Search LBO-Talk Archives

41146 Soft privatization -- rank: 1000

Seth Ackerman wrote: >I can accept that there might be undesirable consequences from pouring >billions into the stock market, and that there would be no boon to real >investment, but I don't see why there would be commissions (presumably >the trust fund would hire its own managers) and I think it's a little >dogmatic to oppose it because it's "giving something up." As long as >Wall Street doesn't get its mitts on the loot, isn't that better than >raising the most r ...

Document Size:	6442
Author:	Doug Henwood
Date:	Fri Jul 31 08:41:10 PDT 1998

41147 greetings/shaughnessy+saylor -- rank: 1000

[This bounced because it was >30,000 characters. Paula, please don't respond by quoting the whole digest - just the bit your responding to!] From: pms <laflame at mindspring.com> Subject: greetings/shaughnessy+saylor hi-new at this. hope i'm typing this in the right space and it gets to where i want it to go. doug-thanks for many happy hard copy lbo moments. i never warmed up to your m2 etc. explainations, always read that page last but i was glad i had a clue when i was reading a BW ...

Document Size:	7642
Author:	Doug Henwood
Date:	Thu Jul 30 22:17:05 PDT 1998

41148 Soft privatization -- rank: 1000

Jordan Hayes wrote: >what i can't understand is why people think there's some >pile of money out there that's presently _not_ being invested >somewhere. i mean, they call it a 'trust fund' but it isn't >really in any sense an actual fund, right? fica payments go into >the treasury and the treasury makes payments to current recipients. > >what trust fund? "No trust," as they said on Melville's Fidele. >From Keynes's General Theory, pp. 104-105: "Effective ...

Document Size:	6309
Author:	Doug Henwood
Date:	Thu Jul 30 22:12:31 PDT 1998

41149 whores & cops -- rank: 1000

[Tracy Quan asked me to post this to the list.] X-Sender: quan at popserver.panix.com Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 15:02:08 -0400 To: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> From: Tracy Quan <quan at panix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Copyright 1998, Newsday Inc. Viewpoints Wednesday, July 29, 1998 pp A38. Cops, Prostitutes Can Ally Against Crime By Tracy Quan YOU DON'T HAVE to have a heart of gold to know that police officers -- even those who abuse their power -- have ordinary human needs. P ...

Document Size:	10994
Author:	Doug Henwood
Date:	Thu Jul 30 12:03:51 PDT 1998

41150 Privatization Pep Rally -- rank: 1000

Max Sawicky wrote: >I would reiterate that appeals to experience >have limited effects in boosting anti- >privatization arguments, for reasons to >be found in my numerous posts. Max, what you're really saying is that the ruling class has decided to privatize Social Security, and all their loyal professors and pundits are aiding in the sales effort, and there's not a goddamn thing we can do about it. Especially since it's going to be done by a Democratic president, which silences the ...

Document Size:	5027
Author:	Doug Henwood
Date:	Thu Jul 30 11:36:04 PDT 1998

41151 disinterested science -- rank: 1000

Brett Knowlton wrote: >Thanks for the statistics. It's curious that the worst decade in terms of >GDP growth was the 1910-1920 decade, especially considering the fact that >WWI was fought in the middle of this decade. I thought war was supposed to >be good for business. Do you know the reason for this anamoly (just curious)? Here are the yearly figs: 1910 +2.9% 1911 +3.1% 1912 +4.8% 1913 +1.1% 1914 -3.9% 1915 -1.1% 1916 +7.6% 1917 +1.9% 1918 +18.3% 1919 -7.3% 1920 -7.8% The war bo ...

Document Size:	4993
Author:	Doug Henwood
Date:	Thu Jul 30 11:26:25 PDT 1998

41152 disinterested science -- rank: 1000

Max Sawicky wrote: >Then there's the other defining national >characterisic: if you're not howling in >the wilderness, you're not doing anything >meaningful. Are those the only two choices? "Doing something meaningful" means getting an audience with Bob Rubin or Alexis Herman. And if you're not doing that, you're "howling in the wilderness." Is there no way to challenge the structural idiocy of American politics, Max? Doug

