From cburford at gn.apc.org Wed May 1 00:46:01 2002 From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:42 2006 Subject: [A-List] Forwarded from Nestor In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20020430092254.01045b70@popserver.panix.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.1.20020501070510.03171b60@pop3.norton.antivirus> I am afraid Nestor's words vindicate my opinion of December. Did I misunderstand Louis Proyect's robust comment of 22 December when I assumed it to mean that there was indeed a possibility of a revolution? (The thread title was "Argentina's spontaneous revolution") >Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 08:25:18 -0500 > > >On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 07:40:11 +0000, Chris Burford wrote: > > > >The IMF is not crying for Argentina. It has > >almost certainly calculated on the riots. > > > >Progressive people must be as hard-headed. > > > >This is not a revolution. > > >This is pure tripe. Revolutions don't materialize out of nowhere like >some deus ex machina. They gestate out of a series of escalating >struggles, some of which are blunted or defeated. In the process of >these struggles, the masses become educated. > > >Obviously what's lacking in Argentina is a mass vanguard >organization. What appears not to be lacking is the will to fight, >which sadly disappeared in Russia quite some time ago. And in >sections of the British post-Communist left as well. Nor does Nestor's post support the suggestion that >Obviously what's lacking in Argentina is a mass vanguard >organization. I would be genuinely happy to be proved wrong and to believe that the situation is at least as hopeful as in Venezuela (limited). My guess is that the only hope for Argentina, is a rational stable devaluation of its currency, regional cooperation against the domination of the the IMF, and reform of the IMF to pump capital out to the peripheries of the global capitalist system. The IMF has so far only been moved enough to consider a rational system whereby countries like Argentina can go bankrupt more smoothly (!) (See an earlier clip by Michael Keaney) It is essential that left wingers, whatever label they accept for themselves, are realistic about how difficult the global situation is. I think Nestor's communication confirms that. Chris Burford From annewilliamson at msn.con Wed May 1 05:21:01 2002 From: annewilliamson at msn.con (Anne Williamson) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:42 2006 Subject: [A-List] Enron's corporate welfare References: <4.3.2.7.1.20020501070510.03171b60@pop3.norton.antivirus> Message-ID: <029201c1f101$abf4e820$0100a8c0@igrushkii> townhall.com Robert Novak May 1, 2002 Enron's corporate welfare WASHINGTON -- A bipartisan Senate Finance Committee investigation has found that Enron Corp., no paragon of free-market deregulation, gorged itself on corporate welfare. The Clinton administration gave more than $650 million in Export-Import Bank loans to Enron-related companies. While the Senate now probes whether the bankrupt energy company falsified loan requests, the bigger question is why Enron was subsidized at all. Export-Import officials early this year, expressing confidence in the accuracy of information provided by Enron in its loan applications, were not interested in an investigation. However, Ex-Im Vice Chairman Eduardo Aguirre sang a different tune in his April 23 letter to Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the Finance Committee's senior Republican. "Please let me assure you that Ex-Im Bank takes very seriously potential violations of law . . . and works very closely with the Department of Justice," wrote Aguirre. Finance staffers have found that Ex-Im, as well as the Overseas Private Investment Corp. (OPIC), in a Democratic administration routinely approved loan requests from a supposedly Republican company. Lavish bipartisan political contributions may have helped, as well as a top Enron executive sitting on Ex-Im's Advisory Committee. Actually, one official of the agency informed a Senate investigator that all Ex-Im really monitors is loan repayment. Ironically, it is unclear whether Enron loans will be defaulted at American taxpayer expense. While the rationale for the Export-Import Bank's existence is to give U.S. businesses a level playing field against government-subsidized foreign competition, the Enron loans merely buttressed questionable projects where the company often was both producer and exporter. The classic case is a September 1994 Ex-Im direct loan of $302 million ($175 million of which remains unpaid) to Dabhol Power Co. in India, then 80 percent owned by Enron. In this deal, Enron was the "foreign" company, and its allies, Bechtel Group and General Electric, were the exporters. With an Indian utility that could not pay its bills (and was pressured by the Bush administration to do so) as its only customer, Dabhol went bankrupt even before Enron. A less publicized loan scrutinized by Senate investigators provided $135 million (only $4 million of which has been repaid) to the Accroven partnership for a natural gas plant in Venezuela. Nearly half the company's stock was owned by Enron while Enron also was the exporter. Thus, the U.S. taxpayer was paying Enron money so that Enron could buy gas from Enron. Enron's loan application for the Accroven project included the company's 1998 annual report, which the company has admitted was falsified. "I'm troubled by the Ex-Im's seeming lack of interest in this matter," Grassley wrote Aguirre on April 2. Ex-Im loaned $250 million to Trakya Elektrik of Turkey, owned 50 percent by Enron, which was buying goods and services from Enron. Ex-Im insured a $3.6 million Citibank loan to Promigas in Colombia, owned 42.3 percent by Enron. Whether or not these loans were based on misleading information, it is difficult see how any of these deals fulfills the Export-Import Bank's avowed purpose of promoting American competition against the world. While Democratic Sen. Ernest F. Hollings delivered his memorable judgment that Enron benefited from the Bush presidency on a cash-and-carry basis, the symbiosis between big business and the purveyors of corporate welfare is bipartisan. Just as Enron gave to both parties, Bechtel has contributed $820,000 to Republicans and $730,000 to Democrats since the 1992 elections. Rebecca A. McDonald, CEO of Enron Global Assets, was on Ex-Im's Advisory Committee under President Clinton in 2000 and remained there under President Bush in 2001. How can it be that a major recipient of government largesse is advising the agency handing it out? Except for a fitful effort to trim it down in the early months of the Reagan administration in 1981 and some restraint by the current Bush administration, the Export-Import Bank has sailed through governments of both parties -- hardly noticed and never critically examined. Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, the Finance Committee's Democratic chairman, and Sen. Grassley in a Jan. 31 letter to Ex-Im questioned whether the American taxpayer "ultimately" would be stuck with the bill for Enron. A broader scrutiny of the agency's global pursuits is still wanting. From lnp3 at panix.com Wed May 1 06:29:03 2002 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:42 2006 Subject: [A-List] Forwarded from Nestor In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20020501070510.03171b60@pop3.norton.antivirus> References: <3.0.1.32.20020430092254.01045b70@popserver.panix.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.20020501082610.0104af40@popserver.panix.com> Chris Burford: >I would be genuinely happy to be proved wrong and to believe that the >situation is at least as hopeful as in Venezuela (limited). My guess is >that the only hope for Argentina, is a rational stable devaluation of its >currency, regional cooperation against the domination of the the IMF, and >reform of the IMF to pump capital out to the peripheries of the global >capitalist system. TINA. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org From annewilliamson at msn.con Wed May 1 06:47:03 2002 From: annewilliamson at msn.con (Anne Williamson) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:42 2006 Subject: [A-List] Forwarded from Nestor References: <3.0.1.32.20020430092254.01045b70@popserver.panix.com> <3.0.1.32.20020501082610.0104af40@popserver.panix.com> Message-ID: <02fa01c1f10d$a30a13a0$0100a8c0@igrushkii> The IMF can NOT be reformed. It's purpose is NOT to provide "capital out to the peripheries" - never was, isn't now, and never will be. The only thing to do with the IMF is KILL it! -A. PS Argentina doesn't need the IMF, nor does any other nation. The American Empire needs the IMF, and the EU to a certain degree. ----- Original Message ----- From: Louis Proyect To: Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 8:26 AM Subject: Re: [A-List] Forwarded from Nestor > Chris Burford: > >I would be genuinely happy to be proved wrong and to believe that the > >situation is at least as hopeful as in Venezuela (limited). My guess is > >that the only hope for Argentina, is a rational stable devaluation of its > >currency, regional cooperation against the domination of the the IMF, and > >reform of the IMF to pump capital out to the peripheries of the global > >capitalist system. > > TINA. > > > Louis Proyect > Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org > > > > From tariq200 at pes.comsats.net.pk Wed May 1 12:30:03 2002 From: tariq200 at pes.comsats.net.pk (Tariq) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:42 2006 Subject: [A-List] AMERICAN EMPIRE (fwd) References: <3CCF742A.25473F14@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <010101c1f13f$2c4900a0$860f38d2@pes.comsats.net.pk> Empires, the old ones at least, were not racist in policy. That's how an imperial power could assimilate the wassals into loyalty and contributing to the overall strength of the empire. The western imperial powers on the other hand were racial and thus crumbled fast. Without putting up an assimilative facade empires will need employment of greater forces to garrison and will continue to remain in a state of siege, a condition that saps will and energy both. If the empire choses to assimilate only regimes that hold no roots among the indigenous masses the regimes will soon be toppled and a continous spiral of ushering in one wassal after another will ensue. The impoverishment of the miserable of the world will like a natural phenomenon throw up leadership that may relieve them of the ignomy. Empire that is America will not sustain itself, it has no real friends in Asia. Israel for one is more of a liability than a a friend. America is even devoid of friends in Europe with whom she shares much in common. It is because her policies are based on deceipt and ths does not invoke loyalty. With no real friend on the continent, the empire will continue to susutain itself over long haul lines of communication, that despite high technology will entail long response time and will be vulnerable to to disruption. China with her huge human power resource and long tradition of sacrificing millions in wars including civil wars or natural calamaties will be able to endure for long in a major showdown. Tariq ******************************************** From: Henry C.K. Liu To: Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 Subject: Re: [A-List] AMERICAN EMPIRE (fwd) If the US is foolhardy enough to engage China in war, it would be the event that will end the American Empire. The US failed to vanquish China in the Korea War, even with the support of the UN. It was the first modern war between Westerners and Asians that the West did not win. Vietnam was the second. The military gap between the US and China was greater during the Korea War than now and US immunity from attack at home was then total, a condition proved non-existent after 9:11. China is not yet a formidable power projector, but its defense capabilities are thousands of times more effective than those of the Afghans. If the US could not even subdue Afghanistan with all its might, what chance does it have on China? Henry C.K. Liu Andre Gunder Frank wrote: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ANDRE GUNDER FRANK Senior Fellow, Residence World History Center One Longfellow Place Northeastern University Apt. 3411 270 Holmes Hall Boston, MA 02114 USA Boston, MA 02115 USA Tel: 617-948 2315 Tel: 617 - 373 4060 Fax: 617-948 2316 e-mail:franka@fiu.edu Web-page:csf.colorado.edu/agfrank/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 19:20:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Andre Gunder Frank To: franka@fiu.edu Subject: AMERICAN EMPIRE AMERICAN EMPIRE A political unit that has overwhelming superiority in military power, and uses that power to influence the internal behavior of other states, is called an empire. The United States [is] an indirect empire, to be sure, but an empire nonetheless.... If this is correct, our goal is not combating a rival, but maintaining our imperial position, and maintaining imperial order. Imperial wars are not so constrained [from escalation as when still confronted by the Soviet Union]. The maximum amount of force can and should be used as quickly as possible for psychological impact - to demonstrate that the empire cannot be challenged with impunity. Now we are in the business of bringing down hostile governments and creating governments favourable to us. Imperial wars end, but imperial garrisons must be left in place for decades to ensure order and stability. This is, in fact, what we are beginning to see, first in the Balkans and now in Central Asia [and] requires a lightly armed ground force for garrison purposes. Finally, imperial strategy focuses on preventing the emergence of powerful, hostile challengers to empire: by war if necessary, but by imperial assimilation if possible. China will be a major economic and military power in a generation but is not yet powerful enough to be a challenger to American empire, and the goal of the United States is to prevent that challenge from emerging. The United States could do what it does now: reassure its friends in Asia that we will not allow Chinese military intimidation to succeed. We may also want unconventional weapons with which to remind China . Stephen Peter Rose Harvard University Kaneb professor of national security and military affairs, Director of the Olin Institute for Strategic Studies, HARVARD MAGAZINE May-June 2002, pp 30-31 From cburford at gn.apc.org Thu May 2 01:00:02 2002 From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:42 2006 Subject: [A-List] "IMF cannot be reformed" In-Reply-To: <02fa01c1f10d$a30a13a0$0100a8c0@igrushkii> References: <3.0.1.32.20020430092254.01045b70@popserver.panix.com> <3.0.1.32.20020501082610.0104af40@popserver.panix.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.1.20020502073750.031fcf00@pop3.norton.antivirus> At 01/05/02 08:42 -0400, Anne wrote: >The IMF can NOT be reformed. It's purpose is NOT to provide >"capital out to the peripheries" - never was, isn't now, and never >will be. The only thing to do with the IMF is KILL it! -A. >PS Argentina doesn't need the IMF, nor does any other nation. >The American Empire needs the IMF, and the EU to a certain degree. I do not feel I know where you are coming from exactly but I have appreciated some of your pithier comments such as >The Fed exists to create inflation; >that is it's purpose. In what sense do your say "The IMF can NOT be reformed" - that they cannot think of reforming it, or we cannot think of reforming it? They are reforming it now, over the body of the Argentinian people who cannot do anything about it. It is cruel and contemptuous but the best result of the Argentinian struggles is that the IMF are clearly heading for a revolutionary bourgeois principle: Not only is "the executive of the modern state .. a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie" within that country, but it will be able to declare collective bankruptcy! This merely rationalises and makes more efficient a world situation where it is close to impossible now for a single country to resist the pressure of international finance capital on its balance of payments. It will lead to the further domination of neo-liberal ideology. To mitigate this there is some talk of Marshall Aid plans. Bush has used the term in connection with Afghanistan. Brown has promoted a global Marshall Aid plan at least ten times larger than the amount Bush suggested in Monterrey should go to the developing countries. The IMF and the World Bank are already instruments for grudgingly transfering capital to other countries. So is periodic patronising "debt forgiveness". So I do not see how you can argue that they cannot do it. They do. What they are considering is a smoother more rational way of doing it. They are creating an executive committee for managing the common affairs of the bourgeoisie of the whole world. As for whether the left can think of reforming the IMF, it may be a good tactical slogan for the militant demonstrations planned before Sept 11 that had forced the IMF and the World Bank to curtail their planned late September meeting from 5 to 2 days. However other campaigners will suggest reforms, such as Jubilee 2000. Ultimately the two tactics and the two strategies might complement each other but I do not understand the sense in which you argue that the IMF cannot be reformed. Please explain. Chris Burford London From bobenoch at shaw.ca Thu May 2 01:49:02 2002 From: bobenoch at shaw.ca (Bob Enoch) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:42 2006 Subject: [A-List] LePen, and le left References: Message-ID: <000901c1f1ad$80cc6680$61474d18@vf.shawcable.net> LePen is not the inventor of racism in France, nor is Jospin, or Chirac its' cure. In France, as in every other country, there will be no solution to the peoples' problems without the destruction of the Empire which employs, uses, and distorts us all. We will not accomplish this mission without some clear thinking about the alternative that we are presenting to the people. We are very good at criticizing the Bourgeois order, but we tend to mumble when asked about our thoughts on the future state, and for good reason. Marxists no longer agree on what the proletariat is, or how its' "dictatorship" might be described, let alone achieved. After long, dismal years in the