP Morgan Chase and the Goldman Sachs Group have invited all the members of the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee to an afternoon of seafood, jazz and fun.'' *Another financial firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers, is throwing a reception honoring House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and the whip team with cocktails and a delicious summer menu.'' *Rep. Danny Davis (D-Ill.) who is an influential member when it comes to postal service issues, is being feted by Deutsche Post, the company with a controlling interest in DHL International, which competes with the U.S. Postal Service. Davis said there was not really anything'' he had to vote on that was directly Deutsche Post-related and he agreed to front the function because the company wanted to make sure'' it had a presence at the convention. *House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is being honored at a reception sponsored by the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers. *The Congressional Black Caucus has a stream of corporate-sponsored events, including the American Gaming Association sponsoring a hospitality suite open from 10:30 a.m. to 2 a.m. at Boston's Sheraton Hotel. Norfolk Southern and Burlington Northern Santa Fe is paying for a lunch to honor the black caucus. An ecumenical prayer service is being underwritten by Constellation Energy. Other events for the caucus are on the tab of the Edison Electric Institute, Johnson Johnson (with a Boston Harbor cruise) and Lockheed Martin. *A major lobbying firm, Patton Boggs, is teaming up with MassMutual financial group to throw a late-night cocktail and buffet supper in honor of the Massachusetts Congressional Delegation. *Habitat for Humanity, which builds homes for poor people, is staging a build during the convention and asking lawmakers to help -- in an event sponsored by Dow Chemical Company, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Mortgage Bankers Association. full: http://www.suntimes.com/output/sweet/cst-nws-prez12.html -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Spam fraud moves up a notch
Not to be confused with Paul Volcker, former chairman of the Fed Board of Govs. -- mbs Subject: Spam fraud moves up a notch Usually I get requests from the families of disgraced dictators. Now look who writes me. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Assistance from you Office of the Chairman The Independent Committee of Eminent Persons 20 rue de Candolle (3rd Floor), 1205 Geneva, Switzerland email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]www.icep-iaep.org : web My name is Paul A. Volker . . .
Re: recovery fading
Jim wrote: at this point, if there's a second dip to the recession, it's likely that Kerry will get the blame (assuming he's elected). Even if he's not elected, Bushmen will probably blame him for undermining faith in the Chief. ...and his Office...and the US Labor and Commerce Departments... Well, the US Labor Department's announcement on Friday that the new US job creation figure --more than half, again, low-paid temporary positions -- for June was less than half of what was expected, and all that despite the fact the estimated figures were already revised downwards from previous months! Bush is fast approaching the distinction of being the first president since Herbert Hoover to have seen the actual number of jobs fall during his presidency. The US Commerce Department has also revised downwards its estimate of first quarter growth from 4.4 to 3.9 per cent, as a result of lower exports (and higher imports). Now all that coupled with rising gasoline prices and interest rates, I anticipate more and more downward revisions for growth and job creation. An economic recovery indeed. Diane
US under fire at AIDS conference
US under fire at AIDS conference Activists, officials clash on purchase of generic drugs By John Donnelly The Boston Globe July 12, 2004 BANGKOK -- The 15th International AIDS Conference opened yesterday with scenes of tension, repeatedly pitting the Bush administration against activists and top global AIDS officials over the purchase of generic antiretroviral drugs for poor countries. The US government -- by far the largest donor fighting AIDS around the world -- authorized earlier this year the spending of hundreds of millions of dollars on AIDS treatments for 15 poor countries. But it has put on hold the purchase of any generic drugs until the US Food and Drug Administration undertakes its own review of the copycat medicines. While the administration believes the reviews could be done in six weeks, activists worry that the delays could stretch for months or longer. If that happens, they say, dramatically fewer AIDS patients will receive treatment, perhaps just one-third of those who could have taken the generic medicines. Stephen Lewis, the special UN envoy on AIDS in Africa, said in a speech that the Bush administration, by waiting for the FDA reviews, was conducting a ''not-so-subtle attempt to derail the World Health Organization's own review of the efficacy of generic combinations. Although US officials ''say they will purchase generic drugs, the fact is those monies are now being used if not entirely, then mostly, for brand-name drugs, Lewis said. ''We are spending two to three times the cost to treat people at a time when dollars are scarce. The conference, which has attracted an estimated 20,000 delegates from around the world, also featured an opening address by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who called on world leaders to take much stronger action in preventing the spread of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Annan also drew attention to the ever-increasing numbers of young women who are contracting the virus. A UNAIDS report released last week found that in sub-Saharan Africa among the age group of 15- to 24-year-olds, three times as many young women were infected than young men. The report estimated that in some African countries, such as Mali and Kenya, for every 10 boys and young men infected, 45 girls and young women were infected. Annan called that a ''terrifying pattern for girls and