Document Size:	4856
Author:	Doug Henwood
Date:	Thu Jul 30 11:19:09 PDT 1998

41153 disinterested science -- rank: 1000

Frances Bolton (PHI) wrote: >On Thu, 30 Jul 1998, Doug Henwood wrote: >> >> Ah, Max can call me whatever he wants, even a reformist or a petit >> bourgeois exploiter of youthful labor. > > >Really? You're in on the unpaid intern racket? No. I pay $50/week for 5-10 hours of work, plus subway fare. Doug

Document Size:	4766
Author:	Doug Henwood
Date:	Thu Jul 30 10:58:30 PDT 1998

41154 disinterested science -- rank: 1000

Doyle Saylor wrote: >Max Sawicky has started replying to people who call him a beltway >inhabitent with Max's own brand of name calling. Max called Doug a >beatnik from New York. In some sense name calling is about taking a >magic power to characterize reality from someone whom one targets I >suppose. But Max can't you just relie upon the truth of the work you >cite, and let go of things like Doug or anyone calling you a beltway >denizen. We all have to occupy some piece ...

Document Size:	6140
Author:	Doug Henwood
Date:	Thu Jul 30 09:13:44 PDT 1998

41155 Privatization Pep Rally -- rank: 1000

Max Sawicky wrote: >Forgive me for not looking all of this up for you. >I responded originally because I strongly suspect >there was no peak near the beginning of the Thirties. >The crash was in '29, after all. This means the >decade would begin at or near a low point, and >the average growth rate for the '30's would exaggerate >the rate for the relevant cycle. > >The concept is not all that squishy. Business cycle >peaks are relatively distinct in the data (troug ...

Document Size:	6928
Author:	Doug Henwood
Date:	Thu Jul 30 09:05:36 PDT 1998

41156 Privatization Pep Rally -- rank: 1000

Max Sawicky wrote: >The proper analogue to a 75 year average is >one over a business cycle, from peak to >peak, not "the thirties". If you're not >an economist, you can be excused from being >obliged to know this. Why is that the proper analogue? A 75-year period contains many business cycles, and probably includes incomplete parts of two. A decade is a medium-term periodization that also contains more than one cycle. It's not just the cycles that matter, but the length ...

Document Size:	5736
Author:	Doug Henwood
Date:	Wed Jul 29 23:18:01 PDT 1998

41157 GM technology -- rank: 1000

[this bounced from Michael E - Welch is chair of GE, not GM, but who's to quibble?] Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 21:33:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19980729213517.642f6c0a at pop.igc.org> X-Sender: meisenscher at pop.igc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: J Schaffner <jschaffner at labornet.org> (by way of Michael Eisenscher <meisenscher at igc.apc.org>) ...

Document Size:	7488
Author:	Doug Henwood
Date:	Wed Jul 29 23:02:59 PDT 1998

41158 Privatization Pep Rally -- rank: 1000

Seth Ackerman wrote: >I thought I remembered Dean Baker once saying that the rate would have >to be something like 3% at least to wipeout the projected SS shortfall >singlehandedly. Is this not right? Whence 2.5%? Dean said that there's a passage in the SS Trustees report arguing this, but I sure can't find it. I did the simulation myself. I assumed that the dollar obligation of SS pension checks remains the same, and had GDP grow at 2.5% rather than 1.5%. I also assumed that the system ...

Document Size:	5414
Author:	Doug Henwood
Date:	Wed Jul 29 13:21:20 PDT 1998

41159 GM/UAW -- rank: 1000

Frances Bolton (PHI) wrote: >can you say why you think the UAW won? I meant only in the short term - the investment commitment to Flint, specifically, and the pledge not to sell Delphi in the next few months. GM has made similar promises, only to break them, in the past, and I see no reason why they won't break this one. Which is why I was bemoaning the UAW's lack of a long-term strategy a few weeks ago. Doug

Document Size:	4644
Author:	Doug Henwood
Date:	Wed Jul 29 12:52:49 PDT 1998

41160 Privatization Pep Rally -- rank: 1000

Max Sawicky wrote: >It remains for us to explain why we'll get >to 2.5, and why the arguments that we won't >get there are wrong. Seems to me the burden of proof is on someone forecasting a sharp departure from historical averages, not on those who argue that the future should be much like the past. (Don't tell Paul Davidson!) Even 2.5% is well below the average growth rate of the last 75 years. Doug

Document Size:	4824
Author:	Doug Henwood
Date:	Wed Jul 29 12:42:25 PDT 1998