Re: Economics and law
Kenneth Campbell writes: How about West and East Germany? Can't complain about different historical development. I think most might agree that there is a very different historical development between the parts of Germany that were east and west. Check it out. Pretty main stream. And, after the war, the east had a different trajectory, as well, based on need of the conquering powers. You seem to know history... help me out here... Which one of the two countries that has US in its acronym... which one lost about 25 million people in the war... and had cities bombed, occupied, dismantled, bombed again... I stand by the position that if you refuse to consider historical evidence and insist on speculating about what could happen in utopia: cop out. I say the same thing! Brother, we've found each other at last! Let's try one last time. The suggestion was made that a socialist economy will more highly value transportation safety than a capitalist economy. Every historical example I come up with to try and test the suggestion, you say is not an appropriate comparison. For example, you imply there is apparently something in the historical development of East Germany, as compared to West Germany, that would cause East Germany auto manufacturers not to value safety as much as their West German counterparts, even though the East Germans had a socialist economy and West Germany had a capitalist economy, but such fact has no relevance for the validity of the suggestion that socialist economies value safety more than capitalist economies. I am at a loss how to respond. How do you propose to test the hypothesis? Is there nothing relevant from 75 years of historical experience that will satisfy you? David Shemano
Re: Economics and law
Kenneth Campbell writes But I will take the bait. Show me what you have learned about eastern Germany and why that section of that country would be a tad less able to produce cars. (You can do it!) The issue is not whether East Germany, or any other socialist economy, was less able to produce a safe car. The issue is whether a socialist economy would value safety more so than a capitalist economy and implement those values. If true, I would assume that, at any level of development, there would be evidence that the finished product evidenced a relative level of safety concerns compared to other factors (style, cost, functionality, efficiency, etc.), and that relative importance compared to other factors could be compared to relative level of importance in a capitalist product. In the United States, Volvos have excellent reputations for safety. Let's assume that Volvos do reflect an increased importance of safety compared to other factors, as compared to other automobiles. Would that be because of the social relations and means of production in Sweden? Would that be because of a Swedish personality trait going back centuries? Would that be because of a random occurrence? If the former, it might support the argument. However, I don't see how, for instance, the Yugo or the Trabant, support the argument. I mean, is there any evidence that when the Trabants were being designed, the designers decided, based upon available resources, to sacrifice a certain level of functionality for safety, as compared to designers of a comparable car in a capitalist economy? I am no expert, but I think the opposite was probably true. And if so, why does that not refute the original hypothesis? David Shemano
Re: Economics and law
Charles Brown writes: Why is your personal opinion relevant? I mean, I am sure I can find somebody (Melvin P.?) who apparently highly values going 100. Therefore, your opinion is cancelled out. Now what do we do? ^ CB: Well, it's like why vote ? Your vote is only one in millions. How can it be relevant ? David Shemano's vote is going to cancel yours , so why vote ? In general, all we have here on email is opinions ,no ? For example, you recognized that opinions are readily expressed in this mediuam when you said to Michael Perelman: I don't have a strong opinion on whether regulation should be done by legislation or litigation -- it seems like a peripheral issue. Would your opinion have been relevant if you had one ? I knew my statement would cause a problem, but I think the point is valid. You, Charles Brown, subjectively value safety in such a manner that you think the speed limit should be 40 and not 70. I am not sure why your entirely subjective opinion translates into a rule for everybody else. It seems to me that cost/benefit analysis rule-making should ultimately be determined by something other than one person's subjective opinion. Why do you assume such facts for a socialist society? We have 75 years of experience with socialist inspired economies. Did they place a higher value on safety compared to comparable capitalist societies? ^ CB: Well, yea for automobile safety. The Soviet cars were like tanks, which , Justin mentioned, would be the direction that you would go to have safer cars. They had more mass transportation in the form of omnibuses, trains, trolleys than individualized units, as Melvin alluded to as a safer form, generally. Obviously, there can be train accidents too. Has anybody ever done a comparison of transportation deaths among countries? It might be interesting. Were they able to implement safety concerns more economically than comparable capitalist societies? ^ CB: Good question. I'm not sure how you would get a comparable capitalist society , but if you think my opinion on it is relevant, I'd say a comparable capitalist economy for the SU would be someplace like Brazil in some senses at some periods. It's hard because the Soviet Union (and all socialist inspired economies) had to put so much economic emphasis on military defense because capitalism was constantly invading them or threatening to nuke 'em. This throws off all ability to measure from Soviet and socialist inspired history what might be the benefits of a peaceful socialist development of a regime of safety from our own machines. Cop out. In my experience, there was one example of a socialist inspired car in the capitalist market: the Yugo. Case closed. It seems to me that safety increases in value as a society becomes wealthier, and the value is not correlated to the economic system itself. ^ CB What do you mean by safety increases in value ? I'm not sure human life is valued more highly as society gets wealthier. Death and injury by automobile accidents is the main cause of premature death in the U.S., isn't it ? Unless we live in Lake Wobegon, where all the children are above average, something has to be the main cause of premature deaths, right? What would you propose to be the main cause of premature deaths in lieu of auto accidents? David Shemano
Re: Economics and law
Regarding the Pinto, cost/benefit analysis, etc., what exactly is the issue? I mean, we know with certainty that a certain number of people are going to die each year from auto accidents. We also know that if we reduced the speed limit to 5 m.p.h. required all passengers to wear helmets, required safety designs used for race cars, etc., the deaths would all be eliminated. But we don't, because the costs of doing so would be astronomical, and most people seem prepared to assume certain risks in consideration for conveniences and benefits. So is the problem the concept of cost/benefit analysis, the improper implementation of cost/benefit analysis, or disagreement about what are costs and benefits? If you reject cost/benefit analysis, how could you ever decide whether any marginal rule should be accepted or rejected? Why does this issue have anything to do with capitalism/socialism -- would not these issues have to be addressed no matter how the society is organized? David Shemano
Re: Economics and law
Michael Perelman writes: David, the problem with the Pinto is that the government does not adequately regulate safety -- not even to the extent of making relevant information available -- so the regulation is left to the lawsuits -- a very inefficient way of doing things. A few bucks for a protective gasket would not have meant that much. In hindsight it was stupid, but very costly for a number of innocent people. I don't have a strong opinion on whether regulation should be done by legislation or litigation -- it seems like a peripheral issue. The fundamental issue is how the rule maker (whether bureaucrat, judge or jury) should determine whether the specific regulation/conduct is good/bad, and I don't see any rational alternative to cost/benefit analysis, because cost/benefit analysis is simply another way of saying there are competing values and tradeoffs in every decision that have to be addressed. For instance, safety is not an absolute value that takes precedence overy everything else. That is evidenced by how people actually live their lives, and that fact must be taken into consideration when determining appropriate rules. I realize that many people react instinctively to a doctrine that assumes deaths, places a monetary value on human life, but instinctive distate is not a very compelling objection. David Shemano
Re: Economics and law
Charles Brown writes: Myself, I think the benefit of reducing the speed limit substantially ( maybe not to 5 miles per hour), and more safety features of the type you mention would be worth it in the lives and injuries saved, and the cost would not be astronomical given what would be saved. In other words, the value of a human life _is_ astronomical, well, relative to the conveniences that are had by being able to go 75 instead of 40. Why is your personal opinion relevant? I mean, I am sure I can find somebody (Melvin P.?) who apparently highly values going 100. Therefore, your opinion is cancelled out. Now what do we do? I think you are right that the problem wouldn't just go away with socialism. There might , in general, in socialism be more focus on some safety issues when the decision would not depend upon how the safer engineering impacted an individual corporation's bottomline. I can see a socialism more readily developing its transportation system with all the safety features you suggest, and not experiencing them economically as astronomical. If there was safety focus comprehensively and for a long time, it might be very practical to do it better safety wise. Why do you assume such facts for a socialist society? We have 75 years of experience with socialist inspired economies. Did they place a higher value on safety compared to comparable capitalist societies? Were they able to implement safety concerns more economically than comparable capitalist societies? It seems to me that safety increases in value as a society becomes wealthier, and the value is not correlated to the economic system itself. David Shemano