young women. He told more than 11,000 delegates attending the opening ceremonies that much more effort should be put toward empowering women and girls to protect themselves against older men. ''Society's inequalities puts them at risk -- unjust, unconscionable risk, he said to applause. ''A range of factors conspires to make this so: poverty, abuse, and violence, lack of information, coercion by older men, and men having several concurrent sexual relationships that entrap young women in a giant network of infection. Annan said men must change their sexual behavior. He called on leaders to free ''boys and men from some of the cultural stereotypes and expectations that they may be trapped in -- such as the belief that men who don't show their wives 'who's boss at home' are not real men, or that coming into manhood means having your sexual initiation with a sex worker when you are 13 years old. As in past conferences, activists became a major presence immediately in Bangkok: staging a march to demand greater access to antiretroviral drugs; jeering Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra of Thailand during his opening address for his country's crackdowns on drug users, a population with high rates of HIV infection; and challenging the US global AIDS coordinator, Randall Tobias, during a news conference. Tobias told reporters the US policy was to ''buy the least expensive drugs we could find without regard to brand-name, generics, or copied drugs, as long as we could be assured the medicines were ''top quality. ''We should not have two standards of treatment -- good in the Western world and good enough elsewhere, he said. At the beginning of the briefing, Tobias telegraphed that he anticipated a challenge from activists. Two years earlier at the previous international AIDS conference in Barcelona, activists drowned out a speech by US Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson, who chose not to attend the Bangkok meeting. Tobias said yesterday that he hoped activists and others would ''leave whatever agendas at the door, but 20 minutes into his briefing, an activist told him protesters wanted to meet with Tobias to accept a petition demanding treatment for all. Tobias refused. ''I'm not sure I want to help you generate a media event, he said. A second activist, Jerome Martin of Act Up-Paris, shouted at Tobias: ''You are not coming, sir? This is a shame. Tens of thousands of people are dying, and you will not meet with us? The briefing ended minutes later. But demonstrators were not the only ones voicing concern over US policies on generic drugs. Richard Feachem, executive director of the
The `Ubuntu' of globalization
The `Ubuntu' of globalization The Boston Globe By Julian Hewitt July 12, 2004 IN SOUTH AFRICA, we have a term, Ubuntu, which refers to the spirit of the community. It is a shortened version of a South African saying that comes from the Xhosa culture: Umuntu ngumuntu ngamuntu. This means that I am a person through other people. It means that my humanity is tied to yours. This is probably the single most important aspect of living in a highly connected planet: Our humanity is tied together. We must respect each other, and we must always keep our interconnection in mind. The United States needs to understand the meaning of these South African phrases more than any other industrialized nation. The ultimate global power, the United States creates ripples that cause big waves around the world. This happens more frequently than the average American comprehends. When Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan cuts interest rates by a quarter of a percentage point, it has a huge impact on me in South Africa. Straight away it influences my still sizable student loan, as the South African financial markets react to this news by preempting a cut or a hike by the South African Reserve Bank in response to rate changes in the United States. Ripples run through the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, and dollars will either be cheaper or more expensive for me to buy. In short, globalization enables Greenspan's small action relative to US markets to have a large effect on me 13,000 miles away in South Africa. Imagine how many other powerful decisions resonate with me as a citizen of South Africa. When the United States refuses to sign the Kyoto Protocol, it decreases the quality of the air I breathe in Johannesburg and forces me to apply a few more layers of sunscreen in the summer. When the USA attacks Iraq, it heightens the religious animosity between the large Muslim and Christian communities living near Cape Town, creating security risks and tension. Hollywood movies, music, multinationals, foreign policy, farming subsidies, and import tariffs have a similar effect. These endless ripples are reaching my distant shore. As I spend time in the United States, however, I am discovering some startling realities. Despite the critical role of the United States in world affairs, for example, many US citizens do not hold passports. They have traveled to many states but not to any other countries. They would be hard pressed to point out South Africa on a map. On a recent trip to New York, I picked up three local newspapers: The New York Times, the New York Post, and AM New York, a free newspaper. I counted the number of international articles per page. The Times produced what I consider to be an appropriate number of international stories: one article on every fourth page. The two other newspapers had almost no international articles, aside from a few relating to Iraq. This obviously was not a scientific study, but I think it was a fairly typical news day. The average American gets little information about what is happening in the world or about the role of the United States in world events. An even bigger concern is that a large percentage of those who read tabloid newspapers in the United States comprise a considerable and influential voting bloc that has, among other things, elected the current American government. Twenty or 30 years ago, there would be nothing wrong with an American who never left home, never owned a passport, never spoke a second language, never knew the capital of Denmark. But we live in a globalized world. We live in a world of causes and effects. We live in a world where a single superpower has an overwhelming influence on global affairs. Today, there is hypocrisy: The United States plays the key role in our globalized society, but its citizens are not globalized. Holding such a position of global influence without having a global worldview is not just naive, it is dangerous. It is dangerous to be the source of global ripples but to ignore their effect. Over time, those ripples may cause waves that will slap back on your shores. Julian Hewitt is a 2004 Clinton Democracy Fellow from South Africa and is the president of AIESEC South Africa, a student-run organization that operates in 88 countries and is focused on developing global change-agents. .