political wildeness, we wind up in demonstrations with slogans like, "restore democracy soon!", or, "end the war in" (fill in name of most recent victim), or "be nicer to people of colour", estimable principles all.....but defensive, "correct", and ineffective in broadening our movement. The inherent message of these slogans is "...the ruling class must treat us better" We concede, in effect, their right, their fitness to rule us, while criticizing their use of their power. I believe that the way forward, the way to build a mass movement is by attacking them at their weakest point... the claim that their system is democratic. Most of our people know instinctively that this is not so, that it is corrupt, venal, and degrading. We would strike at a vital point by putting forth the demand that the people should make their own decisions, rather than the failed , feeble parliaments on offer. We should call for the expropriation of political power, and its equal distribution to the people.We should recast the dictatorship of the proletariat into the un-mediated, un-represented direct dictatorship of the whole people. The opposition to this idea comes down to some variant of " the people aren't up to the challenge of governing." (The left phrases it differently ) But if the enemies of the empire were to raise this banner now, we would seize the high ground of democracy.And make allies of millions who hate this global regime , and who will help to beat it , if they see we are not proposing ourselves as a new elite. Bob From franka at fiu.edu Thu May 2 02:36:02 2002 From: franka at fiu.edu (Andre Gunder Frank) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:42 2006 Subject: [A-List] DOUBLESPEAK: The White Man's Civilizing Mission Burden Once Again (fwd) Message-ID: Mike - am sending to you since you used Eduardo G's similar ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ANDRE GUNDER FRANK Senior Fellow Residence World History Center One Longfellow Place Northeastern University Apt. 3411 270 Holmes Hall Boston, MA 02114 USA Boston, MA 02115 USA Tel: 617-948 2315 Tel: 617 - 373 4060 Fax: 617-948 2316 Web-page:csf.colorado.edu/agfrank/ e-mail:franka@fiu.edu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 17:40:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Andre Gunder Frank To: franka@fiu.edu Subject: DOUBLESPEAK: The White Man's Civilizing Mission Burden Once Again In George Orwell's 1984 the DOUBLE THINK and NEW SPEAK of BIG BROTHER proclaimed WAR IS PEACE. Here and Now, they are collapsed into DOUBLESPEAK The present war without end is being fought to assure lasting pecae, as President George W. Bush has repeatedly assured us. A HISTORICAL FOOTNOTE "Beware of the leader who bangs of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. "It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind is closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. "Rather, the citizenry infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and do it gladly so. How do I know? I know for this is what I have done. "And I am Caesar." ON MARKETING FREEDOM by Naomi Klein TORONTO -- When the White House decided it was time to address the rising tides of anti-Americanism around the world, it didn't look to a career diplomat for help. Instead, in keeping with the Bush administration's philosophy that anything the public sector can do the private sector can do better, it hired one of Madison Avenue's top brand managers. As undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs, Charlotte Beers' assignment was not to improve relations with other countries but rather to perform an overhaul of the U.S. image abroad. Beers had no previous State Department experience, but she had held the top job at both the J. Walter Thompson and Ogilvy & Mather ad agencies, and she's built brands for everything from dog food to power drills. Now she was being asked to work her magic on the greatest branding challenge of all: to sell the United States and its war on terrorism to an increasingly hostile world. The appointment of an ad woman to this post understandably raised some criticism, but Secretary of State Colin L. Powell shrugged it off. "There is nothing wrong with getting somebody who knows how to sell something. We are selling a product. We need someone who can re-brand American foreign policy, re-brand diplomacy." Besides, he said, "She got me to buy Uncle Ben's rice." ----------------- ----------------- ON PEACE - White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters. "The president believes that Ariel Sharon is a man of peace." April 11 Comment by Elson Boles: Well of course "The president believes that Ariel Sharon is a man of peace" because the president is himself similarly a deft "man of peace." It's all quite consistent: Occupation is Liberation. Repression is Freedom. War is Peace and Security. Bush and Sharon are men of peace. ----------------------------- ------------------------ ON TERRORISM [from among thousands...] by Eqbal Ahmad In the 1930s and 1940s, the Jewish underground in Palestine was described a "terrorist." Then new things happened. By 1942, the Holocaust was occurring, and a certain liberal sympathy with the Jewish people had built up in the Western world. At that point, the terrorists of Palestine, who were Zionists, suddenly started to be described, by 1944-45, as "freedom fighters." At least two Israeli Prime Ministers, including Menachem Begin, have actually, you can find in the books and posters with their pictures, saying "Terrorists, Reward This Much." The highest reward I have noted so far was 100,000 British pounds on the head of Menachem Begin, the terrorist. Then from 1969 to 1990 the PLO, the Palestine Liberation Organization, occupied the center stage as the terrorist organization. Yasir Arafat has been described repeatedly by the great sage of American journalism, William Safire of the New York Times, as the "Chief of Terrorism." ---------- Prof. Ehud Sprinzak, the so-called "expert on extremist movements," was interviewed on the lunchtime programme [Yoman Hatzohorayim] of Channel 7. The interviewer, Ariel Kahana, presented him as a "person of the left". Sprinzak did not like this description. "I am a person of the centre", he said, "and in general I dislike labels". Then the following dialogue took place: Kahana: "What do you think about the executions in the Palestinian Authority?" Sprinzak: "I have a very positive opinion; I mean, it is a vital instrument, part of the struggle against terrorism and I have no reservation, except for one thing..." Kahana: "Ah, one moment, one moment: I was referring to the executions of collaborators by the Palestinian Authorities, not to the liquidations by our forces". Sprinzak: "Pardon, pardon, I thought you were asking me ... In any case, about the Palestinians: it is disgusting, nauseating, this is how a dictatorial system operates, without any juridical process. Absolutely unacceptable, shocking." [Originally from GNAA] ----------- by gunder frank Analogously to the appeal to human rights in order to trample on them in the NATO WAR against Yugoslavia, the present US/UK WAR against Afghanistan is ''fighing terrorism'' by using and spreading terrorism. Apart from using culster bombs, the US military is flying B-52 bombers 8 thousand miles from the US to Afghanistan in order to drop its biggest block busters [designed to bust bunkers] on people with the express [that is expressed by the Pentagon! ] intent '' to frighten and create panic and chaos'' among both troops and civilians. That is not terror? Moreover, the US government is also deliberately exposing its own population to increased and more widespread terror: A US Senator inteviewed on ABC TV was asked how the bombing of Afghanistan might impact on the United States. His answer: that his sources informed that a US attack of Afghanistan would result ''in a 100 % chance of another terrorist attack on the US" [a direct quotation!]. Then asked further by the interviewer whether that does not pose a serious problmen, the US Senator replied [another direct quotation] ''I am not troubled by that''! -------------- In THE STATE OF TERROR, Oliverio's powerful analysis of terrorism is to "comprehend that it is the state, including especially the academy and the media, who serve their own interests by labelling, denouncing, and persecuting the powerless as the sources of 'terrorism'. Concomitantly, Oliverio also appeals to our comprehension of how the same interested parties use this same power to shape our perceptions in their (largely successful) attempt to protect themselves from the terrorist label and other critiques and to exempt their policies from reform." [from the Foreword by Andre Gunder Frank] ------------------------- --------------------- ON DEMOCRACY US organized Venezuelan military and right wing ouster of democratically elected [2 tims with highest majorities ever] elected Presidet Hugo Chavez - and the installation of a new ''president'' in violation of the Constitutional provisions for succession - is a ''return to democracy same time, same station ------- The visits by Venezuelans plotting a coup, including Carmona himself, began, say sources, 'several months ago', and continued until weeks before the putsch last weekend. The visitors were received at the White House by the man President George Bush tasked to be his key policy-maker for Latin America, Otto Reich. Reich is a right-wing Cuban-American who, under Reagan, ran the Office for Public Diplomacy. It reported in theory to the State Department, but Reich was shown by congressional investigations to report directly to Reagan's National Security Aide, Colonel Oliver North, in the White House. Reich also has close ties to Venezuela, having been made ambassador to Caracas in 1986. Reich is said by OAS sources to have had 'a number of meetings with Carmona and other leaders of the coup' over several months. The coup was discussed in some detail, right down to its timing and chances of success, which were deemed to be excellent. On the day Carmona claimed power, Reich summoned ambassadors from Latin America and the Caribbean to his office. He said the removal of Chavez was not a rupture of democratic rule, as he had resigned and was 'responsible for his fate'. He said the US would support the Carmona government. But the crucial figure around the coup was Abrams, who operates in the White House as senior director of the National Security Council for 'democracy, human rights and international operations' [SIC!!]. He was a leading theoretician of the school known as 'Hemispherism', which put a priority on combating Marxism in the Americas. It led to the coup in Chile in 1973, and the sponsorship of regimes and death squads that followed it in Argentina, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and elsewhere. During the Contras' rampage in Nicaragua, he worked directly to North. Congressional investigations found Abrams had harvested illegal funding for the rebellion. Convicted for withholding information from the inquiry, he was pardoned by George Bush senior. Ed Vulliamy in THE OBSERVER [London] ----------- The Times (London) April 24, 2002 VENEZUELAN COUP PLOTTER 'IN MIAMI' From David Adams in Miami In the aftermath of Venezuela's failed coup, the United States faces further potential embarrassment after the discovery that several alleged coup leaders fled to Miami ---------------------- Before Venezuela's 1998 presidential election, the US State Department denied Chavez a visa to visit the United States on the grounds - according to Albright - that he had once been the leader of a coup, and therefore a criminal unworthy of entry. We wonder if the State Department will now apply its "no coup leaders allowed" to the band of oligarchs, military thugs (trained by the School of the Americas, like so many Latin American torturers and dictators), and media moguls, who were leaders of the failed coup of April 2002. (When he was arrested and charged with violating the Constitution on Sunday, the military-installed dictator-for-a-day Pedro Carmona was reportedly fleeing from Miraflores Palace en route to the U.S. Embassy to seek asylum.) Comment by Al Giordano -------------- Well...this is really amusing. I have to confess that, after Reagan's alleged reasons to invade Grenada (that little island was supposed to be a security threat for the US...according to Chomsky the Mexican president refused to report this to his own people and support the invasion because he was, understandably, afraid that fourty million mexicans would die in histerical laughter)...well, I never thought that I would find a more reliable source of comic relief than that story. But what about this? We have a country whose president wins, and with a considerable margin, four elections in three years (1998 election with 80 per cent of the vote, referendum on the modification of the constitution, election for the members of the constitutional commission, referendum on the approval of the constitution...to the point that i do not believe there is a more 'democratic' government on planet earth), who gets attacked by an organisation for the promotion of democracy emating from a country of which the president was appointed by the Supreme Court, after a very dubious Florida ballot and anyhow obtaining the minority of the overall US citizens votes...this one really is hard to beat. Comment by Damian.Popolo ------------------- -------------------- ON PARTNETRSHIP FOR PEACE "Partnership for Peace" programs of which the Strategic Research Development Report 5-96 of the [U.S] Center for Naval Warfare Studies reports on "activities of these forces that provide dominant battlespace knowledge necessary to shape regional security environments. Multinational excersizes, port visits, staff-to-staff coordination - all designed to increase force inter-operability and access to regional military facilities - along with intelligence and surveillance operations.... [So] forward deployed forces are backed up by those which can surge for rapid reenforcement and can be in place in seven to thirty days [256-257]"" Gunder Frank comments December 2000: -- all as a 'partnership for peace" in - we may understand - Orwellian double-speak. Indeed, U.S. local diplomats and the Clinton administration now regard the Transcapian as a 'backup' for Middle East oil supplies and some insist that the U.S. "take the lead in pacifying the entire area" including by the possible overthrow of inconveniently not sufficiently cooperative governments [258]. The policy and praxis of common military exercises also includes distant Kazakstan. All this and more "reflects a major shift in U.S. policy toward Cental Asia ... coordinated by the National Security Council," as the author quotes from the hawkish U.S. JAMESTOWN FOUNDATION MONITOR. The Security Council's former head and then already super anti-Soviet Russian hawk, Zbigniew Brzezinsky, now promotes a modernized Mackinder heartland vision of a grand U.S. led anti-Russian coalition of Europe,Turkey, Iran, and China as well as Central Asia [253]. Gunder Frank ON FREEDOM FIGHTERS by Eqbal Ahmad In 1985, President Ronald Reagan received a group of bearded men. These bearded men I was writing about in those days in The New Yorker, actually did. They were very ferocious-looking bearded men with turbans looking like they came from another century. President Reagan received them in the White House. After receiving them he spoke to the press. He pointed towards them, I'm sure some of you will recall that moment, and said, "These are the moral equivalent of America's founding fathers". These were the Afghan Mujahiddin. They were at the time, guns in hand, battling the Evil Empire. They were the moral equivalent of our founding fathers! ON NOBEL PEACE PRIZE U.N. Secretary General Wins Nobel Peace Prize The United Nations and Secretary General Kofi Annan jointly won the centenary Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for working for human rights and to defuse global conflicts. http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international/12WIRE-NOBE.html? -Kof Annan He has done nothing of the kind. On the contrary, he as been a willing tool and has provided ''legitimation''of agressive US international military and political policy & practise. -He did nothing useful and has not even denounced much less done anything [even if he did make a visit there] the decimation of Palestion civilians by Israel with US backing, nor for the implementation of the over two decade old UN resolution 202 calling for the return of the Trans-Jordan lands - He has done nothing to stop, nor even to eliminate the alleged UN cover for, the decade long embargo of Iraq, which has already killed a million persens, over half of them children [about wich US Secretary of State Madelein Albright said ''It was worth it'' ] - He did nothing at all to impede or stop the killing of millions in Africa - He did nothing useful to impede or stop the killing in East Timor - He did nothing useful to defuse the 3 year killing in Bosnia - He raised no concrete objection to the transfer from the UN to NATO of the responsibility of of policy making for and intervention praxis in Yugolsavia, thereby taking the UN out of the loop of international war/peace policy making - He then simply accepted the ''solution'' of the Bosnia crisis at - He raised no concrete objection to the transfer from the UN to NATO of the responsibility of of policy making for and intervention praxis in Yugolsavia, thereby taking the UN out of the loop of international war/peace policy making - He then simply accepted the ''solution'' of the Bosnia crisis at Dayton, USA [significantly on a military base! why is the agreement not named after that military base instead of after the nearby civilian city?] - He raised no objection - indeed consented - to the NATO war against Yugoslavia, which sidestepped and thereby violated about a dozen clauses and sections of the UN charter and most dangerously for the future sanctified the appeal to ''human rights'' to TRAMPLE ON n HUMAN RIGHTS [the anti-Iraq war already did the same and violated 7 [only!] articles of the United Nations Charter. His predecessor UN General Secretary Perez de Cuellar said ''this is a US war not a UN one." But he did nothing to prevent or modify that, and he did not even resign in protest, which might at least have dramatized that fact for the