Re: Economics and law
Kenneth Campbell writes: [...] safety is not an absolute value that takes precedence overy everything else. That is evidenced by how people actually live their lives, and that fact must be taken into consideration when determining appropriate rules. This is the heart of it. To use your own words: how people actually live their lives. The reason most of the people are on this list is that most of the people (who are not on this list) do not have control of the way they actually live their lives. Their lives are determined by economic forces that are really more akin to weather. (Not controllable by themselves. I can only buy a Pinto, not a Lexus. You call that free will I call it economic coercion.) I was thinking more along the lines of rich people who buy sports cars rather than Volvos, or who love riding motorcycles. I was thinking about the following thought experiment. Assume that taking a car from point A to point B would take 30 minutes, and the chance of dying during the ride was 1 in one million. Assume that taking public transportation from point A to point B would take 60 minutes, and the chance of dying was 1 in ten million. I am willing to bet quite a significant percentage of the population would take the car, and I just don't think you can blame that on bourgeois property relations. Even taking your example into consideration, let's imagine a lack of economic coercion. Actually, I can't imagine it. In any event, let's assume that the law requires every car have the safety of a Lexus and everybody can afford a Lexus. Fine. But then a new car comes on the market that is safer than a Lexus, but costs a lot more. Conceptually, you are right back where you are today, where the poor can buy a used Pinto. David Shemano
Re: Economics and law
Kenneth Campbell rides to the rescue of Charles Brown: Why do you assume such facts for a socialist society? Note that Charles uses his language with purpose. There do not seem to be a lot of wasted words. There is the statement and for a long time in that last sentence -- and it means something. Consider it. If I had considered it, I would have had to conclude that Charles had qualified his thought to irrelevancy or that he did not believe what he was saying. We have 75 years of experience with socialist inspired economies. socialist inspired economies ... Grin. What the hell is that? Any economy in a country whose name had or has the words People's, Socialist or Sweden in it. To call certain of those countries socialist would have invited charges of red-baiting, so I decided to be nice and call them socialist inspired. David Shemano
Re: Greed
Ted Winslow writes: Is Marx making an empirical point? Yes. It's an empirical claim about the psychology dominant in capitalism. The idea of greed' as an irrational passion is ancient. As Marx points out in Capital, it can be found in Aristotle. Aristotle opposes Oeconomic to Chrematistic. He starts from the former. So far as it is the art of gaining a livelihood, it is limited to procuring those articles that are necessary to existence, and useful either to a household or the state. True wealth (o aleqinos ploutos) consists of such values in use; for the quantity of possessions of this kind, capable of making life pleasant, is not unlimited. There is, however, a second mode of acquiring things, to which we may by preference and with correctness give the name of Chrematistic, and in this case there appear to be no limits to riches and possessions. Trade (e kapelike is literally retail trade, and Aristotle takes this kind because in it values in use predominate) does not in its nature belong to Chrematistic, for here the exchange has reference only to what is necessary to themselves (the buyer or seller). Therefore, as he goes on to show, the original form of trade was barter, but with the extension of the latter, there arose the necessity for money. On the discovery of money, barter of necessity developed into kapelike , into trading in commodities, and this again, in opposition to its original tendency, grew into Chrematistic, into the art of making money. Now Chrematistic is distinguishable from Oeconomic in this way, that in the case of Chrematistic circulation is the source of riches poietike crematon ... dia chrematon diaboles . And it appears to revolve about money, for money is the beginning and end of this kind of exchange ( to nomisma stoiceion tes allages estin ). Therefore also riches, such as Chrematistic strives for, are unlimited. Just as every art that is not a means to an end, but an end in itself, has no limit to its aims, because it seeks constantly to approach nearer and nearer to that end, while those arts that pursue means to an end, are not boundless, since the goal itself imposes a limit upon them, so with Chrematistic, there are no bounds to its aims, these aims being absolute wealth. Oeconomic not Chrematistic has a limit ... the object of the former is something different from money, of the latter the augmentation of money By confounding these two forms, which overlap each other, some people have been led to look upon the preservation and increase of money ad infinitum as the end and aim of Oeconomic. (Aristoteles, De Rep. edit. Bekker, lib. l. c. 8, 9. passim.) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch04.htm) I understand the Aristotelian argument -- that there is a difference in producing for use value and producing for money ad infinitum as an end in itself. I understand the criticism of capitalism as an ideology that glorifies accumulation free of all restraint. However, as an empirical point, is it your position that the typical businessman in modern capitalist society has a materially different subjective motivation than a typical businessman in say, Augustan Rome or 14th Century Venice? Similarly, as an empirical point, in my experience, most people engaged in business, whether self-employed or employed in an organization, are not primarily motivated by money as an end (although some are), but by other goals that can be achieved through the use of money, such as providing for a family in a comfortable manner, etc. David Shemano
Greed
Regarding greed and capitalism, a couple of questions based upon the quotations from Mr. Winslow: Is Marx making an empirical point? Based upon observation, capitalists are motivated by greed? Or is it a definitional point -- under capitalism, capitalists by definition are motivated by greed. For instance, let's hypothesize a man who decides in his youth that there is a Rembrandt that he loves and wants to own. So he decides to become rich enough to buy the Rembrandt and then spends a lifetiime engaging in capitalist acts until he is sufficiently wealthy to buy the Rembrandt, at which time he sells his business and buys the Rembrandt. Now, while we can criticize this man for being possessive, exclusionary, etc., I would suggest he is not motivated by greed in the colloquial sense or even in the sense that Marx seems to be using the term. So he is not a capitalist? David Shemano --- Original Message--- To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Ted Winslow [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 7/21/2004 4:28PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] absolute general law of capitalist accumulation Ralph Johansen wrote: Where do you find in Marx any reference to innate greed as the motivation for accumulation under capital? Greed, sloth, etc., are among the seven deadly sins of western mythology and religious doctrine, the basis of Judaeo-Christian guilt, not the basis for accumulation under capital according to Marx. To ascribe an immanent human propensity to accumulate, or greed', as the basis and motivation for capital accretion is another expression of Adam Smith's innate propensity to truck, barter and exchange, which Marx explicitly repudiates. Marx, in the passage from the Grundrisse I previously quoted, explicitly repudiates the classical political economy's conception of greed as innate (this is an expression of its failure to take account of the fact that social relations are internal relations) , but explicitly endorses the conception as an accurate description of the subjectivity dominant in capitalism (the idea of irrational passions of this kind playing a positive role in human historical development was already present in Kant - see his Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose - and Hegel, both of whom were influenced in their conception of this by Adam Smith). How the multiplication of needs and of the means [of their satisfaction] breeds the absence of needs and of means is demonstrated by the political economist (and by the capitalist: in general it is always empirical businessmen we are talking about when we refer to political economists, [who represent] their scientific creed and form of existence) as follows: (1) By reducing the worker's need to the barest and most miserable level of physical subsistence, and by reducing his activity to the most abstract mechanical movement; thus he says: Man has no other need either of activity or of enjoyment. For he declares that this life, too, is human life and existence. (2) By counting the most meagre form of life (existence) as the standard, indeed, as the general standard - general because it is applicable to the mass of men. He turns the worker into an insensible being lacking all needs, just as he changes his activity into a pure abstraction from all activity. To him, therefore, every luxury of the worker seems to be reprehensible, and everything that goes beyond the most abstract need - be it in the realm of passive enjoyment, or a manifestation of activity - seems to him a luxury. Political economy, this science of wealth, is therefore simultaneously the science of renunciation, of want, of saving - and it actually reaches the point where it spares man the need of either fresh air or physical exercise. This science of marvellous industry is simultaneously the science of asceticism, and its true ideal is the ascetic but extortionate miser and the ascetic but productive slave. . . . Thus political economy - despite its worldly and voluptuous appearance - is a true moral science, the most moral of all the sciences. Self renunciation, the renunciation of life and of all human needs, is its principal thesis. The less you eat, drink and buy books; the less you go to the theatre, the dance hall, the public house; the less you think, love, theorize, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you save - the greater becomes your treasure which neither moths nor rust will devour - your capital. The less you are, the less you express your own life, the more you have, i.e., the greater is your alienated life, the greater is the store of your estranged being. Everything which the political economist takes from you in life and humanity, he replaces for you in money and wealth; and all the things which you cannot do, your money can do. It can eat and drink, go to the dance hall and the theatre; it can travel, it can