Re: US under fire at AIDS conference
How can you defeat an alliance of Christian fundamentalists and the drug companies? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: US under fire at AIDS conference
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:01:11AM -0700, Michael Perelman wrote: How can you defeat an alliance of Christian fundamentalists and the drug companies? This is off topic but: --- qoutes --- If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document. Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry. Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology. Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy, München. --- end --- I am not a scientist, but statements like these make me wonder about the whole AIDS thing.
Re: US under fire at AIDS conference
From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] How can you defeat an alliance of Christian fundamentalists and the drug companies? [Or for that matter, how do you defeat an alliance of drug companies and free-trade advocates?] Trade Pact May Undercut Inexpensive Drug Imports By ELIZABETH BECKER and ROBERT PEAR WASHINGTON, July 11 Congress is poised to approve an international trade agreement that could have the effect of thwarting a goal pursued by many lawmakers of both parties: the import of inexpensive prescription drugs to help millions of Americans without health insurance. The agreement, negotiated with Australia by the Bush administration, would allow pharmaceutical companies to prevent imports of drugs to the United States and also to challenge decisions by Australia about what drugs should be covered by the country's health plan, the prices paid for them and how they can be used. It represents the administration's model for strengthening the protection of expensive brand-name drugs in wealthy countries, where the biggest profits can be made. In negotiating the pact, the United States, for the first time, challenged how a foreign industrialized country operates its national health program to provide inexpensive drugs to its own citizens. Americans without insurance pay some of the world's highest prices for brand-name prescription drugs, in part because the United States does not have such a plan. Only in the last few weeks have lawmakers realized that the proposed Australia trade agreement the Bush administration's first free trade agreement with a developed country could have major implications for health policy and programs in the United States. ... http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/12/politics/12DRUGready.html Carl _ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
Re: US under fire at AIDS conference
That is why the drug companies are not happy with the conference, which wants access to cheap drugs. On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 06:26:06PM +0100, Daniel Davies wrote: OTOH, although this is an interesting scientific question, it has surprisingly few political implications. Although there are differences of opinion on how they work, the brute fact of the matter is that antiretroviral drugs do in fact work for AIDS patients, and nothing else does. So for the time being the only important political question revolves around preventing the global economic system from standing between the drugs and the people who need them. dd -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dmytri Kleiner Sent: 12 July 2004 18:01 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: US under fire at AIDS conference On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:01:11AM -0700, Michael Perelman wrote: How can you defeat an alliance of Christian fundamentalists and the drug companies? This is off topic but: --- qoutes --- If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document. Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry. Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology. Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy, München. --- end --- I am not a scientist, but statements like these make me wonder about the whole AIDS thing. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: US under fire at AIDS conference
OTOH, although this is an interesting scientific question, it has surprisingly few political implications. Although there are differences of opinion on how they work, the brute fact of the matter is that antiretroviral drugs do in fact work for AIDS patients, and nothing else does. So for the time being the only important political question revolves around preventing the global economic system from standing between the drugs and the people who need them. dd -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dmytri Kleiner Sent: 12 July 2004 18:01 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: US under fire at AIDS conference On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:01:11AM -0700, Michael Perelman wrote: How can you defeat an alliance of Christian fundamentalists and the drug companies? This is off topic but: --- qoutes --- If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document. Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry. Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology. Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy, München. --- end --- I am not a scientist, but statements like these make me wonder about the whole AIDS thing.