world'] and of course Kofi Annan failed to do so as well when the UN was totally emascualted and 2 decades of international law were simply destroyed in one day [or rather night]. - After the above end run around the UN, he then willingly let the UN be used as a fig leaf for the military occupation of Kosovo and then its adminstration by NATO under a UN flag - He did no more in or about the even more serious US war against Afghanstan, in which the US is using weapons and targeting people in total violation, of course again of the UN Charter [ the reference to its ''self defense section'' is both hypocritical and outside the remainder of the UN charter that defines and sets limits to what appeal to it can be used for-and this action is goes WAY beyond that] and the violation of all Geneva conventions against the targetting of facilites needed by civilians, and of the use of cluster boms [useful only against people] that also violate the Geneva convention and even US law [the last time they were used against Yugoslavia, former US President Jimmy Carter went on TV and said they are illegal, because I [he] made them illegal]. --- In a travesty even greater than bestowing it on Henry Kissinger - the same one for whom Christopher Hitchins recently provided ample documentation in HARPERS magazine to demand his indictement for WAR CRIMES - we must all now ask ourselves and answer how it is possible that the Nobel Prize is now bestowed on Mr. Annan for ''PEACE'' ??? !!! ON TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 11 Sir: Wow, it's just like when the Spanish bombed our airbases in retaliation for our failure to extradite the terrorist Pinochet, in spite of the fact that we'd been shown the evidence against him. How history repeats itself ... letter in THE INDEPENDENT [London] HISTORICAL STATISTICAL APPENDIX Tuesday, September 11, 2001 Bombing of WTC in NYC and Pentagon in Washington DC, USA DAMAGE: Human and Pysical, Economic and Political Dead and Missing 5,000 - more than half NON nationals ofthe USA WTC destroyed, Pentagon damaged existing economic recession deepend,existing political power strengthened RESPONSIBILITY personal : Unknown. Suspected: possibly Osmana bin Laden, but unproven Behind the Scenes [not much] : possibly Al Quata State responsible: None proven, nor even to anybody's knowledge RESPONSE: Massive bombing of Afghanistan by US & UK --------------------------- TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 11, 1973 Bombing of Presidential Palace La Moneda in Santiago Chile DAMAGE : Human and Pysical, Economic and Political Dead and Missing - about 30,000, almost all Chileans Thousands tortured, 100,000 plus driven into exile Moneda Palace damaged [by destruction and fire] Economy seriously damaged, unemployment trippled, inflation quadrupled, income vastly lowered and very much more unequally distributed political power changed by military coup and decade and a half military dictatorship RESPONSIBILITY personal:Chilean General Augusto Pinochet and Military Junta, [behind the scenes but very visible] U.S. President Richard Nixon & Secretary of State Henry Kissinger - all self declared and proven, eg. in their files, US Senate Church Committee Hearings, recently summarized by Christopher Hitchins in Harpers Magazine and demanding that Henry Kissinger be indicted as War Criminal to be brought before International Court of Justice or new International Criminal Court Responsible State : Chilean and United States of America RESPONSE: Car bomb in Washington DC, killing ex Chilean ambassador to US and a US national, proven responsibility: Chilean DINA secret police with CIA backup ---------- ON CIVILIZATION by John Pilger In his zeal, Tony Blair has come closer to an announcement of real intentions than any British leader since Anthony Eden. Not simply the handmaiden of Washington, Blair, in the Victorian verbosity of his extraordinary speech to the Labour Party conference, puts us on notice that imperialism's return journey to respectability is well under way. Hark, the Christian gentleman-bomber's vision of a better world for "the starving, the wretched, the dispossessed, the ignorant, those living in want and squalor from the deserts of northern Africa to the slums of Gaza to the mountain ranges of Afghanistan". Hark, his unctuous concern for the "human rights of the suffering women of Afghanistan" as he colludes in bombing them and preventing food reaching their starving children. Is all this a dark joke? Far from it; as Frank Furedi reminds us in the New Ideology of Imperialism, it is not long ago "that the moral claims of imperialism were seldom questioned in the west. Imperialism and the global expansion of the western powers were represented in unambiguously positive terms as a major contributor to human civilisation". The quest went wrong when it was clear that fascism, with all its ideas of racial and cultural superiority, was imperialism, too, and the word vanished from academic discourse. In the best Stalinist tradition, imperialism no longer existed. Since the end of the cold war, a new opportunity has arisen. The economic and political crises in the developing world, largely the result of imperialism, such as the blood-letting in the Middle East and the destruction of commodity markets in Africa, now serve as retrospective justification for imperialism. Although the word remains unspeakable, the western intelligentsia, conservatives and liberals alike, today boldly echo Bush and Blair's preferred euphemism, "civilisation". Italy's prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, and the former liberal editor Harold Evans share a word whose true meaning relies on a comparison with those who are uncivilised, inferior and might challenge the "values"of the west, specifically its God-given right to control and plunder the uncivilised. ---------- by gunder frank What kind of ''civilization'' is being defended by abrogating the only civilized institutions and laws we have in the world designed to and at least moderately able to protect us and our civilization from ourselves in a society of laws instead of brutes? The civilized institutions and laws that we have - granted that they are insufficient, but for that to be strengthend, NOT abrogated whenever it suits the strong- is all that stands between us and Hobbes's ''law of the jungle'' war of all against all in which the weak [poor and starving people in Afghanistan?] are at the total mercy of the strong [what is the most powerful country in this sad world?]. If this is not destroying civilization to save it, then destroying villages in Vietnam to save them was not Orwellian war is peace double-speak either. What kind of [Western?] civilization is this that must be ''saved'' by destroying it - indeed denying and/or wantonly neglecting its existence - and the very institutions that would make us civilized -- if we were. But of course if we are not civilized enough to observe, acknowledge and live by the very norms and institutions that would make us civilized, then what ''civilization'' is there to protect and save? AND BY CONTRAST A BIT OF STRAIGHT TALK FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH AMERICAN EMPIRE A political unit that has overwhelming superiority in military power, and uses that power to influence the internal behavior of other states, is called an empire. The United States [is] an indirect empire, to be sure, but an empire nonetheless.... If this is correct, our goal is not combating a rival, but maintaining our imperial position, and maintaining imperial order. Imperial wars are not so constrained [from escalation as when still confronted by the Soviet Union]. The maximum amount of force can and should e used as quickly as possible for psychological impact - to demonstrate that the empire cannot be challenged with impunity. Now we are in the business of bringing down hostile governments and creating governments favorable to us. Imperial wars end, but imperial garrisons must be left in place for decades to ensure order and stability. This is, in fact, what we are beginning to see, first in the Balkans and now in Central Asia [and] requires a lighly armed ground force for garrison purposes. Finally, imperial strategy focuses on preventing the emergence of powerful, hostile challengers to empire: by war if necessary, but by imperial assimilation if possible. China will be a major economic and military power in a generationbut is not yet powerful enough to be a challenger to American empire, and the goal of the United States is to prevent that challenge from emerging. The United States could do what it does now: reassure its friends in Asia that we will not allow Chinese military intimidation to succeed.We may also want unconventional weapons with which to remind China . Stephen Peter Rose Harvard University Kaneb professor of national security and military affairs, Director of the Olin Institute for Strategic Studies, HARVARD MAGAZINE May-June 2002, pp 30-31 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ANDRE GUNDER FRANK Senior Fellow Residence World History Center One Longfellow Place Northeastern University Apt. 3411 270 Holmes Hall Boston, MA 02114 USA Boston, MA 02115 USA Tel: 617-948 2315 Tel: 617 - 373 4060 Fax: 617-948 2316 Web-page:csf.colorado.edu/agfrank/ e-mail:franka@fiu.edu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From franka at fiu.edu Thu May 2 02:36:04 2002 From: franka at fiu.edu (Andre Gunder Frank) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:42 2006 Subject: [A-List] gunder frank's new web-page at csf.colorado.edu/agfrank/ (fwd) Message-ID: ready may 1st PM Please post to your net list-serves IF you deem appropriate ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ANDRE GUNDER FRANK Senior Fellow Residence World History Center One Longfellow Place Northeastern University Apt. 3411 270 Holmes Hall Boston, MA 02114 USA Boston, MA 02115 USA Tel: 617-948 2315 Tel: 617 - 373 4060 Fax: 617-948 2316 Web-page:csf.colorado.edu/agfrank/ e-mail:franka@fiu.edu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:31:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Andre Gunder Frank To: franka@fiu.edu Subject: gunder frank's new web-page at csf.colorado.edu/agfrank/ (fwd) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ANDRE GUNDER FRANK Senior Fellow Residence World History Center One Longfellow Place Northeastern University Apt. 3411 270 Holmes Hall Boston, MA 02114 USA Boston, MA 02115 USA Tel: 617-948 2315 Tel: 617 - 373 4060 Fax: 617-948 2316 Web-page:csf.colorado.edu/agfrank/ e-mail:franka@fiu.edu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My PROFESSIONAL & PERSONAL WEB-PAGE has been substantially revamped - in form with the technical expertize and good will of Paul Candela - in content and form by significant revisions of old and substantial new content supplied by myself and others, in particular - a new NEW WORLD ORDER section updates the 1999 NATO/Kosovo section, incorporating it into a one that posts new material of mine and others', especially on and contextualizing the War Against Afghanistan [e.g. AGF on CUI BONO? AGENDAS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SEPTEMBER 11]. This Section also re-posts my long 1991 Iraq/Gulf-War analysis of THIRD WORLD WAR & NEW WORLD ORDER, which in 2002 still reads remarkably current. The same Section also posts some other materials from the last decade, and it re-incorporates the 1999 NATO/Kosovo material in a new [that is old!] framework. That demonstrates the continuity and development of the NEW WORLD ORDER Bush-Clinton-Bush Doctrine as President George Bush father called it when he launched it with his War Against Iraq in 1991 that continues to this day, and which President Bush son now seeks to develop further. Prospects for the same are analyzed in a Winter 2002 essay of mine on US ECONOMIC OVERSTRETCH & IMPERIAL MILITARY/POLITICAL BLOWBACK? - a new section on gunder frank on the internet with a few selections from over 2,500 items at GOOGLE and links to AGF thereon in a dozen different language sites. - a new section on gunder frank at the INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL HISTORY in Amsterdam, which itemizes its catalog of 11 shelf meters of Andre Gunder Frank papers in its archives - an updated section on PUBLICATIONS lists over 900 of them in 27 languages, with recent ones grouped by topic: WORLD HISTORY & ARCHAEOLOGY CENTRAL ASIA & CASPIAN SEA GULF WAR & NEW WORLD ORDER FORMER SOVIET UNION & EASTERN EUROPE SOCIAL MOVEMENTS OTHER, mostly CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY - new [that is old!] more personal material of my own that I have added to the PERSONAL & Professional Section 1 of my web-page, but also including AGF biographies found on the net in German and Spanish. - old and new LINKS TO other sites, institutional and some personal, to which I would be glad to add others that you may wish to propose; and I would welcome also LINKS FROM other appropriate sites. respectfully submitted gunder frank From dch at gcal.ac.uk Thu May 2 05:04:02 2002 From: dch at gcal.ac.uk (Douglas Chalmers) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:42 2006 Subject: [A-List] LePen, and le left In-Reply-To: <000901c1f1ad$80cc6680$61474d18@vf.shawcable.net> Message-ID: On 2/5/02 8:46 am, "Bob Enoch" wrote: > LePen is not the inventor of racism in France, nor is Jospin, or Chirac its' > cure. Hi Bob, I think you are asking the wrong question here. What is facing the French on May 5th (second round), isn't a 'cure' for racism - I doubt there is a 'cure' which when applied would totally eradicate it anyway. What's necessary on May 5th is to give the fascist movement as big a set back as possible - which unfortunately can only be done by 'voting for the crook, not the fascist' as the French slogan goes. Anything which strengthens Le Pen on May 5th, will mean an increase in the real physical terror which his victims in France are already facing. Sure we need to work towards the solution to peoples problems - which is a long term continuing issue. But that's for May 6th and later Douglas > In France, as in every other country, there will be no solution to the > peoples' > problems without the destruction of the Empire which employs, uses, and > distorts us all. > We will not accomplish this mission without some clear thinking about the > alternative that we are presenting to the people. We are very good at > criticizing the Bourgeois order, but we tend to mumble when asked > about our thoughts on the future state, and for good reason. > Marxists no longer agree on what the proletariat is, or how its' > "dictatorship" might be described, let alone achieved. > After long, dismal years in the political wildeness, > we wind up in demonstrations with slogans like, "restore democracy soon!", > or, "end the war in" (fill in name of most recent victim), or "be nicer to > people of colour", estimable principles all.....but defensive, "correct", > and ineffective in broadening our movement. > The inherent message of these slogans is "...the ruling class must treat us > better" We concede, in effect, their right, their fitness to rule > us, while criticizing their use of their power. > > I believe that the way forward, the way to build a mass movement is by > attacking them at their weakest point... the claim that their system is > democratic. > Most of our people know instinctively that this is not so, that it is > corrupt, venal, and degrading. > We would strike at a vital point by putting forth the demand that the people > should make their own decisions, rather than the failed , feeble parliaments > on offer. > We should call for the expropriation of political power, and its equal > distribution to the people.We should recast the dictatorship of the > proletariat into the un-mediated, un-represented direct dictatorship of the > whole people. > The opposition to this idea comes down to some variant of " the people > aren't up to the challenge of governing." (The left phrases it differently ) > > But if the enemies of the empire were to raise this banner now, we would > seize the high ground of democracy.And make allies of millions who hate this > global regime , and who will help to beat it , if they see we are not > proposing ourselves as a new elite. > > Bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From lnp3 at panix.com Thu May 2 05:55:02 2002 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:42 2006 Subject: [A-List] "IMF cannot be reformed" In-Reply-To: <02fa01c1f10d$a30a13a0$0100a8c0@igrushkii> References: <3.0.1.32.20020430092254.01045b70@popserver.panix.com><3.0.1.32.20020501082610.0104af40@popserver.panix.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20020502073750.031fcf00@pop3.norton.antivirus> Message-ID: <200205021154.HAA24575@marionberry.cc.columbia.edu> On Thu, 02 May 2002 07:59:09 +0100, Chris Burford wrote: > >Ultimately the two tactics and the two >strategies might complement each other but I do >not understand the sense in which you argue that >the IMF cannot be reformed. Please explain. It depends on what sense you mean by reform. The Catholic Church is proposing reforms to stop pedophilia. The NYC police department has just abolished the street crime unit that killed Amadou Diallo. This is considered a reform by some black leaders. Accepting gays into the military is a reform. Putting through some sort of bankruptcy provisions into the IMF is considered a reform in some circles. However, these institutions--banks, cops, and army--make the capitalist system operable. Since your role on the Internet (performed poorly, I might add) is to foster illusions in cosmetic changes to the capitalist system, one might ask you to explain what any of this has to do with the mandate of A-List, which is to address the fundamental economic, ecological and war-peace dimensions of late capitalism. Frankly, I consider you a liberal troll. -- Louis Proyect, lnp3@panix.com on 05/02/2002 Marxism list: http://www.marxmail.org From jim at autonomedia.org Thu May 2 09:24:02 2002 From: jim at autonomedia.org (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:42 2006 Subject: [A-List] The Incomplete, True, Authentic & Wonderful... Message-ID: ...History of May Day, by Peter Linebaugh http://slash.autonomedia.