Re: Sowell
Mr. Sartesian writes: I am very careful before calling someone a hack. Somebody who makes purely ethereal distinctions in order to obscure the ugly reality in order to justify the continuation of that reality is a hack. Obviously nothing. This is not about simple common sense, as if there exists such a thing, price theories, or the democracy of free markets. It's about class. What makes a hack is someone denying, obscuring his or her class service, by proclaiming rationality, utility, objectivity. Would it shock you if I said J. S. Mill was a hack, and a big one? Friedman is a hack, and never hackier than when he criticized the IMF for its role in the Asian and post-Asian financial collapse of 97-98. Now I understand. Anybody who disagrees with your view of the world is a hack. Mill, Friedman, Sowell and Shemano -- all hacks. I can live with that. David Shemano
Re: Simon and Garfunkel
Prof. Devine writes: individual prices can't be explained or predicted using Marx's labor theory of value (more accurately, the law of value). Regular micro will do (though not the Chicago variant). It's a monopoly situation, where the sellers try to get as much of the consumer surplus as possible. That is, if they find someone who's willing to pay $200 to see Simon Garfunkel, they'll try to figure out how to get him or her to pay that much (using price discrimination). The sellers who benefit the most these days are usually Ticketmaster and ClearChannel rather than the performers. (The scalpers sometimes make a lot, but they also can lose a lot. It's not like Ticketmaster or ClearChannel, who have relatively stable incomes and relatively risk-free lives.) We were just discussing that capitalism is theft, appropriation of value, etc. Now, how did this play out at the concert? There were about 18,000 tickets sold. Let's conservatively say at an average price of $150, so there was a gross of $2,700,000 for one night's work. The Hollywood Bowl got a leasing fee. The crew was paid. Simon and Garfunkel either received a very hefty fee or a piece of the gate shared with the promoter. Now, from a Marxist perspective, what were the class relations at play? Whose labor created what value? Who exploited who? How would it work in PEN-Ltopia? Now why anyone would want to listen to Simon Garfunkel is beyond me. C'mon, you live in LA. Listening to anything at the Hollywood Bowl is worth it. Pack the basket, drink wine and stare at the stars --pure bliss. David Shemano
Re: Sowell
Charles Brown writes: Sowell paints a picture of himself as having a rather shallow grasp of Marxism, if the narrow experience he describes really changed his mind. I'm pretty sure that there is no principle in Marxism that says that capitalists won't lay people off in response to minimum wage hikes, if only as a way to retaliate against the minimum wage hike. On analogy to something Marx says in _Value,Price and Proift_, Marxists might say there is no _natural_ law that says things must be that way, that rather than laying people off , the capitalists' profits could be reduced. I am going to say this one more time. Sowell does not say that he started to change his mind because he discovered that minimum wage laws cause unemployment. The whole discussion of minimum wage laws is irrelevant to the point. The point is that when Sowell suggested an empirical test to answer the question, he discovered that the bureaucrats were entirely uninterested in why, as a matter of fact, unemployment was rising, because the bureacracy had an institutional interest in assuming the usefullness of wage and price controls. At that point, it clicked in his mind that incentives, as opposed to goals, are critical in understanding the way the world works. David Shemano
Re: Sowell
Mr. Sartesian writes: As long as we understand each other. Anybody who obscures the real source of poverty and immiseration and then argues that better is worse is a hack. Don't know if that describes you personally. It probably does. Do you mind if I use it for my epitaph? Here lays Shemano the hack, who obscured the real source of poverty and immiseration and then argued that the better is worse. I would insist on being buried next to Herbert Spencer and make Marx stare at it all day. David Shemano
Re: Sowell
Regarding Sowell's transformation, the problem here is one of email communication confusion and I have contributed. In the Salon interview, the question to Sowell was So you were a Lefty once. Sowell responded Through the decade of my 20s, I was a Marxist. The interviewer then asked What made you turn around? Sowell then gave the Puerto Rico story. Therefore, in context, Sowell is responding why he is no longer a Leftist, not why he is no longer a Marxist. This makes much more sense, because Sowell has written two books, The Vision of the Annointed and The Quest for Cosmic Justice, on the differences between Left and Right world views, and by Left he is not talking about Marxism as an analytical tool. A flavor of this is in the Salon interview: You make a provocative distinction in your new book between cosmic justice and traditional justice. Would you explain that distinction? Traditional justice, at least in the American tradition, involves treating people the same, holding them to the same standards and having them play by the same rules. Cosmic justice tries to make their prospects equal. One example: this brouhaha about people in the third world making clothing and running shoes -- Kathie Lee and all that. What's being said is: Isn't it awful that these people have to work for such little rewards, while those back here who are selling the shoes are making such fabulous amounts of money? And that's certainly true. But the question becomes, are you going to have everyone play by the same rules, or are you going to try to rectify the shortcomings, errors and failures of the entire cosmos? Because those things are wholly incompatible. If you're going to have people play by the same rules, that can be enforced with a minimum amount of interference with people's freedom. But if you're going to try to make the entire cosmos right and just, somebody has got to have an awful lot of power to impose what they think is right on an awful lot of other people. What we've seen, particularly in the 20th century, is that putting that much power in anyone's hands is enormously dangerous. It doesn't inevitably lead to terrible things. But there certainly is that danger. Later in the interview, there is this exchange: I notice that in New York liberal circles, people generally prefer arguing over ideals to discussing what might work. Being on the side of the angels. Being for affordable housing, for instance. But I don't know of anybody who wants housing to be unaffordable. Liberals tend to describe what they want in terms of goals rather than processes, and not to be overly concerned with the observable consequences. The observable consequences in New York are just scary. Regarding when Sowell turned away from Marxism as an analytical tool, I don't know. I do have his Marxism book and the conclusion of the book contains a criticism, but there is no discussion of when or why he shifted. David Shemano
Re: Simon and Garfunkel
Prof. Devine writes: The hired folks (the crew, etc.) probably produced more value than they received in wages, so Marxian exploitation was going on: surplus-value was likely produced (though I don't know the details of the case). SG are super-star members of the working class, so they probably got a chunk of the surplus-value on top of their wages. TicketMaster and the concert impresarios got the rest, I'd guess. I don't know who owns the Hollywood Bowl. If it's the city, then some of the surplus-value went to the (local part of the) state. The class relations part of the concert (exploitation, production of surplus-value) reflects the class relations of US capitalism as a whole. There was also some distribution of that s-v to SG, TicketMaster, the impresarios, and perhaps the city. In the ideal socialism, the concert would have been organized democratically, by a pact between a democratically-run city and a workers' cooperative running the Bowl. SG's company would also be a workers' cooperative (though I imagine that the performers would have more say than most in decisions). They wouldn't e earning super-star salaries. Humor me on this. I need some Marx 101. Let's imagine the crew does all their work. They set up the special sound and light systems, etc. However, Simon and Garfunkel get into a fight and refuse to perform, so the show is cancelled and all ticket are refunded. The next night, Simon and Garfunkel reunite. The crew, pissed off, refuses to do any work. So Simon and Garfunkel go on stage, Simon plugs his guitar into the existent sound system, and notwithstanding the lack of special lighting, a backup band, etc., the two of them perform for 18,000 people who pay $2.7 million. I am not sure what my questions are. In what sense is the crew producing surplus value? What value did they produce on night one? What exactly is the value that is being created? Isn't all the value, for all practical purposes, being created by Simon and Garfunkel? Isn't the crews' value purely contextual and unrelated to their labor per se? David Shemano
Re: Sowell and the big lie.