Re: US under fire at AIDS conference
That is why the drug companies are not happy with the conference, which wants access to cheap drugs. They are also tired of the whole pro-abstinence/anti-condom line. Joel Wendland http://classwarnotes.blogspot.com _ MSN 9 Dial-up Internet Access helps fight spam and pop-ups now 2 months FREE! http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/
Re: US under fire at AIDS conference
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 06:26:06PM +0100, Daniel Davies wrote: OTOH, although this is an interesting scientific question, it has surprisingly few political implications. Although there are differences of opinion on how they work, the brute fact of the matter is that antiretroviral drugs do in fact work for AIDS patients, and nothing else does. Hmm, even on the surface I have problem accepting a scientific explanation because it just works but can not be theoreticly explained. Of course, their are also those who deny that it works at all: --- Quote --- I have a large population of people who have chosen not to take any antiretrovirals, says Donald Abrams, M.D., director of the AIDS program at San Francisco General Hospital. They've watched all their friends go on the antiviral bandwagon and die. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1995 showed that one of the things that long-term AIDS survivors had in common was that they didn't take antiretroviral drugs. [...] Trying to cure diseases by focusing on the development of toxic pharmaceutical drugs aimed at killing the viruses associated with them will ultimately make us all more vulnerable to new diseases. President Bush recently pledged an additional $200 million in AIDS funding over the next two years. Global activists think that the U.S. should contribute $2.5 billion. Without a paradigm shift in the way we approach AIDS, however, this money will not only be wasted, but could do more harm than good. -- HIV and AIDS: Myths vs. medicine, Burton Goldberg --- End Quote ---
Re: US under fire at AIDS conference
Dmytri K. writes: I have problem accepting a scientific explanation because it just works but can not be theoreticly explained is it true that the HIV -- AIDS link isn't theoretically explained? Or is it that some disagree with this explanation? The latter is very common concerning matters that are usually seen as theoretically explained but is part of the process of developing better theory. jd
Re: US under fire at AIDS conference
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 11:28:22AM -0700, Devine, James wrote: Dmytri K. writes: I have problem accepting a scientific explanation because it just works but can not be theoreticly explained is it true that the HIV -- AIDS link isn't theoretically explained? Or is it that some disagree with this explanation? The latter is very common concerning matters that are usually seen as theoretically explained but is part of the process of developing better theory. Hi James, from an activist prospective I am deeply scepticle about aids related activism, however, since I'm not an expert on this subject, all I can do is forward you to http://www.virusmyth.net where you will find a lot of qoutes like these: HIV does not cause AIDS. There is no scientific evidence that HIV can kill infected T4 cells. The true problem is that the leaders of the HIV hypothesis have been ignoring important medical facts and are blindly attributing AIDS to the HIV virus. It is very sad and frustrating to know that the AIDS establishment are giving highly toxic drugs such as AZT to pregnant women even with studies that show the depression in the immune system can be reversed by nutrition. Prescribing anti-viral drugs to AIDS patients is like putting gasoline on a fire -- Dr. Mohammad Ali Al-Bayati, Toxicologist and Pathologist, California AIDS has been a disease of definition. If we said that it didn't exist and didn't pay for it with taxpayers' money, it would disappear in the background of normal mortality. -- Dr. Charles Thomas, Molecular Biologist and former Harvard and Johns Hopkins Professor The result of my intensive literature research shows that so far not one publication exists, in which is being described that HIV has been isolated, purified, and charaterized by the criteria of classical virology. -- Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology. Former Director of the Department of Viroid Research, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy, München. Robert Koch Award 1978. The sentence of death accompanying the medical diagnosis of AIDS should be abolished. -- Dr. Alfred Hässig, Emeritus Professor in Immunology at the University of Bern, former Director Swiss Red Cross blood banks. The marketing of HIV, through press releases and statements, as a killer virus causing AIDS without the need for any other factors, has so distorted research and treatment that it may have caused thousands of people to suffer and die. -- Dr. Joseph Sonnabend, New York Physician When AIDS patients' bodies finally break down from the effects of these anti-viral drugs, they say, 'Now the virus has become resistant, and the drugs have lost their effectiveness.' What really is happening is the toxicity of the drugs builds up to a point where the patient cannot stand it anymore. And, of course, they say it was the virus -- rather than the entirely inevitable and predictable toxicity of these damned drugs. -- Dr. Peter Duesberg, Professor of Molecular Biology University of Berkely