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/02/1029240 -- Jim@autonomedia.org http://www.autonomedia.org From lnp3 at panix.com Thu May 2 14:36:01 2002 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:43 2006 Subject: [A-List] Nestor asked me to forward this Message-ID: <200205022035.QAA05552@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu> Chris B. wrote on the A-list: >My guess is >that the only hope for Argentina, is a rational stable devaluation of its >currency, regional cooperation against the domination of the the IMF, and >reform of the IMF to pump capital out to the peripheries of the global >capitalist system. >The IMF has so far only been moved enough to consider a rational system >whereby countries like Argentina can go bankrupt more smoothly (!) (See an >earlier clip by Michael Keaney) >It is essential that left wingers, whatever label they accept for >themselves, are realistic about how difficult the global situation is. >I think Nestor's communication confirms that I am always wondered at how my communications can confirm any form of "acceptance of the difficulties of the global situation". Maybe I have been turning conservative with the years. If so, I cannot welcome Chris B?s interpretation. It honestly puzzles me, however, because my own views, and those of about 65/70% of Argentineans, is that our only way ahead is through some form of delinking with the IMF and the dictatorship of "international currencies". Chris suggests that, because the BOURGEOIS government of Duhalde has caved in to the pressures from Washington, everyone in Argentina should follow suit. Sorry to tell you, Chris, that those views are not only unpopular here but also laughable. We all know what does it mean to accept the "14 points" of IMF, and in fact it is not a matter of chance at all that -even after signing the agreement- Duhalde himself held a long meeting the day after with Daniel Carbonetto, the most progressive bourgeois economist here. This meeting put the imperialists and their local clowns in a frenzy, which was also shared by the commercial press (_Clar?n_, the mouthpiece of the establishment for consumption of the middle and low-middle strata of the petty bourgeoisie, dedicated three mentions, all of them derogatory in a sense or another, to poor Carbonetto, immediately after the meeting took place). Carbonetto stands for stopping any conversation with the IMF for at least three years, and a shock of consumption via monetary emission. As to the foreign-owned firms, well, they should abide by the new situation, or quit. Same runs for the banking system, which is openly denounced by Carbonetto as guilty of mass robbery. At the same time, it has also become evident that nonwithstanding the pressure from the IMF, the American Embassy and the sold out governors such as de la Sota and Reutemann, the Congress will not allow the "14 points" to pass through unchanged, nor easily. Lastly, the new Minister of Economy, Lavagna, began his task by dismissing the application of the pro-banks CER (Reference Estabilization Quotient) to credits taken for single home purchase under mortgage. The CER, which had been promoted by Remes and his team, sought to estabilize in dollars the payments to be made by those who had been indebted in dollars, even though they were now forced (via "pesification" of debts in dollars) to pay their interests and capitals in pesos: it was so designed that it would obviously become expropriatory via inflation. Lavagna?s second move was to call upon the Commercial Aide of the Spanish Embassy, and to protest for a brutal declaration by the head of the Bank of Santander in Spain, according to which their controlled Banco R?o in Buenos Aires would close shop within three months at most. His politics seems to be to make the banks at least slighty solidary with the government in the devolution of the funds captured by the "playpen". So that, even in the general environment provided by the repulsive attitude of Duhalde towards his "Peronist" governors and the IMF, the government is still fighting. And if _they_ are fighting in their pitiful way, we should not suppose that the struggle exists in a social vacuum. They are fighting because they sense the rumbles below their feet. In fact, it is quite interesting to see what is happening in general: after the Dec 19/20th, a fully national and revolutionary attempt to reinstate the old doctrines of Peronism (Rodr?guez Sa?) was overthrown by a coup d??tat directed by the Peronist Duhalde and the Radical Alfons?n, that is by both wings the joint Single Party of Dependency. The attempt to turn the clock backwards, which materialized in the Remes economic cabinet, lasted less than four months. Now we have a new economic cabinet, which will try to traverse the straits between the Scylla of the IMF, large capitals and the United States, on one side, and popular rage and the most elementary sense of self-defence by the political elites on the other. He will not be able to do it. But his policies, at least from what we are witnessing, are not as reactionary as those of Remes. This is not due to lack of desire, it is an imposition from reality. Taking into account current realities, for us, means then to close off our links with the mass murderers who rule the world through the IMF and the State Department. Argentina is self-sufficient (if properly managed) in foodstuffs and sources of energy, so that we can do it. We can even stand an embargo with more ease than Cuba. We are still lacking the coallescence around the basic ideas which will promote this. But this will not last forever. Either we shall cease to exist as a nation, or we shall have to generate this new coallescence. In the first case, I only hope that Buenos Aires is allotted to Brazil. In the second case, I only hope to behave gallantly when the moment comes. Hugs to all, Nestor -- Louis Proyect, lnp3@panix.com on 05/02/2002 Marxism list: http://www.marxmail.org From annewilliamson at msn.con Thu May 2 15:23:02 2002 From: annewilliamson at msn.con (Anne Williamson) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:43 2006 Subject: [A-List] US Real Estate Bubble. References: Message-ID: <005501c1f21e$e6f45f00$0100a8c0@igrushkii> Sabri: You asked if I had any comment on the RE bubble, but I have had no time to respond due to burdensome legal obligations/deadlines, but I think this essay of Gary North's should be of interest to you. The lead is long, but he makes a very important point about the bubble, and the probable future. -A. Gary North's REALITY CHECK Issue 137 May 2, 2002 THE DEBT/INFLATION RATCHET We are all familiar with ratchets. A bar with a tapered end locks into place a gear, so that the gear cannot move backward. Then force is applied to the gear in order to move it in one direction. Click by click, the ratchet system prevents the gear from moving backward. Click by click, the system governed by the ratchet moves in one direction. This is the monetary condition of the world's economy today. A few items are so price competitive through innovation that they continue to move down in price. We see this anti-ratchet effect in computers and computer- related equipment. Moore's law is actually accelerating. The chips are now doubling in capacity every 12 months, not ever 18. This is not fast enough to speed up the boot-up process of the latest Microsoft operating system. ("Intel giveth, and Microsoft taketh away.") But, once booted, the computer is faster. COMPUTERS VS. PRICE INFLATION There is a kind of war between the price effects of computerization and the price effects of monetary inflation. I personally experienced this dualism yesterday. I installed, and then removed, an ancient Hewlett Packard Laserjet III printer. I thought I needed it to make a decade-old program on my computer function properly. I was wrong. A Laserjet III was a real improvement over the predecessor, which I also owned, but at 300 dots per inch, it's not up to par today. Most important, it is heavy. I mean really heavy. I can hold an HP 1100 (now several years old) in one hand. It puts out 600 dpi. It doesn't hold a tray of paper that the Laserjets III and IV did -- a liability -- but it is cheaper and far more convenient. So, I have compromised. I reinstalled my old Laserjet IV, which holds its price in the used printer market because of the tray. The improvement in desktop printers has been constant. Prices have fallen; quality has improved. These are tangible benefits. Consumers are now used to this in printer technology. We expect advances. But in few other areas of life are there comparable examples. Yesterday, I also experienced first-hand the other side of the coin. I watched a Rhino video of what was my favorite TV show fifty-two years ago, "Space Patrol." The budget was low even for those days. The sets were actually cheaper looking than the even older "Captain Video" program, which seems inconceivable. (I was never a "Captain Video" fan.) How I could have been a fan of "Space Patrol," yet also think that Jose Ferrer's "Cyrano de Bergerac" and Alistair Sim's "Christmas Carol" were great movies -- which they were -- escapes me. I had the entertainment aesthetics of an adult co-existing with those of a child. "Space Patrol" in its TV and radio versions created the original market for Wheat Chex and Rice Chex, allowing Ralston Purina to replace the never-popular Hot Ralston cereal. The show was incredibly popular among pre-teen boys. It ran for five years (daily: 15 minutes), plus a twice-a-week radio show, plus a weekly half-hour. It was a phenomenon. http://www.grapevinevideo.com/space_patrol.htm Even more incredibly, after the show went national, polls indicated that 60% of the audience was adults. http://www.sundaycomicsonline.com/space_patrol.htm Rhino wisely retained the show's original commercials, which are far more interesting today than the scripts. Nestle was an alternative sponsor. The actors came on- camera and promote Nestle's products. The candy bars -- Crunch, etc. -- sold for a dime. My wife's comment was "This will prove to our children that candy bars really did sell for a dime." The product line hasn't changed. What has changed is the price. Also, the bars looked bigger on-screen, which I suspect they were. So, the manufacturer reduced the quantity in order to forestall price increases. We rarely get an opportunity to compare the same product, without improvements, over time. Food products are one of the few whose formulas don't change much, and candy especially. Taste matters, so manufacturers are afraid to tamper with the formulas. They prefer to reduce sizes or change packaging. They resist passing on price increases. So, when we can compare today's prices with prices a half century ago, we can see what has happened to the purchasing power of dollar. When the show first aired, in 1950, on the local ABC TV station in Los Angeles, the actor who played "Cadet Happy," Lyn Osborn, was paid $8 per show, meaning the pre- tax equivalent of 80 Nestle candy bars. I have no idea how he paid his rent. MARKET FAILURE OR ANALYTICAL FAILURE? A free market monetary system allows users of commercial banking services to impose negative sanctions against mismanagement. If they suspect that a bank has loaned out more money than the bank has immediately withdrawable reserves on deposit, thereby increasing the money supply and also the risk of a bank run, a bank run begins. The bank is forced to call in loans and restrict the issuing of new loans. The money supply then shrinks. The free market imposes restraints on the expansion of money. It does so bank by bank. It imposes restraints on individual banks, which in turn impose restraints on the commercial banking system as a whole. Micro-incentives to restrict the issuing of new loans with newly created credit money therefore impose macro-restrictions on the entire money supply. This is the classic characteristic of the free market. A positive result in the aggregate is attained by individual decisions. Out of the self-interested actions of individuals emerges an unplanned system that benefits most of the participants. In short, "out of many, one." This self-regulating free market system of monetary management has never impressed Milton Friedman, who is famous for his attack on the gold standard and his suggestion that what society needs is a government-run monetary system that will increase the money supply by 3% to 5% per annum -- a lot of flexibility there! This is a classic accusation of "market failure" by an academic economist. The free market has somehow failed to maximize consumer benefits by providing a system that restricts abuse. It has failed to produce an optimum money supply. Yet, unlike a gold coin standard, which encourages depositors' runs on overextended banks to get the gold they are owed (deposits), as well as other commercial bankers' runs on overextended banks to get the gold they are owed (checks), Friedman's system has no independent, exogenous (outside) negative sanctions against fractionally reserved commercial banks' self-interested inflating of the money supply. The government must provide guidance and sanctions for disobeying government guidelines. Friedman's brother-in-law, Aaron Director, who was also a University of Chicago economist, took another view: a fixed money supply with falling prices due to increased production. Friedman's recommendation has always had a wider appeal than Director's among academic economists, although no one has suggested any way to get the government or a central bank to follow the 3% to 5% guideline. The result of government controls and central banking has been the disappearance of the ten-cent candy bar. Another result has been the creation of a debt structure that encourages further monetary inflation. I call this the ratchet effect. THE RATCHET EFFECT When new money unexpectedly id released into the economy by the central bank, those who get early access to the new money have a competitive advantage. They can buy at yesterday's prices. So, new users of fiat money can buy a disproportionate share of the economy's existing goods, not because they have become more productive, but because they have in their possession the newly created money. Nice work if you can get it! How do you get it? By going into debt. The central bank creates new money to buy government debt. The government immediately spends this money: checks. Those who receive these checks then deposit the money in their bank, or else they cash the check and spend the money. Banks wind up with the new money. They lend out more money, which in turn gets deposited: fractional reserve banking. So, for two groups of people -- recipients of government funds and recipients of bank loans -- the inflation process makes them winners. What we see, year by year, is an increase in the money supply, an increase in government debt funded purchased by the central bank, an increase in government spending, and an increase in private debt. All of this takes place because the monetary system allows the central bank to use government debt (or any other asset) as the nation's monetary base: the legal reserve for the commercial banking system's deposits. Debt produces hope for a future income stream. People will pay money today to buy an expected income stream. They buy bonds: expected income streams. They buy real estate: expected income stream. They buy annuities: distantly expected income stream. Create an income stream, and you have created wealth. When people bid to buy this wealth, we call this process capitalization: the capitalization of an expected income stream. These income streams are monetary. But people's goal in creating streams of income is the creation of consumable income, not digits or pieces of paper with dead politicians' pictures on them. So, people's expectations regarding future prices are important in establishing the level of present demand for monetary income streams. If the process of monetary depreciation is slow enough, people tend to forget what is happening to the value of their locked-in streams of future monetary income. I think of those Nestle candy bars. I also remember going to a movie on Saturday morning in 1951: 15 cents each way for the bus, 25 cents for the movie ticket, and 10 cents for a Butterfinger candy bar. That bought me a day's entertainment, 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.: a western, six cartoons, a serial, a newsreel, and two adult features. Plus, previews of coming attractions. The Federal Reserve has acted to undermine the value of streams of monetary income. In response, voters have pressured politicians to establish cost-of-living escalators for Social Security payments. So, the government's statisticians do whatever they can to juggle the data in such a way as to deflate the consumer price index. They prefer to include computers in the official basket of goods rather than candy bars. Moore's law is their friend. The Median CPI, published by the Cleveland Federal Reserve Bank, is not subject to political jiggling, because it is not used to establish the government's official cost- of-living estimate. So far this year, the increase in the Median CPI is moving at 3.7% annual rate. We discount the future. Income received in the future is not worth what the same income is worth to us today. We also tend to have confidence that the future will take care of itself. This is the right attitude with respect to the bad things that might happen, but probably won't. "Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof" (Matthew 6:34). This optimism encourages entrepreneurship. But there is a downside to this attitude in a world of central banking and government debt: neglect of the declining future purchasing power of money at the expense of looking at our net worth today. We look at rising prices for housing, and as home owners, we rejoice. We feel richer. We do not emotionally perceive that for every rise in our homes' value, we must pay rising rent: the forfeited value of the income that we could receive if we sold the home and invested the returns. We think, "I'm rich!" We then think, "I could be richer if I borrowed money, bought another home, and get renters to pay it off." If we buy right, this is true. http://www.johnschaub.com But leverage through debt is a two-way street. The debt meter keeps ticking even after the income stream dries up. If I pay $10,000 down on a $100,000 home, and I can sell it a year later for a net return of $110,000, I have made 100% on my