Melvin P. writes: On affirmative action he would be run out of the podium and forced to understand the real meaning of traditional American justice. The poor would most certainly string him up and I would not object. As Godwin's Law approaches, I am done with the thread. David Shemano
Re: Simon and Garfunkel
Kenneth Campbell writes: Don't be silly. You are supposedly a lawyer. The refusal to perform negated the contract. But not the contractual duties owed to those expected to aid in the performance. The pathetic spat between the actual performers (in your little hypothetical) does not negate what the crew was due. And it is hardly a narrowed surplus value concept. Unlike some on here, I like the law. And the law does not negate equitable results. That has nothing to do with politics. (Or doesn't have to. You misunderstand my questions. I am not asking whether the crew should be paid. I am trying to understand the labor theory of value/surplus value/exploitation in context. David Shemano
Re: Simon and Garfunkel
Kenneth Campbell writes: I don't think I misunderstand your question. I was talking about the value of the crew. But please inform me of my errors, I am open to instruction, at any age. The labor/value thing is larger than micro economy, no? When you squish it into some smaller question, it is easier to make fun of the larger philosophical point? No? Like you are trying to do with Jim? At that point, that is where I was making comment about the law. I am not trying to make fun. I am trying to understand. For better or worse, I am a reductionist, as some of you may remember from a previous exchange. Therefore, I insist on narrowing issues to their most basic. As I understand the Marxist view at its most reductionist, if Simon and Garfunkel hire a electricial and pay him X, the actual value created by the electrician is more than X. What I am trying to understand is what was the value created by the electrician? If he does the work, but the show is cancelled and there is no revenue, was value created? If the same revenue is generated regardless of whether the electrician does the work, what is his contribution to the value? Now, if you want to say that the labor theory of value is useless analytically at the micro level, go ahead, but my impression is that would not be Marxian orthodoxy. David Shemano
Re: Sowell
The wonders of the internet. Here is Sowell explaining his shift away from Marxism: http://www.salon.com/books/int/1999/11/10/sowell/index1.html David Shemano
Sowell
Doug Henwood writes (and others agree) What made you turn around? What began to change my mind was working in the summer of 1960 as an intern in the federal government, studying minimum-wage laws in Puerto Rico. It was painfully clear that as they pushed up minimum wage levels, which they did at that time industry by industry, the employment levels were falling. I was studying the sugar industry. There were two explanations of what was happening. One was the conventional economic explanation: that as you pushed up the minimum-wage level, you were pricing people out of their jobs. The other one was that there were a series of hurricanes that had come through Puerto Rico, destroying sugar cane in the field, and therefore employment was lower. The unions preferred that explanation, and some of the liberals did, too. So how is incompatible with Marxism that raising wages above market levels can reduce employment? He just decided that the living conditions of sugar workers were less important than the needs of the economy. Doug Some times you guys are just insufferable -- must you always resort to caricature? Read the entire exchange!! The relevant factor wasn't that minimum wage laws (not raising wages) reduce employment. It was the reaction of the government bureaucrats to his suggestion of an empirical test to determine why employment was falling, which led him to philosophically shift from the importance of goals to incentives: I spent the summer trying to figure out how to tell empirically which explanation was true. And one day I figured it out. I came to the office and announced that what we needed was data on the amount of sugar cane standing in the field before the hurricane moved through. I expected to be congratulated. And I saw these looks of shock on people's faces. As if, This idiot has stumbled on something that's going to blow the whole game! To me the question was: Is this law making poor people better off or worse off? That was the not the question the labor department was looking at. About one-third of their budget at that time came from administering the wages and hours laws. They may have chosen to believe that the law was benign, but they certainly weren't going to engage in any scrutiny of the law. What that said to me was that the incentives of government agencies are different than what the laws they were set up to administer were intended to accomplish. That may not sound very original in the James Buchanan era, when we know about Public Choice theory. But it was a revelation for me. You start thinking in those terms, and you no longer ask, what is the goal of that law, and do I agree with that goal? You start to ask instead: What are the incentives, what are the consequences of those incentives, and do I agree with those? BTW, the Reason review of Doug Henwood's book is now online: http://www.reason.com/0406/cr.co.that.shtml David Shemano
Re: Sowell
Mr. Sartesian writes: It, the rise in wages, is not incompatible with increasing unemployment, but neither is it incompatible with rising employment. Sowell, or whoever wants to argue this point from the right, makes a superficial cause and effect between wage rates and employment levels, where there is none. And by the way, its is the creation of such superficial cause and effect links, and the propagation of them as profound economic insights that defines a hack. For the third time, neither Sowell, nor any other neoclassical economist I know of, has ever argued that rising wages causes unemployment. Obviously, if wages are rising, people who might otherwise be at the beach will be drawn into the workforce. The argument is about the effect of minimum wage laws, and if you can't figure out the difference between minimum wage laws and rising wages, be a little more careful before you call somebody a hack. Now that I got that off my chest, I am off to see Simon and Garfunkel at the Hollywood Bowl. When I get back, how about a discussion of explaining the price of concert tickets from a Marxist perspective? David Shemano
Re: Thomas Sowell
Daniel Davies writes: David, I cannot help noticing that you have written close to 1000 words about what a fantastic chap Thomas Sowell is, and not a single word about the actual (IMO lousy) boilerplate free trade hackwork that was forwarded to the list. This also, is a form of argumentum ad hominem. The article cited was straightforward op-ed defense of free trade written for a general audience. To detemine that Sowell is a hack based upon an op-ed column for a general audience is silly. Furthermore, looking back at Devine's criticism, he agrees with 2 of the points and takes issue with 6 others in short declarative sentences that are unsupported by any evidence and fail to address easy rebuttals or even the complexities of the issue. Therefore, since Sowell is a hack because of the superficial nature of his op-ed, then Devine is a hack because of the superficial nature of his criticsm. David Shemano
Re: Thomas Sowell
Jim Devine writes: Also, I don't know if Sowell is a careerist or not. I also wasn't saying that conservatives are wrong, though that's true. (Thanks for bringing that issue up!) They often don't believe in their own rhetoric. The leaders, such as Karl Rove, are quite cynical. On the other hand, many of the rank and file _do_ believe the rhetoric. A lot of it is so abstract that almost anyone can believe it. As with most ideologies, there are contradictory elements (i.e., the combination of lip-service both to libertarianism and traditionalism). Of course, then there's the issue of what a _true_ conservative is. I'll let David define that. A true conservative is somebody who agrees with me. That was easy. David Shemano
Re: Thomas Sowell
Charles Brown writes: The answer , in general, is right where it seems to be. With very rare exceptions (if Moore is really one), the right , not the left will get gigs like Sowell's because of the right has money and the left doesn't, natch, obviously. Why do you think Sowell switched ? Sowell wrote an autobiography entitled A Personal Odyssey. Give it a read. It's been several years since I read it and don't remember the specifics. What I do remember, and it is hugely relevant, is that Sowell is am admittedly very ornery guy who never gave a flying fig to what other people thought, which is why I respect him so much. My guess is he thought Marxism was true, and then he decided that it wasn't true. David Shemano
Enron
Charles Brown writes: Hey , on an old thread, I haven't seen you since Enron. What to you think about bookcooking on Wall Street,now ? What do I think about it? I am against it. Look, fraud is illegal in a capitalist economy. There is a certain percentage of the population that is going to try and bend the rules to take advantage. I am sure that would never occur in a socialist economy. David Shemano
Re: Enron
In defense of David Shemano, Michael Perelman writes: David is a conservative. He speaks English with a right wing dialect, but he does so with humor (not snottiness). We can disagree with him. I usually do, but we can still be polite. I don't see him as a red meat class warrior, but as a sincere [albeit misguided] conservative]. As a I said when I first participated on this list so many years ago, I am here to learn, and believe learning results from dialectic argument. The argument that capitalism is legalized fraud and theft is a very interesting thesis which I would love to explore. (For instance, doesn't that statement, as a normative statement, assume the justness of private property, because if not, what is wrong with theft?). However, as Prof. Craven does not appear to suffer from any doubt, I doubt he would enjoy such an exchange with me. You can't please everybody. David Shemano
Re: Thomas Sowell
Laurence Shute writes: "I agree with both: Jim's analysis of Sowell's article was great. And some of Sowell's early stuff was quite good. For example, "Marx's 'Increasing Misery' Doctrine," American Economic Review, March 1960, pp. 111-120. I think I recall that Sowell had trouble finding a job. Wasn't he teaching at Cornell for a while, then out of work? It looks like he made his right turn around then." Are you implying that Sowell does not believe what he writes? Do you have any evidence for this? Charles Brown writes: "That the Left has not the same is not a matter of luck. The bourgeoisie donot pay people to be revolutionary propagandists and agitators or publicintellectuals, unsurprisingly." Nonsense. The bourgeoise would sell the rope to a revolutionary if it would make a profit, would they not? What is the No. 1 movie in America? Who financed it? Why do the bourgeoise fund universities which employProfs. Perelman and Devine? The answer must lay elsewhere. Jim Devine writes: "Once or twice, I've jokingly told my department chair (who's African-American) that he could have made Big Money if he'd gone right-wing. There's truth there, though it's very rare that someone actually chooses their political orientation as one would choose a dessert. The conservatives _love_ affirmative action if it fits their needs. Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell have benefited mightily by being right-wing _and_ Black. The conservatives can say "look -- we're good-hearted too. We've got a Black man (or woman) on our side! There's no way we're racist." Of course, appointing Thomas was one of George Bush Senior's few Karl Rove moments, choosing an ultra-con who would get support from some African-Americans simply because he's Black (and making it hard for guilt-laden liberals to oppose him). " At leastProf. Devine does not think Sowell is a careerist. It is unavoidably true that part of Sowell's success is that he is black. It is also true that conservatives like putting foward minorities to advocate policies that raise allegations of racism. However, that does not mean that the conservatives are wrong, i.e., that the conservative love (and I mean love) for Sowell and Thomas does in fact demonstrate that conservatives truly believe their own rhetoric, which is simply old liberal rhetoric (treat everybody as individuals, do not judge by the color of skin, etc.). Michael Perelman writes: "I think that Sowell, like Powell, has Caribbean roots. Sometimes, they look down onthose whose ancestors were slaves here. I am sure someone here knows more about thisthan I do." To the extent this has any relevancy, I do not think this applies to Sowell and certainly does not apply to Thomas. Again, this highlights the very point repeatedly raised by Sowell and Thomas -- the refusal of Lefties to treat them as real people with their own mind who believe what they say based upon honest reflection. David Shemano Larry ShuteEconomicsCal Poly Pomona
Re: Low Taxes Do What!?