Re: absolute general law of capitalist accumulation
Charles Brown writes: I appreciate what you are saying about Marx qualifying his statement. I believe all social scientific empirical generalizations are less than 100% true ( including the one I am making here ? Reflexivity alert :)). This sentence that I type now isn't true. I wonder whether the use of the term absolute is some type of rhetorical advice to emphasize , what ? That this generalization or tendency is strong ? He of course uses law of the tendency with respect to the rate of profit falling, and discusses countervailing tendencies right there ( in Vol.III). Maybe the use of absolute here is not significant. As I said, I think the word probably means abstract, but I'd have to consult a Hegel expert. Unfortunately, Marx decided to play with the use of Hegelian language in CAPITAL. This has put off and/or confused a lot of readers, while creating a sector of academics (not all working in colleges) who dwell on the Hegelian mysticism of it all. I'm afraid that old Karlos was in love with jargon as much as many academics are. (Of course, among the econfolk, some people are in love with math more than with jargon.) I really posed one of my questions wrongly, because it is not an issue of looking at the trend since 1867 and showing a monotonic rise in official pauperism in the U.S. It is more finding , as you mention the tendency being displaced to sections of a more globally integrated economy, and then perhaps reasserting itself even in the U.S.. right. Is it reasserting itself in the U.S. ? I think Marx's wording leaves open that he is referring to absolute numbers of poor people, not relative numbers of poor people. Anyway, it would be important to show , if true, that _even in the U.S._ one of the richest countries the law is reasserting itself. In other words, I think we all see the application of the generalization by looking at a global economy and taking into account world poverty rather than only looking at the U.S. national economy. But if we can say that the generalization even has some current validity in the rich, U.S. economy, this would give significant, fresh credibility to Marx' theory. ... I don't think the absolute number of paupers is useful, since the population has increased and is increasing. I'd say that Marx's tendency has reasserted itself in the US since about 1980. the Federal government's official measure of poverty actually fell from 9.2% in 1979 to 8.7% of families in 2000 (between two business-cycle peaks). However, the downward trend of official poverty from 1959 or so _ended_ in the 1970s and started upward for quite awhile. (Numbers come from http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/famindex.html.) Further, over the long haul, the poverty rate isn't worth much. Poverty is defined by an income level that assumes that 1/3 of a family's budget goes to food. That seems more and more obsolete (even though the poverty level is increased as money loses value due to inflation), since these day's it's housing which is swallowing the lion's share. The rise of poverty rates after 2000 (to 9.6% in 2002) might indicate that in 2000, even officially-defined poverty was too low for capitalism's health. That is, the business-cycle downturn after 2000 may have followed Marx's volume I scenario of low unemployment squeezing profits and encouraging slow-downs. Another way to measure poverty is in terms of relative poverty, i.e., the percentage of the families (or the population or the households) that are below some measure of how high an income is needed to attain a middle class life-style. For example, one could use a measure like 60% of the median income as the cut-off. I don't have the statistics here. But Doug Henwood writes A more honest count of the poor - one either based on an updated market basket (rather than the 1955 or 1960 one today's line is based on) or figured on a poverty line measured against average incomes rather than a fixed standard from long ago (like, say, setting the poverty line at half the average income, which would push the line up to $19,250 for two people or $26,852 for four, 90% and 67% higher than official levels) - would yield a poverty rate almost twice the present level, in the 20-25% range in 1995. (see http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Stats_incpov.html.) The share of total income received by the poorest 1/5 of the families in 1975 was 5.6%, while in 2001 it was 4.2%. This indicates an increase in inequalty (also seen in other measures) and likely an increase in poverty defined in relative terms. In the Jan./Fed. issue of CHALLENGE, Caner and Wolff have another measure of poverty, based on people's net worth (NW) rather than income. (The official stats use income.) For them, asset poverty is defined as follows: A household or a person is considered to be asset-poor [net worth-poor] if the access they have to wealth-type