investment, if I also rented it for what my costs were. But if I pay $10,000 down, and the price falls to $90,000, I have lost 100% of my investment, and maybe I could not rent it, either. So, in order to keep from getting hammered by the negative capital value effects of deflation on leveraged contracts -- mortgages -- debtors vote for politicians who promise to keep monetary income high, and thereby protect us from the risk of default. In my view, the housing market is the ultimate example of "moral hazard" that we face today. The housing market is too big to fail, meaning too big to be allowed to fail. Yet the only thing that the government and the Federal Reserve System can do to keep it from failing is to adopt a policy of money creation. This is what they have adopted. The voters want it. Eviction for non-payment of one's mortgage is an immediate problem. Pension living is in the distant future. We look at today's wealth, or the reduction thereof, and we make our political decisions accordingly. We discount the negative long-run consequences of today's political decisions. We are willing for the Federal Reserve System to sacrifice the value of future dollars in order to sustain today's monetary income stream, and hence the present market value, of our homes. This is the Great American Ratchet. We have borrowed money to capitalize our lifestyles. We have indebted ourselves to buy a consumer good that we pretend is a capital good. A house is a consumer good today -- real income, not monetary income -- but will become a capital good for us years from now: a salable stream of monetary income, but not necessarily real income. We buy real income today by going into monetary debt. Because we are present-oriented, we have made a risky exchange: real consumer income today in exchange for promised monetary payments (a mortgage). We justify this because we think that the government will keep the supply of fiat money flowing. It undoubtedly will do just that. But in pursuing real income now in exchange for making a promise to pay a fixed amount of money over the life of a mortgage, we are joining the nation's largest pressure group for the politics of inflation. We are undermining our future stream of real income as retirees. We justify buying the home as a capital investment, yet this investment is no better than what the purchasing power of money will be when we finally decide to convert our consumer good into capital. This is a self-reinforcing process. It takes ever- more debt to buy a home, and any increase in the monetary value of the home (equity) serves as a lure for taking on more debt. Interest payments on homes are deductible from gross income for income tax purposes. The ratchet of debt and inflation continues upward, fueled by the public's confusion. Home buyers do not clearly distinguish real income from monetary income, consumer goods from capital goods, and present real income from future real income. Man's inherent present- orientation favors real income now over monetary income later. This favors real income now paid out of future income later: debt. THE MEXICAN STRATEGY Mexicans will do what the rest of Americans won't: share rental space among more than one family. While this is illegal in most communities due to zoning laws, the Mexicans' definition of a family is broader than the Anglo and African-American definition. So, they legally get away with it. "This is my cousin, Manuel." His third cousin, twice removed. They pool their incomes to meet the monthly mortgage payment on one house. Thus, Mexicans are steadily buying up African-American housing. African-Americans for decades in California used the block-cracking technique to scare whites into selling at low prices. Now Mexican- Americans are using the multiple family technique to buy out African-Americans. Block-cracking is no myth. Almost 50 years ago, my grandparents were warned to sell by their long-term black housekeeper, who had cared for me as an infant for 6 months when my parents were in Washington, D.C., waiting for my father the be shipped out by the Army. She came to them and said that their neighborhood had been targeted for transition. How she knew, I don't know; maybe church members were involved. My grandparents refused to listen, and they lost a lot of the equity in their home. White flight can be used against home owners by organized African-Americans. But family pooling of funds can be used by Mexicans to gain their real estate goals, given the mortgage system. Meanwhile, Asians are using personal productivity to generate the income needed to buy up homes from the Anglos. Southern California is changing color. About 500,000 whites left the state in the 1990's. They are being bought out: from below (block-cracking) and from above (higher bids). The American dream is to own your own home. It is a worthy dream, but government guarantees have subsidized this dream. The dream now guarantees the decline in purchasing power of the dollar. The only alternative to this scenario is a fall in real estate prices as a result of a wave of defaults. When monetary income no longer allows existing home owners to pay off their mortgages, the real estate market will break. But will it break? Not if Alan Greenspan has anything to say about it. Surely, he does. CONCLUSION The debt/inflation ratchet cranks ever higher. The central bank system subsidizes government spending and, by way of funding this system, universal debt. It has subsidized a gigantic consumer debt market that is incorrectly regarded as a capital goods market: housing. Investors say, "Don't fight the Fed." If this applies to buying stocks, then it is surely true of buying homes. But we must not be naive. The subsidized housing market is a dagger at the heart of people's retirement plans. The golden years of retirement are now a myth. A declining dollar is going to destroy the dreams of a generation of baby-boomers. They will be joined in the long line of disillusionment by their grandchildren, who will not be able to get a down payment on the American dream. When governments control the money supply, you can be sure of one thing: the long-term depreciation of the value of official money. The politics of now, when coupled with the reality of long-term debt (payment tomorrow), guarantees the destruction of money. This is not a market failure. It is a government failure. There are more debtors who vote than creditors who vote. Even when the debtors (mortgage signers) are also creditors (pension asset owners), they discount the future at the expense of the present. The present political power of the economic present is far greater than the present political power of the economic future. The rachet clicks upward, day by day. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From cburford at gn.apc.org Thu May 2 16:58:01 2002 From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:43 2006 Subject: [A-List] "IMF cannot be reformed" In-Reply-To: <200205021154.HAA24575@marionberry.cc.columbia.edu> References: <02fa01c1f10d$a30a13a0$0100a8c0@igrushkii> <3.0.1.32.20020430092254.01045b70@popserver.panix.com> <3.0.1.32.20020501082610.0104af40@popserver.panix.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20020502073750.031fcf00@pop3.norton.antivirus> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.1.20020502233155.03309c60@pop3.norton.antivirus> At 02/05/02 07:56 -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: >On Thu, 02 May 2002 07:59:09 +0100, Chris Burford wrote: > > > >Ultimately the two tactics and the two > >strategies might complement each other but I do > >not understand the sense in which you argue that > >the IMF cannot be reformed. Please explain. > >It depends on what sense you mean by reform. The Catholic Church is >proposing reforms to stop pedophilia. Through democratic struggle >The NYC police department has >just abolished the street crime unit that killed Amadou Diallo. Through democratic struggle. >This >is considered a reform by some black leaders. Without knowing the details it may very well be an unsatisfactory reform - one that more perpetuates the system that encourages the confidence of working people in their ability to change it. Nevertheless of course it is a reform. >Accepting gays into the >military is a reform. Through democratic struggle >Putting through some sort of bankruptcy >provisions into the IMF is considered a reform in some circles. Such as Jubilee 2000 but - and this is significant - they think the system should be under the control of the United Nations (no doubt the General Assembly rather than the Security Council) and the IMF thinks it should be under the control of the IMF. >However, these institutions--banks, cops, and army--make the >capitalist system operable. Of course. That is why it is important to struggle for progressive changes in them. >Since your role on the Internet >(performed poorly, I might add) is to foster illusions in cosmetic >changes to the capitalist system, absolutely not. >one might ask you to explain what >any of this has to do with the mandate of A-List, which is to address >the fundamental economic, ecological and war-peace dimensions of late >capitalism. Part of those dimensions are of course about how they are being forced to change, either through their own contradictions or through pressure from democratic struggle. Does this really have to be spelled out? Perhaps if Michael Keaney wishes to publish the aims of this list that would focus everyone. It is also normal for moderators sometimes to declare when a thread is inappropriate or exhausted. I cannot see how a discussion about plans to allow whole countries to go bankrupt is immediately irrelevant to the fundamental dimensions of late capitalism. The information about the moves to introduce a system of bankruptcy for states actually came from a press clipping that the moderator forwarded himself. >Frankly, I consider you a liberal troll. That is because although in the past you have written positively about the politics of Gramsci, you fail to see that an extensive struggle for liberal democatic rights prepares the ground for socialism, and will lead into the socialist revolution. Chris Burford From cburford at gn.apc.org Thu May 2 16:58:04 2002 From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:43 2006 Subject: [A-List] Forwarded from Nestor In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20020501082610.0104af40@popserver.panix.com> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20020501070510.03171b60@pop3.norton.antivirus> <3.0.1.32.20020430092254.01045b70@popserver.panix.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.1.20020502235258.036b8bc0@pop3.norton.antivirus> At 01/05/02 08:26 -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: >Chris Burford: > >I would be genuinely happy to be proved wrong and to believe that the > >situation is at least as hopeful as in Venezuela (limited). My guess is > >that the only hope for Argentina, is a rational stable devaluation of its > >currency, regional cooperation against the domination of the the IMF, and > >reform of the IMF to pump capital out to the peripheries of the global > >capitalist system. > >TINA. What does "There Is No Alternative" mean in this context? No alternative to what? Chris Burford From lnp3 at panix.com Thu May 2 17:39:02 2002 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:43 2006 Subject: [A-List] "IMF cannot be reformed" In-Reply-To: <200205021154.HAA24575@marionberry.cc.columbia.edu> References: <02fa01c1f10d$a30a13a0$0100a8c0@igrushkii><3.0.1.32.20020430092254.01045b70@popserver.panix.com><3.0.1.32.20020501082610.0104af40@popserver.panix.com><4.3.2.7.1.20020502073750.031fcf00@pop3.norton.antivirus> <4.3.2.7.1.20020502233155.03309c60@pop3.norton.antivirus> Message-ID: <200205022338.TAA04309@marionberry.cc.columbia.edu> On Thu, 02 May 2002 23:57:37 +0100, Chris Burford wrote: > >That is because although in the past you have >written positively about the politics of >Gramsci, you fail to see that an extensive >struggle for liberal democatic rights prepares >the ground for socialism, and will lead into the > socialist revolution. I wasn't aware that providing left cover for the IMF is Gramscian. -- Louis Proyect, lnp3@panix.com on 05/02/2002 Marxism list: http://www.marxmail.org From fred at karney28.freeserve.co.uk Thu May 2 19:52:02 2002 From: fred at karney28.freeserve.co.uk (Mark Jones) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:43 2006 Subject: [A-List] test ignore Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20020503025101.00a8e648@pop.freeserve.net> test From cburford at gn.apc.org Fri May 3 00:21:02 2002 From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:43 2006 Subject: [A-List] "IMF cannot be reformed" In-Reply-To: <200205022338.TAA04309@marionberry.cc.columbia.edu> References: <200205021154.HAA24575@marionberry.cc.columbia.edu> <02fa01c1f10d$a30a13a0$0100a8c0@igrushkii> <3.0.1.32.20020430092254.01045b70@popserver.panix.com> <3.0.1.32.20020501082610.0104af40@popserver.panix.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20020502073750.031fcf00@pop3.norton.antivirus> <4.3.2.7.1.20020502233155.03309c60@pop3.norton.antivirus> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.1.20020503065138.02e0c650@pop3.norton.antivirus> At 02/05/02 19:40 -0400, you wrote: >On Thu, 02 May 2002 23:57:37 +0100, Chris Burford wrote: > > > >That is because although in the past you have > >written positively about the politics of > >Gramsci, you fail to see that an extensive > >struggle for liberal democatic rights prepares > >the ground for socialism, and will lead into the > > socialist revolution. > >I wasn't aware that providing left cover for the IMF is Gramscian. I am afraid I think this retort rather typically evades the issue. Louis does not deny that in the past he has associated his name with a positive appraisal of Gramscian politics. The issue of substance that would need a reply is what is the role of the struggle for rights in the context of the overall struggle for socialism. It is considerable. There is probably actually little difference on this list about whether the prospect for socialist revolution is very great in the world at present. I am arguing for a war of position, or resistance to fascist dangers, of what might be called a new democratic revolutionary movement. There is a long marxist tradition of some limited conditional class alliances under certain conditions. Can Louis give the reference to the passage where he says I am "providing left cover for the IMF "? I do not even support the position of Jubilee 2000 on state bankruptcy which I think from what I hear, makes too many concessions I feel his position is sectarian not only about the content but about limiting the range of the debate on a list like this. Even if someone was providing left cover for the IMF (which I am not) the most valuable thing for a list would be to expose it effectively. If someone putting my views forward could be removed from this list, I suggest subscribers may wish to think how that would affect their confidence that they could put forward their own views in the future or whether they might find the range of debate narrowing step by step. If an idea is wrong why cannot it be debated and shown to be wrong? But the main question above is what is Louis Proyect's attitude to Gramscian politics now? I hope he will answer directly rather than by innuendo. Chris Burford From cburford at gn.apc.org Fri May 3 00:21:04 2002 From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:43 2006 Subject: [A-List] Argentine spontaneous revolution In-Reply-To: <200112221324.IAA27939@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011221220339.01d03b68@mail.telepac.pt> <4.3.2.7.1.20011222073131.0345fa70@pop3.norton.antivirus> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.1.20020503071355.02e0d180@pop3.norton.antivirus> Louis Proyect chose not to answer this question on 1st May >Did I misunderstand Louis Proyect's robust comment of 22 December when I >assumed it to mean that there was indeed a possibility of a revolution? >(The thread title was "Argentina's spontaneous revolution") What exactly is "pure tripe" in the passage quoted below? At 22/12/01 08:25 -0500, Louis Proyect wrote: >On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 07:40:11 +0000, Chris Burford wrote: > > > >The IMF is not crying for Argentina. It has > >almost certainly calculated on the riots. > > > >Progressive people must be as hard-headed. > > > >This is not a revolution. > >This is pure tripe. Chris Burford From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 3 00:43:01 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:43 2006 Subject: [A-List] US imperialism: Pentagon vs. ecology Message-ID: Protest as US military targets 'green' laws IAN BRUCE The Herald, 2 May 2002 THE Pentagon has asked the US Congress to grant its armed services exemption from environmental laws to allow realistic live ammunition training in a move described yesterday by conservationists as "open season on endangered species". The restrictions the top brass want lifted include regulations covering protection of marine mammals, migratory birds, hazardous waste clean-up and clean air acts. The Department of Defence says the strict "green" rules governing a growing raft of activities "seriously hamper military training and readiness in the aftermath of September 11". It also says obtaining specific presidential exemption for individual exercises is too slow and cumbersome. A recent federal court ruling which temporarily halted bombing practice on Farallon de Medinilla, a remote island in the western Pacific where migratory birds were being killed, could now affect other ranges where live firing and bombing is carried out. Ben Cohen , the DoD's deputy counsel for environment and installations, said yesterday: "If we have to wait for another September 11 to create a threat which would allow the waivers we are asking for, the troops who have to go into battle will not have the realistic training they need." The US military owns or manages 25 million acres of land which provide a habitat for 300 species listed as threatened or endangered. Gregory Wetstone, a spokes-man for the Natural Resources Defence Council, a leading eco-friendly umbrella group, said: "This looks like a request for open season on endangered species. The US military is already one of the country's worst pollution offenders. "This seems to be an effort to broadly allow them to ignore our environmental laws when it suits them, regardless of the consequences for wildlife or environment." Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 3 01:11:02 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:43 2006 Subject: [A-List] "IMF cannot be reformed" Message-ID: Louis Proyect defines >the mandate of A-List, which is to address >the fundamental economic, ecological and war-peace dimensions of late >capitalism. I could not put it more eloquently. In fact I might just alter the information page to incorporate this accurate summary. Chris writes: >Perhaps if Michael Keaney wishes to publish the aims of this list that >would focus everyone. See above. >It is also normal for moderators sometimes to declare >when a thread is inappropriate or exhausted. I don't think this is dead or inappropriate. In my own view I think "reform" of the IMF is very unlikely, unless we find senior economists on the IMF payroll personally abusing children. Because that is about the only way in which transnational organisations like the IMF and the Catholic Church will consider a "reform" in response to external pressures. Unlike the NYPD, the IMF has no local basis and its "mandate" is legitimated on the basis of technocratic expertise, all glaring evidence to the contrary. As we know it is an agent of US imperialism, as it has evolved since the 1970s. Under current circumstances it is difficult to see what else it could be, other than an agent of EU imperialism, or some other as yet unidentified imperialism capable of administering it (and usurping US primacy in the process). Therefore I agree with those who conclude that the IMF is unreformable. Far better to shut the whole thing down, and for Argentina to do precisely what Nestor has argued, i.e, delink from the whole process, default on its loan repayments and start rebuilding its infrastructure under some sort of democratic control. The April issue of Monthly Review contains two very useful articles on this. >I cannot see how a discussion >about plans to allow whole countries to go bankrupt is immediately >irrelevant to the fundamental dimensions of late capitalism. The >information about the moves to introduce a system of bankruptcy for states >actually came from a press clipping that the moderator forwarded himself. Such a discussion is far from irrelevant. However, its relevance becomes more acute when its focus remains critically analytical of the crisis management techniques and tactical manoeuvres adopted by US policymakers and their EU lackeys with respect to the victims of their imperialist adventures. In other words, "reform" is not especially relevant as a focus of discussion when compared with outright abolition or, as in Argentina's case, unilateral withdrawal. Especially in the case of the latter, it will be up to campaigners and activists in the EU and the US to struggle on behalf of Argentina, that their governments should not take punitive measures that would only exacerbate an already calamitous situation and thereby condemn the Argentinian people to further wholly unnecessary suffering. Michael Keaney From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 3 01:45:02 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:43 2006 Subject: [A-List] UK sub-imperialism: fiscal stress Message-ID: US jets could cost Britain an extra ?1bn IAN BRUCE The Herald, 3 May 2002 BRITAIN could end up paying an extra ?1bn for the US jets chosen to equip its two planned 50,000-tonne aircraft carriers as a result of a Pentagon rethink on the size and requirements of American forces over the next decade. Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, has ordered a wide-ranging review of all major military projects which insiders say will probably mean slashing the domestic order for the J-35 Joint Strike Fighter by up to 1000 aircraft from the original 3000 airframe, three-version plan. Rumsfeld favours channeling cash from programmes designed for Cold War confrontation into precision-guided munitions and enhanced surveillance equipment more suited to the post-September 11 era. The Ministry of Defence has already ploughed ?1.3bn into development of the J-35, designed by Lockheed-Martin, on the promise of British industry gaining benefits worth up to ?24bn in offset work on a steady order-book over the next 20 years. It has also signed up to buy 150 of the versatile, single-seat jets for ?3bn. The first 60 would go to the Royal Navy as air groups for the carriers, due to enter service in 2012 and 2015 as the cornerstone of British global power projection. The rest were earmarked as "spares" or for the RAF as a back-up for the Eurofighter Typhoons which will then be in squadron service. Pentagon sources say no announcement will be made until the autumn, but that senior commanders have been ordered to pare billions of dollars from projects Rumsfeld regards as irrelevant or over-hyped. The air force has been told to consider buying 180 rather than 300 of the F-22 Raptor jets it had hoped for, and the air force, navy and marines could face a cut of up to one-third of the 3000 JSF aircraft on their shopping list. Britain's decision to opt for the maritime version of the fighter was based largely on the unit cost being held down by the size of the initial production run. A source said yesterday: "Rumsfeld faces an uphill struggle to slice the fat from the Pentagon budget. He will be resisted by generals and admirals who want shiny new weapons and plenty of them and by congressmen in whose constituencies the 'pork barrel' defence plants lie. "But he is a determined man who sees a bow-wave financial crisis looming in military spending in a few years' time when most of the pet projects come to fruition and have to be paid for. He is also set on making the US military leaner, meaner and more hi-tech and low-risk. "JSF, potentially a world-beater in both performance and overseas' sales potential, is likely to be scaled back rather than cancelled. But every aircraft removed from the order list steps up the unit cost. If 1000 fewer end up on US runways, then Britain's bill will go up proportionately. That could be a hike of ?1bn." A senior naval source said yesterday: "We would have to know soon whether the JSF option remains open. The choices then would be between cutting down the number of aircraft ordered for the navy and RAF - somewhat akin to cutting off our nose to spite our face - or changing horses in mid-stream to select another aircraft. "Given the timescales involved for selection and ordering processes, that could be an unmitigated disaster. The new carriers' deck design would have to be altered if the US Super Hornet became the alternative. "Worse still, we could end up with a hybrid naval version of the untested Eurofighter Typhoon." An MoD spokesman said last night: "The US is conducting a review of the JSF numbers required, but the programme itself is not under threat. "We also have an agreed cost target with Lockheed-Martin. We would have to be consulted if that were exceeded." Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 3 01:58:02 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:43 2006 Subject: [A-List] UK rightwing resurgence Message-ID: As a consequence of the technocratisation of politics (incorporating it now as a subset of economics) and the schizophrenic attitude of the Third Way as regards social inclusion/exclusion (Giddens' blether about rights and responsibilities) Britain is very much a part of the growing phenomenon of European far right electoral success. While nowhere near the levels achieved by Le Pen, the success of the British National Party in this week's council elections in Burnley, England, is a timely reminder of what New Labour authoritarianism is breeding. In response to "fears about crime", last week Tony (again) personally intervened to insist that children who play truant, dodging school lessons, should be denied child benefit. Or, rather, their parents should be denied child benefit. This is in accordance with the clampdown on "anti-social" neighbours in council estates, where those deemed to be public nuisances are evicted. In Glasgow two years ago this involved one family in particular, whose two teenage sons were said to be terrorising asylum seekers who had been placed in the poverty-stricken Sighthill area. Like the pathetic toadies that they are, the Labour councillors of Glasgow responded by naming and shaming the family, and serving them with an eviction notice. Fortunately the Scottish Socialist Party led a defence of the family against eviction, on the grounds that it would only serve to strengthen the BNP, whose activists were seeking to gain advantage over popular discontent that asylum seekers were being given generous benefits and accommodation (in Sighthill?). It is precisely the authoritarian moralising of New Labour, combined with the impact of neoliberal economic policies, that no amount of blether about social inclusion can hide, unless you are a mildly concerned member of the so-called middle class who likes to think that "something is being done", and preferably by someone else. I'm not sufficiently aware of the activities of other parties elsewhere in Britain, but this sort of action by the SSP is exemplary, and more will be required in order that the linkages between economic policies and social exclusion are made explicit, lest rightwing populists capitalising on popular discontent/boredom generate the sort of alarming conditions that last summer were all too prevalent in several major cities in northern England. Shock as BNP takes two Burnley seats By Ashley Broadley and Tim Ross, PA News The Independent, 03 May 2002 The far-right British National Party left mainstream politicians stunned today after taking two local council seats in a town troubled by racial tension. Mother-of-one Carol Hughes, 38, and civil engineer David Edwards, 40, both won seats on the 45-seat Burnley Council in Lancashire. The former mill town suffered three nights of racial violence in June last year which saw gangs of Asian and white youths clash with each other and riot police. Neither divorcee Ms Hughes or university graduate Mr Edwards wanted to comment on their victory. The results sent shockwaves through the political establishment as race equality campaigners and top politicians lined up to condemn the party's divisive policies. Lord Ouseley, former chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, said the Burnley result would put a "severe chill" on community relations in the area. "I wouldn't like to be a member of a minority community living in Burnley during the foreseeable future," he told the BBC1 Vote 2002 programme. "I think the BNP vote is a very severe chill factor in terms of the future of community relations in that area." Lord Ouseley also criticised Home Secretary David Blunkett, arguing that he was "wrong" to use the word "swamping" when discussing the impact large numbers of immigrant families had on local services. He said minority communities had told him they "felt the chill factor kicking in - the word 'swamping' had connotations with 1978 and Margaret Thatcher's speech at that time". Labour Party chairman Charles Clarke denounced the BNP's politics and vowed to end the threat of far-right groups. "What is unfortunate is that the BNP candidates have no interest in healing these communities, and are intent on tearing them apart," he said. Mr Clarke promised the Government would protect communities that felt vulnerable after the Burnley results and urged other politicians to "work together" to this end. "This threat has been defeated before and it will be defeated again," he said. Shahid Malik, a member of Labour's National Executive committee and a Burnley resident, called it "profoundly sad" not just for his town "but for the whole of this country". "The reality is that Burnley is still turning the corner since the riots last year," he said. But BNP leader Nick Griffin said: "It's very good news for us indeed. We have butchered the Tory party in places from Wigan to Sunderland. "If any other party had been faced with what has been thrown at us they would never have got anywhere near winning a seat. The BNP did not replicate its Burnley success in other elections across the country. The party lost its bid to gain a foothold in Bradford and failed to scoop any council seats in Oldham, Greater Manchester. But in four of the five Oldham wards, the BNP took second place, leaving them defiant and determined to continue with their campaign. And the far-right group vowed to target seats at next year's Scottish Parliament elections. Speaking in The Scotsman, Mr Griffin said he believed the electoral system of the Scottish assembly meant his party had a good chance of gaining a seat. * When counting was suspended for the night, the line-up for Burnley was: Labour 25 seats, Lib Dem 8, Conservative 4, Independent 3, BNP 2. Three seats are to be recounted later today. Full article at: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=291379 Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From soncu at pacbell.net Fri May 3 02:52:02 2002 From: soncu at pacbell.net (Sabri Oncu) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:43 2006 Subject: [A-List] Re: Popular front potential Message-ID: Michael, I love this idea of "destructive creation: ecology section". By the way, I am planning to turn all Schumpeter (If my spelling is wrong, I apologize. How am I supposed to spell such weird names from other "fundamentalisms" right?) books in my library upside down. We should go ahead and change the above title to this one. By the way, is it that we unfortunately have only some economics/finance/history/sociology/other-junk people here, or that our "green" friends are too shy, or that more shy than us the other-junk ones? Hey, it is okay to screw up every once in a while our "green" friends, as we all do. Best to all, Sabri From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 3 06:08:02 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:43 2006 Subject: [A-List] Destructive creation: UK nuclear waste Message-ID: Policy failures may cause nuclear waste crisis, say scientists By Steve Connor, Science Editor The Independent, 03 May 2002 Britain's nuclear waste problem could soon develop into a full-blown crisis if the Government fails to formulate a viable long-term policy on how to tackle the problem, senior scientists warned yesterday. A report by the Royal Society says that Britain has failed over a period of several decades to address an issue that is going to get far worse as existing nuclear power plants are decommissioned. The Royal Society scientists found that some nuclear waste is not stored as safely as it should be and that the public has lost confidence in the supposedly independent bodies that are charged with overseeing its safety. "There is a serious and urgent problem of how to manage and dispose of the legacy of 50 years of nuclear waste production by the nuclear weapons programme and the civilian nuclear industry," said Professor Geoffrey Boulton, a geologist from Edinburgh University who chaired the inquiry. "There are now more than 10,000 tons of waste mainly stored at Sellafield in Cumbria but also at Dounreay in Scotland. Even if there is no further construction of nuclear power generation plants, the decommissioning of existing plants would produce a fiftyfold increase in waste over the next few decades. So the issue is serious, and it is large," Professor Boulton said. Successive governments have postponed the politically contentious decision on what do with the high-level and medium-level waste that has accumulated since Britain began its nuclear programme in the early 1950s. At present, the waste, which can remain radioactive for many centuries, is stored above ground in waste tanks but many scientists would like it buried deep underground in long-term repositories after it has been safely "encapsulated" in ceramic or glass blocks. Professor Boulton said: "For 30 years the UK has singularly failed to create a publicly acceptable policy for the management and ultimate disposal of these potentially harmful wastes. It is time we broke out of this weary merry-go-round. "One of the most, possibly the most, immediate and difficult problem is not a scientific or technological one. There has been a failure to recognise the need for the public understanding of policies related to toxic wastes with a lifetime far in excess of the lifetime of current generations and indeed of many generations to come." The report by the Royal Society, which was produced in response to a government consultation exercise, found that the nuclear industry had assumed that the problem of waste was one of simple engineering. It also assumed that the disposal of waste could be achieved rapidly while the waste was still being accumulated, the society says. "The industry therefore seems to have regarded treatment of waste as of secondary importance, and to have focused its efforts on countering what it saw as unfounded hostile public opinion and on economic concerns," the report says. "We believe that today's problems are more serious than currently acknowledged and that a fundamental cause of them has been the error of the above assumptions." It is estimated that it may now cost more than ?85bn to tackle the waste products accumulated from the civilian and military nuclear programmes. The liabilities may increase still further if power plants start to burn mixed oxide fuel (Mox) since there is still no proven method of safely encapsulating spent Mox fuel for long-term storage, the Royal Society says. Professor Boulton said: "We recommend as a matter of urgency that the best available technologies are applied to the 90 per cent of the waste that is still unencapsulated so as to improve safety in storage." The Royal Society criticised the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) which is responsible for formulating the Government's policy on nuclear waste. "We believe that a much more radical approach is needed than that identified by Defra. The first thing to recognise is that the current institutions do not command the public confidence that is required," Professor Boulton said. "They are perceived as over-secretive and over-confident in making claims about benefit, cost and