Michael Perelman writes: Some of Sowell's early stuff on Say's law was pretty good. Then he became more of a right wing hack. Reagan tried to get him to be Sec. of Education. Now his most appears as a syndicated right wing ideologue. Why is he a hack? The man turns out a book every year on far-ranging topics. His writings on international affirmative action and cultural migrations are first-rate. He writes a popular syndicated column that is clear, informative and entertaining. He is a true public intellectual. Disagree if you want, but give the man some respect. The Left shoud be so lucky to have a Thomas Sowell. David Shemano
Re: Low Taxes Do What!?
Michael Perelman writes: David, I just finished with a conference on the history of economic thought in Toronto. Maybe 40% of the scholars here follow Hayek. Another 35% are monetarists -- rough estimates. I have a great deal of respect for virtually every one of them. I would not call any of them hacks. Some of Sowell's early work was good. In recent years, he has become a hack. His work is very superficial. If people on the list had anything like the resources that he does, they could spit out books just as quickly. I met some of his researchers 20 years ago when I spent a year at Stanford. Now that he is syndicated, as soon as even more assistance. He is a hack because he is a popularizer? Because people actually read his books and columns? The guy spent plenty of time in academia, but somewhere along the line he became a public figure. (Maybe it was the bizareness of seeing somebody black defending free markets in the Free to Choose videos). So he now has the resources to go write about whatever interests him. No dispute -- he isn't writing Ph.D theses. So what? Why is he a hack for writing clearly and concisely to a general audience? Is Paul Krugman now a hack? David Shemano
Racial identifies of corporations
Michael Perelman requests: David, could you tell us more about this case, please? On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 11:39:22AM -0700, David B. Shemano wrote: Regarding corporations, everybody should be happy to know that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held this week that a corporation can sue for violations of civil rights protecting against racial discrimination, which necessarily required the Court to hold that a corporation can have a race.Tinket Ink Information Resources, Inc. v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 2004 WL 1088296 (9th Cir. 2004). Here is a link to the case: http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0504%2F0216754 The issue is very simple. The plaintiff was a minority-owned corporation (all of the shareholders are African-American). The plaintiff suppled services to Sun Microsystems, but then Sun stopped using the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that Sun refused to contract with the plaintiff solely on its status as an African-American owned business. The issue was whether the plaintiff, a corporation, had standing to sue in its own name for violation of an anti-racial discrimination civil rights law. The Court concluded that the corporation had standing. The Court acknowledged as an anti-anthropomorphic truism as a general proposition that a corporation does not have a racial identity. However, based upon prudential grounds, the court said that the corporation had standing to sue. The court was concerned that because the harm was suffered by the corporation and not the shareholders, nobody would have the right to sue if the court held the corporation could not sue in its! own name. David Shemano
Can corporations have sex?
James Devine writes: can a corporation have a gender, too? or rather, can a corporation have sex? Absolutely, what do you think a corporate merger is? One corporation propositions the other corporation. The do mutual due diligence to find out if they like each other. There is a closing dinner at a fancy restaurant where a lot of liquor is imbibed. Then they go and screw the shareholders. David Shemano
Psychopathology and Capitalism
What is the general theory that psychopathology is rewarded and encouraged by the structure of corporations in capitalist society? As opposed to what? Why more so than other structures, such as rising through the ranks of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union (or any political party for that matter). In fact, is it not more correct to say that psychopathology always has existed and will always exist, and capitalism efficiently and productively channels psychpathology (as opposed to uniquely encouraging it), which is the Lockean defense of capitalism? Regarding corporations, everybody should be happy to know that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held this week that a corporation can sue for violations of civil rights protecting against racial discrimination, which necessarily required the Court to hold that a corporation can have a race.Tinket Ink Information Resources, Inc. v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 2004 WL 1088296 (9th Cir. 2004). Finally, congratulations to Doug Henwood, whose latest book received a not entirely unfavorable review in the latest issue of Reason Magazine. David Shemano
Re: Corporations
Justin writes: Who said limited liability was limited to torts? The corporate forms protects its investors against all liabilities -- contractual, tort, property, civil rights and other statutory -- even criminal to a point, bankruptcy, etc. Yes, but it is only with respect to non-contractual liabilities that the limitation is state imposed. The contractual limited liability is, by definition, a matter of contract. As I initially said, the other party to the contract can bargain for a personal guarantee, which is very common. Moreover it is not treue that the only argument has been reference to limited liability vs. torts or anything else. A number of folks, Ian and myself include, have emphasized that the corporation is a creature of law that has real social efficacy like any other social groups. The contract is also a creature of law, and like the corporate form depends on that social entity the state, which not reducible to the behavior of the individuals in it. I don't disagree, except that if you remove the issue of limited liability, a corporation is ultimately reducible to a series of contracts, just like any other social group. Those contracts include agreements between the shareholders, agreements between the shareholders and directors, between the directors and officers, between the officers and employees, etc. The state recognized entity (the corporation) is a way to simpliy the transaction costs of these relationships. The corporate form, created by operation of law, is a different thing from the contract: It depends on the forbearance of the state in going after the shareholderholders for the debts of the corporation, something that the law does not permit the parties to contract around. (OK, you and I agree that we are not liable for debts to anyone else. Good luck making that one stick, fella!) This is not correct. It is possible to have the corporate form without limited liability. As I said before, the limitation of contractual liability can be a matter of contract (I promise to sell you widgets, but if I breach the agreement, you agree to cap your claim at X.). The ultimate benefit of the corporate form is transaction costs -- for a variety of reasons, partnerships have major disadvantages compared to corporations which are unrelated to limited liability. For instance, what happens if one of the partners dies or wants to leave the partnership? Can one partner bind all the other partners? Who has authority to speak on behalf of the partnership? The corporate form addresses these and other problems in a very effective fashion. I don't know why you bring up strict liability -- liability without fault. That exists in some cases as a matter of operation of the law. But it is sort of anomalous. Anyway, there is nothing inherent about any law -- positive law, enacted, common, constitutional, administrative whatever. It's all a social product of the state imposed of policy reasons or because of political influence or corruption or whatever. The point is that owner responsiblity for the acts of an employee is strict liability. If the owner negligently hires an employee, that is negligence. However, if the owner did not negligently hire the employee or otherwise commit a negligent act , imposing responsibility on the owner for the negligent acts of the employees is to impose strict liability, and that is a policy decision no different than determining shareholders should not be personally liable for the debts of the corporation. You may be right about the effect of abolishing the corporate form -- a big shift to debt-based financing. However, there are presumably reasons based in part on efficiency and lowerted transactions costs for equity based financing. There is no point in pretending these are the same or equivalent. Of course. However, investors will respond to the rules of the market. As I was thinking about it, another major consequence of the removal of limited liability would be to dramatically shrink the size of the corporation. In other words, large corporations would probably fragment into a multitude of independent corporations to ensure that one division is not liable for the acts of another division. I suppose that would be a good thing if you are a Lefty, because that would decentralize corporate power. However, it would significantly increase transaction costs. David Shemano
Re: Corporations
So many things to say. The only argument offered why the corporation is more than a sum of contracts is limited tort liability. But as I said, that assumes that there is some inherent LAW that says the principal employer should be strictly liable for the torts of the agent, and that is simply not the case. Respondeat superior is a state imposed liability imposed for policy reasons. I am very surprised that members of this list would act as if there is an objective Platonic law and limited liability is a deviation from that law. Second, I think the argument that limited liability is the primary benefit of the corporation is simply incorrect. If limited liability were removed from corporations, there would be a massive shift from equity financing to debt financing. In other words, investors will call themselves creditors and not shareholders. The line between equity and subordinated debt is very close, but the courts have no problem calling one equity and one debt. Are you going to take the position that creditors should be strictly responsible for the tortious acts of their borrowers (assuming they do not control the acts of the borrower)? However, corporations would continue because of transaction cost advantages over partnerships and joint ventures. Jim Devine's insistence that limited liability permits shareholders to ignore external costs is simply not realistic. It ignores that the corporation remains liability for its tortious conduct, and shareholders care about their investments. To the extent that the corporation itself is not responsible for externalities, that is a different issue entirely unrelated to limited liability. I have been accused of being reductionist. According to dictionary.com, reductionsist means: An attempt or tendency to explain a complex set of facts, entities, phenomena, or structures by another, simpler set: 'for the last 400 years science has advanced by reductionism... The idea is that you could understand the world, all of nature, by examining smaller and smaller pieces of it. When assembled, the small pieces would explain the whole' (John Holland). Based upon that definition, I accept the label. It is better than being wrong. What really are we fighting about? David Shemano