Query from a correspondent
For some inexplicable reason I am cyber-debating some American social democrat. He insists that the 1974-75 oil shock caused the US recession and (implicitly) US decline from hegemony and the good days. We three all disagree with each other on many questions but I *think* that we all agree that this theory is ridiculous. In his magnum opus that appeared in New Left Review in 1998, Brenner dismisses this argument out of hand by noting that the recession began in 1973 so the oil shock argument doesn't even make sense. He only spends one line on this though, dismissing it out of hand. Does anybody know any other good sources that don't use much dogmatic rhetoric? -- Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: US under fire at AIDS conference
Duesberg, whom you quote, is a Professor of Molecular Biology University of Berkeley, not a medical scientist. He, alone with a colleague of mine -- a historian who has become a conservative activist -- have been among a handful of people who argue that HIV does not cause AIDS, but that it is a product of the evil lifestyle that they lead. I do not find their work credible, but I'm not a medical scientist either. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Russia Steps in to Aid Banking Crisis
Russia Steps in to Aid Banking Crisis Mon Jul 12,11:06 AM ET By ALEX NICHOLSON, Associated Press Writer MOSCOW - After last week's run on one of Russia's biggest private banks and the near-collapse of a second, the Russian parliament and Central Bank stepped in to calm frightened depositors, a move that analysts said Monday was long overdue. Alfa Bank Russia's fifth largest by assets paid out some $200 million in just three days, while Guta Bank was forced to temporarily shut down its operations last week after clients withdrew $344 million in June. Already shaken by rumors that the Central Bank would review licenses as part of the higher transparency requirements of the mandatory deposit insurance system, the Central Bank's decision in May to pull the license of medium-sized Sodbiznesbank on allegations of money laundering set off panic throughout the sector. A sister bank of Sodbiznesbank soon collapsed. Bank managers circulated lists of suspect partners and stopped lending to one another leaving banks without vital liquidity. Over the weekend, Russia's lower house of parliament, the State Duma, whisked through emergency legislation guaranteeing deposits in failed banks of up to $3,350. The law, when it comes into effect in mid-August, will allow Sodbiznesbank depositors to get their money back since it is retroactive from December 2003. In addition, the Central Bank slashed mandatory reserve requirements last week, which is expected to give banks a cash injection of about $4.5 billion, which should be felt in the coming days. Peter Westin, chief economist at the Aton investment bank, said the government's involvement was a case of better late than never, but came after years of inaction in a sector where one-third of the banks have less than the 1 million euros charter capital required by law. How long the current problems would continue will depend on how depositors react to the new legislation and their sensitivity to rumors of doom and gloom on the market, Westin said. I hope this week will be decisive, said Pavel Medvedev, deputy chairman of the Duma's committee for credit organizations and financial markets. People will start to realize that they are protected. On Friday, state-owned Vneshtorgbank announced it would buy out Guta and use a $700 million credit line provided by the Central Bank to get it up and running in a week. Jilted depositors filled out paperwork Monday at Guta's branches to retrieve their savings. Payments should begin Thursday, Russia's NTV television reported. Meanwhile, Alfa Bank, which is still smarting from front-page coverage of a run on several of its branches, said that it had earmarked some $700 million to absorb the panic. Deputy CEO Andrei Kosogov slammed a media feeding-frenzy that he said had spurred the panic, promising a swift legal response. Economists and senior government officials have argued that there are no economic reasons for a repeat of the August 1998 banking crisis, when millions of ordinary Russian's lost their savings in the financial meltdown. But old wounds were soon reopened as media gave broad play to the crisis. The ones who took out their money were people with smaller savings, they rely on the media for their information, said Alfa Bank's Kosogov. The ones with more cash ask a few questions, make a few phone calls and calm down.