safety which has subsequently been proved false. We suggest that an independent, authoritative, transparent and accountable waste management commission is needed." Full article at: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=291408 Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 3 06:13:01 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:43 2006 Subject: [A-List] Europe/US rivalry Message-ID: Summit to expose EU rift with US on trade and terror By Stephen Castle in Brussels The Independent, 01 May 2002 Romano Prodi, the European Commission president, put Europe on a collision course with the US yesterday, accusing Washington of consistently breaching world trade laws. In an aggressive performance ahead of a summit tomorrow, Mr Prodi attacked President George Bush's decision to slap tariffs of up to 30 per cent on steel imports and suggested that it was typical of a wider American disregard for the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The move lays the ground for a combative meeting between Mr Bush, his senior aides - including the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and the US trade envoy Robert Zellick - and Mr Prodi, the EU foreign policy supremo, Javier Solana, and Jose Maria Aznar, prime minister of Spain, which holds the European Union presidency. The talks are destined to be dominated by discussions over the Middle East, the fight against terrorism, and transatlantic rifts over trade. Diplomats have spent recent days trying to play down economic disputes, but yesterday Mr Prodi defied pressure to concentrate on areas of greater consensus with the US, and hardened his rhetoric. "Repeated American failures to respect World Trade Organisation rules only raises questions about US commitment to the WTO," Mr Prodi said at a press conference in Brussels. "They should adhere to the principles of the WTO." The European Commission president added: "I cannot over-emphasise how disappointed we are at the decision taken to give the American steel industry yet more protection." Mr Prodi's intervention was greeted with annoyance by some diplomats. One US official said: "We helped to establish the WTO and, along the line, we have honoured our commitments to the WTO process. In the steel issue we believe we are within our WTO rights." The row over trade, and the threat that it will dominate the Washington summit, underlines the return to business as usual in the transatlantic relationship. Following the 11 September attacks, the EU and US pledged to unite behind a global campaign against terrorism. But, six months on, the EU and US find their deliberations overshadowed by familiar disputes. Traditional concerns about US unilateralism, as exemplified by Mr Bush's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, have resurfaced in Europe. Moreover, most EU member states remain concerned about suggestions of an American attack on Iraq. That issue has been kept off the agenda but the rifts on trade policy will have to be discussed. The row over the US steel tariffs has prompted Brussels to threaten to impose import taxes of up to EUR377m (?232m) on US goods from June, as well as arguing for a reduction in US tariffs on other goods to compensate for the impact of the new duties. In addition the EU is taking measures to prevent steel from other countries, which is now banned from the US, being dumped in the EU. Mr Prodi said yesterday that the EU had "no choice but to react" to Mr Bush's measures. The United States has, in turn, hinted that retaliation by the EU could provoke further measures from Washington. Two other trade disputes are on the horizon, one over an EU ban on hormone-treated beef from the US and a much bigger one over US tax breaks to exporters made available through the so-called foreign sales corporations. In June the WTO will grant the EU the right to impose between $1bn (?700m) and $4bn in retaliation over this dispute. On the Middle East Mr Prodi indicated that the EU would urge the US to press Israel over its military activities in the occupied territories. Earlier this month the EU gave its full backing to General Powell's diplomatic mission to the Middle East, and agreed a policy statement with the US, the UN and Russia. Mr Prodi denounced as "unacceptable" Israel's blocking of a UN fact-finding team to investigate what took place at the Jenin refugee camp. He argued: "If the army has nothing to hide there could be no reason not to allow the mission to go ahead." On combating international terrorism, the EU argues that much progress has been made since last September. The EU has agreed in principle proposals for a European arrest warrant and moved to beef up contacts between Europol, which co-ordinates police co-operation in the EU, and the US. Efforts to co-ordinate policies on border controls and migration, and improve transatlantic links on extradition and criminal investigations, are also under way. Full article at: http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=290696 Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 3 06:17:01 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:43 2006 Subject: [A-List] US financial regulatory crisis Message-ID: Could Eliot Spitzer be the most dangerous man in Manhattan? New York's prosecutor accused of attempting to kill the goose that laid the golden eggs By David Usborne in New York The Independent, 03 May 2002 Eliot Spitzer may be the Attorney General of New York, but he would probably get only a limited welcome on a walk-about on Wall Street today. A fast-talking Democrat with an eye for still-higher office, he has accused America's investment banks of hoodwinking investors into buying questionable stocks. He may soon start to bring criminal charges. Nowhere is Mr Spitzer, 42, less liked than in the corridors and canteens of Merrill Lynch. Last month he dug up some emails written by analysts at the brokerage, the largest on Wall Street, that seemed to exemplify exactly what he had been talking about. By some estimates, the Attorney General's investigation could end up costing the bank up to $2bn (?1.4bn). The emails, obtained by the Attorney General through a subpoena, do seem revealing even though Merrill Lynch claims they have been taken out of context. They show analysts cockily excoriating stocks that they have just finished touting to investors. They called these recommended buys dogs and disasters and profanities no one cares to repeat. Mr Spitzer is alleging the big banks - and he has issued subpoenas to most of the large Wall Street institutions, including Morgan Stanley and reportedly Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse First Boston - let their analysts promote stocks of companies with which they hoped to do business, such as merger and acquisition advising or equity underwriting. Never mind if they were actually quite unattractive. Questions are also being asked about ties between the success of analysts in thus boosting business for the banks and the amount they are being remunerated. "You cannot have analysts being paid to a great extent as a result of their contribution to the investment banking side of the house," Mr Spitzer commented this week. In pointing the finger, Mr Spitzer has accused the banks of "a shocking betrayal of trust". He suggests that investors, as unwitting victims of deliberate bum-steers by analysts, may have lost millions of dollars. Merrill Lynch has been forced to apologise and is negotiating a settlement deal with Mr Spitzer that may be concluded within a few days. The action by Mr Spitzer has kicked up a dust cloud on Wall Street. His critics charge him with overreaching in his inquiry. Even less politely, he is accused by some of political opportunism in the post-Enron era. Beyond the brouhaha of the headlines, Mr Spitzer has given fresh momentum to efforts nationwide to tighten regulation regarding investment banking ethics. Partly as a result, the Securities and Exchange Commission is to meet next Wednesday to discuss new standards of behaviour for analysts. "The SEC had to get aboard this ship, otherwise they would look like they were lagging behind the parade," said John Coffee, a professor at Columbia Law School. "I think they see him as an ogre." Other federal and state-level agencies are also investigating. Now voices are being raised in Washington, insisting Mr Spitzer lay off and leave the SEC to look for the right remedies. "I am disappointed by reports that the NYAG seeks to achieve blanket rule-making and policy changes that would impact the entire national securities markets," blasted Richard Baker, a Republican representative, this week. "It is essential that the SEC now lead the concluding phase of this inquiry." The SEC, led by chairman Harvey Pitt, has left no doubt about how gravely it views what has emerged. Questioned recently about the Merrill Lynch emails, Mr Pitt conceded he found them, "distressing.... They are not something that inspires confidence". But Mr Spitzer is plainly having far too much fun to defer to the SEC or anyone else on the issue. His aggressive assault on Wall Street may be ironic given his own family background. His father was one of Manhattan's most important property developers whose fortune provided most of the $10m Mr Spitzer spent on his election campaign in 2000. Normally, the swank restaurants and limousines of Wall Street would be his natural milieu. But in just a few weeks, he has made himself the darling of the consumer. "I will not concede to them the capacity to veto what we do, New York is a separate sovereign," he said earlier when asked about the SEC's own inquiry. Few observers doubt Mr Spitzer has designs at least on the governorship of New York, which slipped to the Republicans in 1992. They recall how a certain young federal prosecutor put himself on to the political map by ruthlessly rooting out insider traders on Wall Street in the 1980s. His name was Rudy Giuliani. Mr Giuliani, as it happens, was recently hired by Merrill Lynch to help reach a settlement with Mr Spitzer. Friends of the Attorney General deny he is politically motivated. "He's outraged and angry when somebody breaks the law," Connecticut's Attorney General and a family friend, Richard Blumenthal, commented. "I think that kind of quality goes back to his upbringing." Michael Bachner, a securities lawyer who worked with Mr Spitzer in the Manhattan DA's office said the same. "I don't think for a moment - for a second - that Eliot would ever do anything purely based upon the political motive," he said. "When he believes in something he was doing, he went full force into it." Full force indeed. At a shareholders' meeting last Friday the chief executive of Merrill Lynch, David Komansky, found himself more or less grovelling. "The emails that have come to light are very distressing and disappointing to us", he conceded. "They fall far short of our professional standards and some are inconsistent with our policies. I want to take this opportunity to publicly apologise to our clients, our shareholders and our employees." The emails obtained by Mr Spitzer were allegedly circulated by Merrill Lynch's internet group that was once headed by star analyst Henry Blodget. Mr Blodget had a reputation for hyping the profiles of Web-based start-ups. After the collapse of the internet bubble, he quickly fell from grace and later left the company. Merrill Lynch is widely expected to issue new guidelines to eliminate conflict of interest problems and improve the insulation of analysts from investment bankers. Similar steps are likely to be incorporated in any new regulations issued by the SEC. The bank will also promise to insulate analysts' pay from the performance of the company's investment banking arm. Then there is the question of how much the settlement deal will cost Merrill. "We estimate that the State Attorney General investigation could ultimately cost Merrill Lynch as much as $2bn," Dave Trone, an analyst with Prudential Securities, commented in a research note this week. "A caveat is that our estimates for three of the four consequences are 'worst case'." Mr Spitzer, meanwhile, will be unconcerned about his approval ratings on Wall Street. Beyond Lower Manhattan, they are surely rising. And targeting fat-cats is always rewarding to a politician. Asked about his job this week, he replied with a grin: "I love it and every day is better than the one before." Wall Street investment banks under attack The creation of the "bulge bracket" bank combining corporate advice with stockbroking arguably explains the dominance of Wall Street firms in the global financial services industry. But this one-stop shop business model needs some tweaking if it is to continue to flourish. There have long been concerns about the conflicts of interest involved when investment banking operations, which advise companies how to negotiate and finance deals, are housed with other financial activities. Indeed, during the Great Depression, worries about the close ties between commercial and investment banking led to the enforced carve-up of banks under the US Glass-Steagall regulations. But in the 1970s, those regulations were eroded. Corporate lending had become insufficiently profitable by itself, and banks were allowed to offer a wider array of financial products. In the following decade there was an explosion in companies' demand for capital, as new technologies created a truly global capital market. By combining investment banking and broking activities, Wall Street banks could advise companies on megamergers and finance the transaction all for one tidy fee. Corporate clients gained access to huge pools of capital, especially if the bank also had a retail brokerage business. Institutional investors benefited too, not least by receiving costly investment research free. Despite the success of Wall Street's integrated model witness the US occupation of the Square Mile post Big Bang US banks nowadays shy away from defending it. On the one hand, there is the fear of saying anything that might encourage the New York Attorney General or the Securities and Exchange Commission to decide the banks should be carved up. There is also the suspicion among some bankers that it might be good to jettison expensive equity research. However, some UK bankers still have faith in Wall Street's model. Krishna Patel, head of investment banking at HSBC, says the key is getting the culture right. "We started out as James Capel, which was research-driven. We did research to attract clients not deals. The Wall Street banks evolved needing to do research to get deals," he says. There is even measured support for the integrated model from Lazards, which has staunchly rejected the one-stop shop approach in order to offer corporate advice blatantly uncontaminated by conflicts of interest. Marcus Agius, Lazards' London chairman, says: "The integrated model is not under threat, but under review. These large firms' strengths and weaknesses should be recognised:they have to keep servicing huge amounts of capital, and the more you engage in capital raising for clients, the harder it is to deliver objective advice." Davide Taliente, head of Capital Markets at Oliver Wyman & Co, says integrated investment banks will survive thanks to strong bonds of trust with clients. Full article at: http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news_analysis/story.jsp?story=291361 Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 3 06:24:02 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:43 2006 Subject: [A-List] UK rightwing resurgence: Giddens speaks Message-ID: In just an inkling of what it must be like to be a citizen of a country unfortunate enough to be administered IMF "medicine", Third Way guru Anthony Giddens tells us that if the far right is gaining ground, it is because we have not "modernised" enough... And just how "modern" and "liberal" is "being tough on immigration"? And this, from supposedly one of Britain's premier social scientists. I only hope that sociologists and others who employ his "structuration" theory are as attentive to the connections between theory and practice as those who have demonstrated the continuities between Heidegger's philosophy and his Nazism. Tough on Giddens, tough on the causes of Giddens... The third way can beat the far right By modernising, liberalising and being tough on immigration Anthony Giddens Friday May 3, 2002 The Guardian The political geography of Europe is shifting. Less than three years ago, left-of-centre governments were in power in 11 out of 15 EU states. Depending on what happens in elections in France in June and Germany in September, that number could be reduced to five or six. Moreover, we have seen not just the return of the moderate right, but the resurgence of the far right, symbolised by the support gained by Jean-Marie Le Pen in France's presidential contest. What are we to make of these changes? Are we seeing an ideological transition like that of the late 1970s, when free market conservatism gained such an ascendancy? My answer would be no. To understand why the right has come back to power, we have to grasp why left-of-centre parties got into the majority from the mid-90s. It was not because the electorate was moving to the left. Surveys showed no such move. Social democratic parties did well for a cluster of reasons. They revised their political outlook to appeal to a wider constituency, abandoning some of the ideological baggage that had kept them out of power. Labour became New Labour, the German social democrats spoke of the "new middle", and so forth. But there were other, more contingent, reasons too. In Britain and Germany, conservatives had been in power for nearly 20 years - people were tired of them and wanted new faces. In Italy and France, divisions on the right helped give the left victory. In part, the return of the right today is a mirror image of the previous successes of the left. In Spain, centre-right leader Jose-Maria Aznar is in power mainly because voters became disillusioned after a long period of rule by the socialists, whose popularity was dented by corruption scandals. The Italian left was unable to contain its differences and fragmented, whereas the right under Berlusconi put up a show of unity. In Denmark, the social democrats fell from power partly because of losing a referendum on entry to the euro. In the US, Bush won - by the skin of his teeth - only because