More conservative Rock-and-Roll stars
Mr. Bendien cited lyrics by Alice Cooper. I thought I would point out that Alice is a born-again Christian with conservative views. Further evidence for my theory that all Rock-and-Roll stars are libertarians. Here is an interview with him where he describes his investment strategy: http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/investing/20020114a.asp David Shemano --- Original Message--- To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Jurriaan Bendien [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 3/10/2004 11:15PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] A tactical debate - some more views Alice Cooper, who had an interesting career, wrote a song once (it don't sound like J.S. Bach !) that went like this: I'm your top prime cut of meat, I'm your choice, I wanna be elected, I'm your yankee doodle dandy in a gold Rolls Royce, I wanna be elected, Kids want a saviour, don't need a fake, I wanna be elected, We're all gonna rock to the rules that I make, I wanna be elected, elected, elected. I never lied to you, I've always been cool, I wanna be elected, I gotta get the vote, and I told you 'bout school, I wanna be elected, elected, elected, Hallelujah, I wanna be selected, Everyone in the United States of America. We're gonna win this one, take the country by storm, We're gonna be elected, You and me together, young and strong, We're gonna be elected, elected, elected, Respected, selected, call collected, I wanna be elected, elected. And if I am elected I promise the formation of a new party A third party, the Wild Party! I know we have problems, We got problems right here in Central City, We have problems on the North, South, East and West, New York City, Saint Louis, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Detroit, Chicago, Everybody has problems, And personally, I don't care. Jurriaan
Re: More conservative Rock-and-Roll stars
James Devine writes: all Rock-and-Roll stars are libertarians is Bono? Bob Geldof? Jello Biafra? OK, all American Rock-and-Roll stars are libertarians. Jello Biafra did an album with Mojo Nixon, is for drug legalization and is liked by a lot of libertarians for that and other reasons, so, since I am an inclusive kind of guy, I will deem Jello a libertarian and keep the theory alive. David Shemano
Re: More conservative Rock-and-Roll stars
Michael Perelman writes: David, are you really a Jello-libertarian or a Cato libertarian? I doubt if Jello is concerned about the liberty of Exxon-Mobil. I am a Peanut Butter and Jello Libertarian. Actually, I disclaim all labels, except contrarian. Since this list is against liberty for Exxon-Mobil, I am for it. David Shemano
Corporations
Michael Perelman writes: I wish you well with your liberty. You are a real person. I do not feel that E-M is a real person, but an illigitate creation of state. You wish me well with my liberty, but what about my liberty to enter into a series of contracts with other real persons, and calling those interlocking series of contracts a corporation? What is a corporation, but an interlocking series of contracts between real persons? David B. Shemano
Re: Corporations
James Devine writes: Is this a different David Shemano, who I thought was a lawyer of some sort? Corporations have _limited liability_ which means that that after a certain point (the amount of capital invested by the stock-holders) the state has declared that the costs of corporate malfeasance, accidents, etc. shall be absorbed by the taxpayers. Jim Let's be clear about this. The corporate form provides no unfair protection against contractual liability, because the other party is aware of the corporate form and can either bargain for a personal guarantee or not enter into the contract. With respect to tortious liability, the corporate form provides no protection for individuals who commit torts. The only protection the corporate form provides is a modification to the doctrine of respondeat superior (the employer is liable for the acts of the employee who commits an act in the scope of the employment). In other words, while the corporation's assets are liable for the acts of the employee, the shareholder's personal assets are not responsible for the torts committed by an employee, unless the shareholder himsef committed a tort or the shareholder did not respect the corporate form (alter-ego). As a practical matter, the limited liability is only an issue if the corporation is rendered insolvent and insurance is exhausted. Philosophically, the issue is the appropriateness of applying the doctrine of respondeat superior to shareholders. You can characterize limited liability as state imposed, but you also characterize respondeat superior as state imposed as well. There is no inherent reason why a shareholder who owns 10 shares of Exxon should lose his house because Joseph Hazelwood got drunk. Ultimately, the decision is a policy choice over which reasonable minds can differ. David Shemano
Re: Corporations
Eugene Coyle writes: This interlocking series of contracts has the right of free speech?I think the series of responses Shemano gives in this thread is sillier than neo-classical micro. He describes a total phantasy world, just as the micro theorists do. But the world both try to hide is terribly real.This stuff is much worse than people have been asked to leave the list over. Disgusting stuff. I'd say beneath contempt, but I don't know what is lower. I have never seen a corporation speak. I have seen real people speak on behalf of corporations. Why do you believe that those people do not have a right to speak? What is that word Marxists like to use to describe unreal objects that people think arereal? Fetish? You see a bogeyman called a "corporation." You are fetishing the corporation. I see tens, hundreds, thousands of contracts between real people intended to actualize a real end. The entity is an acknowledged legal fiction that minimizes transaction costs. That is all. "Exxon" is simply a shorthand way to describe thousands of real people acting in a united way, and the corporate form provides an expedient way of organizing those real people. What disgusts you? What is beneath contempt? What is the fantasy? David Shemano
Re: less support for free trade
Michael Perelman writes: I got this from the right wing Marginal Revolution web site. High-income Americans have lost much of their enthusiasm for free trade as they perceive their own jobs threatened by white-collar workers in China, India and otonal trade. Why is this surprising, or even noteworthy? Doesn't everybody believe in free trade for other people and protectionism for themselves? David Shemano
Re: demo fervor
Since you are talking about union member affinity for the Republican party, how about considering the fact that a growing percentage of present day union members are actually government employees. I am willing to bet that they skew significantly more Democratic than the union members working in the private sector, and that explains why the percentage of union members voting Democratic has grown. And what are the implications of that reality for Left theory? David Shemano --- Original Message--- To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: dmschanoes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 2/25/2004 6:41PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor 1. Heteroskedastic? What is that? Not in my concise OED. 2. If we can't reach a conclusion about a trend since 1980 then we can't reacch any conclusion period about the degree, the change in the degreee, of union household affinity for the Republican Party, and the whole discussion is pointless. 3. Number 2 above is exactly the point. 4. So let's just disregard the statistical obscurantism in favor of an historical analysis: In the US, as in all bourgeois societies, the ruling class is able to win and maintain the allegiance of some elements of all other classes, including the working class. This historical conditions exists not to be interpreted, but to be change. Pleasure, dms - Original Message - From: Sabri Oncu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 8:26 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor dms: But the trend since 1980 has been pretty consistenly down. And the trend is your friend. But that data are clearly heteroskedastic. You cannot reach a conclusion like that about the trend since 1980 just by eyeballing. Best, Sabri
Re: Brilliant analysis from a soft rock icon
Mojo Nixon! The greatest live performer in the history of rock n' roll, and a libertarian to boot. I could spend all day quoting Mojo Nixon. In fact, whenever I question my value as a lawyer, I just quote Mojo: There's a plague on the planet, and they went to law school. A bunch of hornswagelers, who treat us like fools. 'know who I'm talkin' 'bout, let me her ya' shout Destroy all lawyers! Destroy all lawyers!... Wanna' se 'em explode in every zip code. David Shemano --- Original Message--- To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 2/20/2004 9:12AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Brilliant analysis from a soft rock icon Michael Hoover wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/18/04 03:37PM Washington Post, Tuesday, February 17, 2004 Killing the Music By Don Henley Simply put, artists must regain control, as much as possible, over their music. The writer is a singer and drummer with the Eagles and a founding member of the Recording Artists' Coalition. puhleeze, above is 60s romanticism, very few folks have ever controlled 'their' music, some have been ripped off to greater extent than others (especially blues, rb, jazz artists)... interestingly, gang of four's jon king told me some years ago that his band had more control over their 'product' when they were with emi/warner bros than they had with indie they'd been with in earliest days...artists must first gain control of their music, as dave marsh repeatedly asks, 'just exactly why do we need the music business'... michael hoover And don't forget Mojo Nixon's masterpiece, Don Henley Must Die. He's a tortured artist Used to be in the Eagles Now he whines like a wounded beagle Poet of despair pumped up with hot air He's serious pretentious and I just don't care Don Henley must die Don't let him get back together With Glen Frey Turned on the TV and what did I see? This bloated hairy thing winning a Grammy... You your kind are killing rock and roll it's not because you're o-l-d it's because you ain't got no soul...
Re: Brilliant analysis from a soft rock icon
Louis Proyect writes: A libertarian? Wow! That leads to an interesting question. How many other rightwingers made a living as rock-and-rollers? The only one I can think of is Ted Nugent. Maybe you can include Stereolab as well. They were hanging around Frank Furedi's cult for a while. Other than that, there's none that come to mind. I assume all successful rock-and-rollers are libertarians. They believe in making a lot of money and spending it on drugs. I believe that is the official Libertarian Party platform in 2004. David Shemano
Re: Brilliant analysis from a soft rock icon
Louis Proyect writes: A desire to make money is not particularly libertarian. I associate libertarianism with Ayn Rand, von Mises and people like that. Big time rock-and-roll musicians would as soon get a reputation for boosting Atlas Shrugged as they would for blaming the Jews on the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Neil Peart, the drummer for Rush, is famous for being a Randian, and their album 2112 is basically Rand's novel Anthem. You have to expand your idea of what a libertarian is. Irving Kristol said a liberal is one who says it's all right for an 18 year old girl to perform in a pornographic money as long as she gets paid the minimum wage. A libertarian would delete the part about the minimum wage. David Shemano
Re: Airline deregulation
Michael Perelman writes: With the hub and spoke system, prices in some places -- Chico -- have soared. It cost more to fly 90 miles to san francisco than from SF to New York. Abstractly, why does this bother you? Why do you want people to get in an airplane to go 90 miles? David Shemano
Re: The economy - a new era?
If airline deregulation was not a success, in your view, what do you propose to reregulate? Do you propose to go back to the pre-1978 era, where industry capture was an art form and the CAB actively prevented new entrants and price competition in the name of the public interest? Or do you propose nationalization and a single airline owned by the federal government? David Shemano --- Original Message--- To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 2/10/2004 1:12PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The economy - a new era? Eugene Coyle wrote: Alfred Kahn has a new book out -- I'm told, haven't seen it. He's still boasting about the success of airline deregulation. Long ago - 10, 12 years - I did a piece on the general experience of dereg. That's when I discovered that the airfares subindex of the CPI had been increasing far faster than the overall CPI, mainly because of quality declines (e.g., tighter purchase restrictions, more stops). Kahn had been quoting the real fare per seat mile measure, which had been going down (though no more quickly than it did pre-dereg). But when I asked him to comment on the behavior of the CPI component, he refused to believe it. Doug
Re: The economy - a new era?
Doug Henwood writes: I think the burden of proof is on you to show that dereg was a success. The industry is on the verge of going into cumulative loss once again (i.e., all losses in its history exceeding all profits). Scores of airlines have disappeared. Fare increases outpaced inflation from 1979 through 2000. Formerly high-wage jobs have become low-wage jobs. I haven't looked at the stats in a few years, but last time I did, ridership was growing no more quickly under dereg than it was under regulation. I don't see why non-captured regulation is impossible, if it's done openly and democratically. You don't need me to argue the merits of deregulation. Go search the Cato website and I am sure you will find something. I think the burden on you is not necessarily to show that reregulation is better than deregulation, but to at least explan what reregulation would look like. Would reregulation mean that JetBlue can't open new routes at lower prices than the exising carriers? Would it mean that JetBlue couldn't offer DirecTV without permission? Would it mean that an airline couldn't cease unprofitable routes? Would it mean that hub and spoke would be prohibited, or required? Would it mean that all similar seats would have to be identically priced? Would it mean that meals must be served? I am trying to understand the point of the reregulation. To guarantee profitability to large corporations and their shareholders? Why should a Leftie care that corporations disappear and shareholders lose money? Are you making a rationalization/efficiency argument, that the present system is wasteful, and the inefficiencies and waste would be solved by centralized planning? Leaving aside the merits of regulation vs. deregulation, you state that you don't see why non-captured regulation is impossible, if it's done openly and democratically. Perhaps, but what would be the odds that non-captured regulation would result? You don't sound too confident. David Shemano
Re: The oil and gas situation, according to the expurts
Juriaan Bendien writes: The car industry is a very important sector of the world economy, it's among the most important consumer durables there is. I could practically reconstruct the whole of modern capitalist culture, just through tracing all the connections involving one motor car. Sometimes, I have thought I should make a movie like that, but, probably somebody already did it. Instead of a car, how about a pencil? http://www.self-gov.org/freeman/9605read.html
Re: Sad Story
Doug Henwood writes: David B. Shemano wrote: Your daughter is correct. If you read the 10 policy measures set forth in the Communist Manifesto to a modern liberal, the liberal would think you are reading from the Democratic Party platform. You should declare victory and go celebrate. Really? These are: 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. In the U.S. we've got a mildly progressive income tax - less progressive than it was a few years ago - and free education. I suppose suburban sprawl does blur the distinction between town city, but I doubt it's what ME had in mind. And the rest are barely even a dream. So if this is victory, I'd hate to see your idea of defeat. Doug You guys are way too pessimistic and/or utopic. 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. Rent control (and related tenant protections), real property taxation, zoning, environmental regulations, etc. are staples of liberal orthodoxy. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. The highest rate in the US was above 50% for most of the 20th Century. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. The US has a confiscatory inheritance tax above a certain level, and the concept is defended on ideological grounds by liberals, most recently in response to the efforts of the Republicans to get rid of the death tax. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. Liberals favor punitive tax treatment for individuals and corporations that disclaim US citizenship or residency. 5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. The Federal Reserve Board acts as a central bank indirectly under government control. The US had throughout most of the 20th Century (and continues to have) Byzantine banking laws that prevented interstate and branch banking, which was ideologically defended, as well as various regulations that created the SL industry in an attempt to incentivize home ownership. Liberals now support laws like the Community Reinvestment Act that require banks to loan funds in poor areas. 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. The ICC, FCC, DOT, FAA, etc. were and are manifestations of the liberal belief that the communication and transportation sectors are critical areas that required government regulation and oversight, and those sectors remain heavily regulated, even after various deregulation efforts. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. Various things fall into this category, from public utilities and rural electrification to Amtrak. More generally, the Department of Agriculture is heavily involved in farm planning. Starting in the late 20th Century, the EPA represents environmental concerns, which has become a central factor in industrial and land development. 8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. OK, this one didn't happen, because liberalism became enamored with the concept of the equal right not to work, so we got the redistributionist welfare state instead. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. We do have large-scale corporate farming. Can't blame that on Marx, I suppose. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. Undisputably achieved. David Shemano
Re: Sad Story
See, I was right. You are too pessimistic and/or utopic. Regulation and taxation aren't good enough for you, it has to be abolition or it doesn't count. I think it was John Marshall who said the power to tax is the power to destroy. The same can be said for regulation. In fact, taxation and regulation are better than abolition and confiscation. First, like a frog in boiling water, creeping taxation and regulation create less resistance than outright abolition and confiscation, so you will be more successful. Second, confiscation requires an assumption of responsibility to perform the service confiscated, and with responsibility comes failure and criticism. Therefore, you are better off regulating and taxing, which allows you to criticize instead of being criticized. Further, your nitpicking disagreements with me avoid the point -- ideologically, modern liberalism is in agreement with the fundamental policy prescriptions of the Communist Manifesto, so Justin's daughter is correct. The fact that policy implementation does not entirely reflect the lliberal wish list does not change that fact. David Shemano --- Original Message--- To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 8/26/2003 4:45PM Subject: Re: Sad Story David B. Shemano wrote: 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. Rent control (and related tenant protections), real property taxation, zoning, environmental regulations, etc. are staples of liberal orthodoxy. Since when is regulation a synonym for abolition? 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. The highest rate in the US was above 50% for most of the 20th Century. The effective federal tax rate on the top quintile was 27% in 1977, before the Reagan revolution. Keeping almost three-quarters of your income is hardly confiscatory. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. The US has a confiscatory inheritance tax above a certain level, and the concept is defended on ideological grounds by liberals, most recently in response to the efforts of the Republicans to get rid of the death tax. Who actually paid those taxes? Wouldn't the Rockefeller family have been ruined long ago if the statutory rates were actually rates? Among lawyers and estate planners, the inheritance tax is described as voluntary. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. Liberals favor punitive tax treatment for individuals and corporations that disclaim US citizenship or residency. Uh, they want them to pay their taxes, not confiscate all their property. Alas. 5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. The Federal Reserve Board acts as a central bank indirectly under government control. The US had throughout most of the 20th Century (and continues to have) Byzantine banking laws that prevented interstate and branch banking, which was ideologically defended, as well as various regulations that created the SL industry in an attempt to incentivize home ownership. Liberals now support laws like the Community Reinvestment Act that require banks to loan funds in poor areas. Again, you're treating regulation as if it were the same as confiscation. And it was the big bourgeoisie that most wanted a central bank! 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. The ICC, FCC, DOT, FAA, etc. were and are manifestations of the liberal belief that the communication and transportation sectors are critical areas that required government regulation and oversight, and those sectors remain heavily regulated, even after various deregulation efforts. Ah that expansive def of regulation again. And it's mostly been been undone. Which is why we have the crappiest cell phones in the first world, and an airline industry on the brink of failure. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. Various things fall into this category, from public utilities and rural electrification to Amtrak. More generally, the Department of Agriculture is heavily involved in farm planning. Starting in the late 20th Century, the EPA represents environmental concerns, which has become a central factor in industrial and land development. Oh, I see, you're doing standup comedy. Ok, I'm laughing now. 8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. OK, this one didn't happen, because liberalism became enamored with the concept of the equal right not to work, so we got the redistributionist welfare state instead. And who could ever turn down one of those fat, widely available welfare checks? That's why I stopped working 20 years ago! Thanks to New
Re: Sad Story
Gene Coyle writes: I wonder, David Shemano, based on your interpretations conflating liberals with the Communist Manifesto, if you similarly equate Ashcroft and Bush with facism? Have you worked out a list for that yet? Gene Coyle Of course Bush is a Nazi. See, for instance, http://www.takebackthemedia.com/bushnonazi.html. The evidence is irrefutable. David Shemano
Re: Sad Story
Doug Henwood writes: That's delusional. An unregulated capitalist economy would quickly destroy itself. Capital needs the state to discipline and rescue it. The idea of bourgeois regulation is to preserve the system, not transform it, which was what ME were all about. I can't believe you seriously think an unregulated capitalism would last more than a year. You sound like an undergraduate Randian, not a grownup lawyer. Now you are being insulting. While I was an undergraduate Randian, I am now a grownup lawyer. I love rules and regulations. Without them, I would have no way of making a living. For the third time, my serious point, which no one has refuted, let alone disagreed with, is that the modern liberal sees nothing fundamentally contentious about the policy prescriptions of the Communist Manifesto. The modern liberal may disagree at the margin, or have concerns about practicality, but there is no philosophical opposition. I agree that there is a philosophical distinction in that the Marxist wants to transform the system and and the liberal wants to reform it. But again, that is a different issue than whether the liberal has any fundamental disagreements with the prescriptions in the Communist Manifesto. David Shemano
Re: Sad Story
Gil Skillman writes: By David Shemano's reasoning, not only are taxation, regulation and income redistribution tantamount to abolition of private property and centralization of economic power in the hands of the state, (the claim of his previous post), but these forms are tactically superior methods of abolition and centralization because fewer people oppose them. Thus modern liberalism is functionally equivalent to communism. This assessment is reinforced by a passage from his subsequent post: For the third time, my serious point, which no one has refuted, let alone disagreed with, is that the modern liberal sees nothing fundamentally contentious about the policy prescriptions of the Communist Manifesto. The modern liberal may disagree at the margin, or have concerns about practicality, but there is no philosophical opposition. You must agree, then, David, that the following are the formulations of a de facto communist. Right? To prohibit the use of certain poisonous substances or to require special precautions in their use, to limit working hours or to require certain sanitary arrangements, is fully compatible with the preservation of competition. The only question here is whether in the particular instance the advantages gained are greater than the social costs which they impose. Nor is the preservation of competition incompatible with an extensive system of social services There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained the first kind of security [i.e., that against severe physical privation] should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom. There are difficult questions about the precise standard which should thus be assured...but there can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody...Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. There is, finally, the supremely important problem of combating general fluctuations of economic activity and the recurrent waves of large-scale unemployment which accompany them. This is, of course, one of the gravest and most pressing problems of our time...Many economists hope, indeed, that the ultimate remedy be found in the field of monetary policy... Gil Skillman Yes, Hayek was a communist. That is why Justin Schwartz loves him. My critics are being so darned rigid and formalistic -- regulation is one category, abolition is another, etc.. All I am saying that if you want to abolish something, the easiest way is to tax and regulate it to death. There should be nothing controversial about this. For instance, the concept of eminent domain, enshrined in the Fifth Amendment, provides that the government must be due compensation if it takes private property. While we think of eminent domain is actual physical possession of property, the courts were faced with situations of regulatory takings, where the government does not actually take possession, but forbids use of the property and deprives the owner of the economic value of the property. While the case law is confusing and often contradictory, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that regulatory takings are in fact takings requiring compensation. This is just one example where regulation is functionally the same as abolition. Similarly, take rent control. One of the consequences of rent control, a regulatory measure, is that at a certain point the landlord will abandon the buillding, which will then be taken over by the applicable governmental entity. This was certainly true in New York, where the City became the largest landord in various areas as a result of abandonments and failure to pay real property taxes. Therefore, the goal -- government ownership of real property --was achieved through regulatory measures. I am just trying to help. David Shemano
Re: Sad Story
Doug Henwood writes: For the third time, my serious point, which no one has refuted, let alone disagreed with, is that the modern liberal sees nothing fundamentally contentious about the policy prescriptions of the Communist Manifesto. And for the nth time, I say you're wrong: the modern liberal has no problem with capitalism or private ownership of the means of production - they just want to make it work a bit better. The whole point of the Manifesto was to overthrow capitalism, not make it work better. Why is it that people on the right have such trouble making distinctions among people left of center? I know the differences among neocons, monetarists, Christian rightists, supply-siders, Objectivists, libertarians (and among those, corporate and anti-imperialist libertarians), etc. Why can't you return the favor? Doug Where did I say that the modern liberal agrees with the purposes of the Communist Manifesto, or Marx's overall program, or wants to overthrow capitalisn? All I said is that if you read the ten policy prescriptions in the Communist Manifesto to the average person who supports Ralph Nader, or Howard Dead, or any of the other liberal Democratic Party candidates, that person will either agree with the prescriptions or not have any philosophical objection to the prescriptions, other than at the margin or regarding practicality. In other words, what was revolutionary in 1848 is simply another policy option in 2003. I think that is a pretty significant accomplishment for Marx in the big scheme of things. Let me give you just one example -- the graduated income tax. It is dogma to the modern liberal that there should be a graduated income tax, regardless of the benefits (or lack thereof). Even if the evidence were that a flat income tax or some other tax scheme would bring in the same revenue as the graduated income tax and pay for all the programs the liberal supports, the elimination of the graduated income tax would be opposed by the modern liberal on various ideological grounds, and I would suggest those grounds are not too different than the grounds Marx had in mind in 1848. David Shemano
Re: Sad Story
Justin writes: On a long car trip today, I discussed politics with my almost-14 year old daughter, and the Clintons came up as a topic. She said she'd vore for Hilary cause she's smart. I said I didn't like them because they knew what was right and did the wrong thing. Like what, she said. I said, like full employment, national health, no striker replacement. Oh, she said, you mean _communism._ Like Ralph Nader. So that is how things look to a smart 13 year old. Old style liberalism is communism. Clintonism is the far limit of the possible. Are we fucked, or what? And not in the nice way. Your daughter is correct. If you read the 10 policy measures set forth in the Communist Manifesto to a modern liberal, the liberal would think you are reading from the Democratic Party platform. You should declare victory and go celebrate. David Shemano