Ralph Nader took away votes from Al Gore. The fall of centre-left governments is also the result of policy failure, and it is here that the most crucial questions have to be asked. Many critics argue that the left-of-centre governments are in retreat because social democrats have moved too far towards the centre. The third way, it is said, is doomed. The way back for the left is to return to policies the modernisers rejected - high taxation, greater state intervention in industry and more emphasis on redistribution. This view does not stand up to scrutiny. Voters today are mostly non-ideological. Well over 50% in the EU countries (and the US) define themselves as neither on the left nor the right. Parties that have stuck to a traditional leftist agenda get only a small minority of votes - usually below 10%, and that is declining. The policy mistakes of centre-left governments have been the other way around - an inability to modernise enough. Among the emphases of third-way thinking are two prime elements: reform of labour markets and welfare systems, to place an emphasis on job creation; and the need to address issues traditionally dominated by the right, such as crime and immigration. Social democrats in several key EU countries have resisted or been politically unable to make these adaptations - and have ceded support to the right. The core difficulty of France, Germany and Italy is a lack of jobs. Although unemployment did fall for a while, necessary reforms to labour markets were not made by centre-left governments in any of these countries. The proportion of the labour force in work in the UK is currently about 76%. In France and Germany, it is in the mid-60s, while in Italy it is only in the 50s. In France, unemployment is particularly high among young people - a substantial proportion of whom endorsed Le Pen. Tony Blair's celebrated intention to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime was a major element of New Labour's rise to prominence. It recognises that people's anxieties about crime are real and must be responded to. It focuses on concerns that were previously an open field for the right. Social democrats elsewhere need to do likewise if they are to sustain or recover wide public support. Much the same applies to the issue of immigration, perhaps the most testing of all for left-of-centre parties. It is no use merely proclaiming that EU countries need immigrants (although they do). Policies have to be developed which are "tough on immigration, but tough on the causes of hostility to immigrants". The renewed polarisation of politics on the left and right is plainly threatening to political stability. However, the cause of the modernising left is by no means lost. It remains the only feasible way forward for European social democrats. Anthony Giddens is director of the LSE and a trustee of Policy Network Full article at: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/farright/comment/0,11375,709120,00.html Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 3 06:26:01 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:43 2006 Subject: [A-List] Afghanistan: the blowback continues Message-ID: Critics say mission could turn into Britain's Vietnam Nicholas Watt, political correspondent Friday May 3, 2002 The Guardian Senior government sources, who boasted last year that the net was tightening around Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida leadership, have become noticeably less confident in recent months. As 1,000 Royal Marines embarked on the largest offensive deployment since the Gulf war in the mountains of south-eastern Afghanistan, the government made clear yesterday that the allies were facing a long battle to root out al-Qaida. "A substantial offensive is under way," the prime minister's official spokesman said, hours after the announcement that Operation Snipe had started. "It is in very difficult mountainous territory and there are very real risks of casualties." Labour MPs, who have raised fears that British troops are in danger of being sucked into a Vietnam-style civil war in Afghanistan, warned last night of the dangers of "mission creep". Ronnie Campbell, the Labour MP for Blyth Valley who has warned of British troops being "bogged down" in Afghanistan in the same way as the Soviets in the 1980s, said last night: "Only time will tell what will happen. But the difference is that we have the best troops in the world." A leading military expert defended Operation Snipe, insisting that it would play a highly significant role in helping to stabilise Afghanistan ahead of the loya jirga, or traditional assembly, which will decide on the composition of the next government in mid-June. Christopher Langton, the head of defence analysis at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said: "It is crucial to keep up the pressure on the Taliban and al-Qaida to make sure that they are kept in the hills. If they were allowed to re-infiltrate the Pashtun heartlands and cause trouble the loya jirga would probably get off to a poor start." Col Langton said that the length of the British deployment would depend on the success of the assembly. "There is an argument that Afghan troops, trained by the west, could take over if the loya jirga is a success," he said. "But some people doubt that that can be achieved very quickly because the administration is dominated by Tajiks. They cannot operate in Pashtun areas and there are not enough Pashtuns who would be able to take on al-Qaida and the Taliban." Critics have raised questions about why Britain is taking on such a hazardous job when the US is leading the war in Afghanistan. Col Langton said: "Even the US has finite resources. The Royal Marines are probably the best high-altitude foot soldiers in the western world." Nigel Vinson, the head of the UK defence programme at the Royal United Services Institute, said that Operation Snipe will intensify the debate about the future role of the British army. He said: "Will we concentrate on nation building, as we are doing with Isaf [the International Security Assistance Force] in Afghanistan or will we develop our rapid-reaction forces to fight in the way the Royal Marines are? Unless we are prepared to give extra resources, what we are doing is unsustainable in the longer term." Full article at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,709079,00.html Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 3 06:29:02 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:43 2006 Subject: [A-List] UK financial regulatory crisis Message-ID: FSA scrutinises risk transfers Mark Milner Friday May 3, 2002 The Guardian The financial services authority is considering forcing insurance companies to disclose their exposure to the credit derivatives market, one of the fastest growing and most complex areas of global finance. The City watchdog is concerned that some of the products involved are so different from traditional insurance business that they may need to be listed separately to help monitor the risks involved. Credit risk derivatives allow the transfer of risks from one financial institution to another at a price. The FSA is studying in particular what it calls the cross-sector transfer of risk - in which a bank, for instance, passes on part of its risk exposure to an insurer. That can be done by either the insurer underwriting or guaranteeing the particular risk or investing in financial products which effectively transfer the risk to the insurer. Overall the market for credit risk derivatives amounts to up to $1,500bn a year, half of which is carried out through London, while cross-sector transfers account for up to $400bn. "Risk transfers, such as credit derivatives, can be a benefit if they are well managed. But they are a risk to the unwary," according to Clive Briault, head of the FSA's prudential standards division. "Managed well, they can diversify a firm's risk; managed badly they will concentrate it. Care is needed in the management of these innovative and complex products." The FSA is keen to ensure that firms involved understand fully what they are taking on and it is also anxious about the volume of business going either to unregulated reinsurers or through offshore financial centres. "Greater international cooperation and the introduction of global minimum standards of financial regulation, including for reinsurance companies, would alleviate some of those concerns," says the FSA report on credit risk transfers published today. Full article at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,708972,00.html Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 3 06:34:03 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:43 2006 Subject: [A-List] More on US Palestine/Israel policy Message-ID: I thought that Anne Williamson in particular might appreciate this... The tape of revelations Slimy, paranoid, foul-mouthed and anti-semitic - what the 70s White House recordings reveal about Nixon John Sutherland Monday March 11, 2002 The Guardian Despite what was said last September there are other moments in recent history when "the world changed for ever". One was July 1973 when, during the televised Watergate hearings, a minor White House official, Alexander Butterfield, blurted out that the president's office had been bugged (by order of the president) for the past two years. There were 3,000 hours of tape. Within weeks a large tranche was published. For the first time in history Americans saw their leader as he really was. "I am not a crook," Nixon famously proclaimed. The tapes showed him to be a slimy, paranoid, foul-mouthed, bigoted, scheming bastard. Hail to the (expletive deleted) chief. The recordings stopped. No subsequent president has repeated Nixon's blunder. Some of the most sensitive material was destroyed by Nixon's aides. Other material has been withheld for reasons of state. On March 1 Nara (the federal archive) released 500 hours' worth of hitherto embargoed tapes. They contain an illuminating exchange between the president and his religious ally, Dr Billy Graham. The 90-minute conversation took place after a prayer breakfast, on February 1 1972. HR Haldeman, Nixon's hatchetman, was also present. It was an election year. Nixon's dirty-tricks team was sabotaging the run of his most feared Democratic opponent, Ed Muskie. Graham begins by advising Nixon on campaign strategy. The evangelist has been invited to lunch at Time magazine. "You better take your Jewish beanie" (yarmulke), Haldeman jokes. Nixon is in darker mood. He broaches something that "we can't talk about publicly" - Jewish influence in the media. All the big news organs are "totally dominated by the Jews". Graham agrees, adding, piously, that it is the Jews "who are putting out the pornographic stuff". The three men concur that "the best Jews are actually the Israeli Jews". The American Jews are traitors (the Vietnam war was still raging). Nixon contends that "every Democratic candidate will owe his election to Jewish people". "This stranglehold has got to be broken or this country's going down the drain," Graham solemnly declares. "You believe that?" Nixon asks. "Yes, sir," Graham replies. "Oh, boy," replies Nixon. "So do I. I can't ever say that but I believe it." Graham agrees. It can never be said publicly: "But if you get elected a second time, then we might be able to do something." Nixon did, of course, get his second term. The released tapes have been edited and pruned. But Haldeman kept a diary of the conversation. After Graham left, Nixon told his henchman: "You know it was good we got this point about the Jews across... the Jews are an irreligious, atheistic, immoral bunch of bastards." As Haldeman records, Graham had earlier observed that "the Bible says there are satanic Jews and there's where our problem arises". That problem was "the total Jewish domination of the media... this was something that would have to be dealt with." Nixon and Haldeman are dead. Graham is a sick old man. But not so sick that he can't mount some damage control. He can't remember. Some of his best friends, etc. Deeply sorry, etc. Two questions hang over this squalid chat. Graham has always been close to the Republican White House. He was, not long after schmoozing anti-semitically with Nixon, the man who saved young George Bush from the demon drink. What did the Reverend say during those closeted hours of spiritual counselling - that America's breweries and distilleries were owned by "Satanic Jews"? No tapes, unfortunately. The other teasing question is: what did Nixon actually do about the Jewish "stranglehold"? It's clear that he and Graham agreed something would be done. But what? The years following Nixon's presidency have been marked by the irresistible rise of one magnate in the American media. Rupert Murdoch has gained control of major newspapers (eg the New York Post), a major TV Network (Fox) and a major Hollywood studio (TCF). Fox News Channel is virulently Republican and has become a retirement home for veteran Nixonites. Roger Ailes (one of Tricky Dicky's many right-hand men) was, last year, made network president. It was Fox News which jumped the gun by declaring George Bush winner in Florida. Why would successive Republican administrations (protectionist to the core) permit an Australian to get such a grip ("stranglehold"?) on America's media? The answer's on tape. Full article at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,665281,00.html Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 3 06:53:03 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:43 2006 Subject: [A-List] The Policy Network Message-ID: While Policy Network trustee Giddens keeps the Guardian readers assured that they will not be "swamped" (to use David Blunkett's sensitive phrase) with immigrants, here's Policy Network chairman Mandelson looking ahead to the "modernisation" that Giddens insists is essential to beat the far right. Oh yes. Old demons still haunt New Labour Having restored social democracy, the party can afford to act with confidence, says Peter Mandelson Financial Times: May 3 2002 After five years in office, the fairest verdict on the government I can offer is that New Labour was right: Britain did need a new sort of politics to carry it forward and its programme is right for the country and our times. But as to the question of whether its actions have been radical enough, the answer must be: yes, in some areas - and now it must do the same in others. For all the Westminster babble about being "too presidential", going abroad too much (no one was saying that after September 11), becoming cut off from reality, ploughing a lonely New Labour furrow even within his own government, Tony Blair has remained over time the most popular prime minister, at the head of a government with the most sustained polling lead, since the second world war. A substantial majority of the public is content with the direction of the government. It is an outstanding achievement for any administration but, historically, remarkable for a Labour one. No wonder Labour's elder statesmen view Tony Blair's first five years with envy. But interestingly, the party itself is only beginning to recognise its achievement and come to terms with its success. As it does so, it should learn to relax a little, to stop behaving in office as if it is still fighting for victory and build more on its policy strengths than its media skills. New Labour, in other words, can afford to be self-confident. It needs to realise that it has successfully re-instated social democracy as the voters' political philosophy of choice and can now advance to embed modern social democracy, its values and reformed practice, in every part of British society. Such a suggestion will horrify those who already think that the government is verging on the hegemonic, its tentacles reaching into every part of the establishment, running a state that has forgotten that we live in a multi-party democracy. But, in my view, the problem with the government is not that it is over-powerful but that it has not quite got used to exercising the power it holds. If anything, New Labour is still too frightened of its old demons: the need to reassure after 18 years in the wilderness, fear of the alienation of the middle class and the business com munity from old-style socialism, apprehension about tomorrow's newspaper headlines. This breeds timidity, a caution about policy that causes some ministers to lose their nerve when faced with the first whiff of unpopularity. At the heart of this slightly fraught state of mind is a blend of experience and inexperience. The experience shaping the outlook of many ministers is that of repeated public rejection and electoral setback, which makes them nervous of taking risks and straying from the government's core scripts and catechisms. At the same time, as a result of inexperience of office and not having been tested by politics when it gets really tough (apart from the unpleasant personal taste of this by some of us), ministers do not always realise that they have to go out and argue for their positions and face down attacks from the ignorant or self-interested. David Blunkett, the home secretary, offers the most recent example of the ministerial self-confidence that the government needs. You might question, as many have done, his use of the word "swamping" in relation to non-English speaking children at local schools; but as a lesson in standing your ground and using intelligent argument rather than bald assertion to counter your critics, it was an exemplary performance. Unorthodoxy, and following your policies through to their logical conclusion, are sometimes hard in politics, and certainty should always be tempered by modesty and self-criticism. But, ultimately, there is no substitute for having the courage of your convictions. The 2002 Budget demonstrated that when the foundations for sound policy are in place and the proper case for it is made, the public can be persuaded to follow bold policy. The history of the government's economic management and the tough choices the prime minister and chancellor have made since 1997, have brought New Labour to the position of raising the burden of taxation to pay for necessary investment in the National Health Service, and getting support from the majority of the public for doing so. A New Labour rule has been re-written, without the government changing course or altering its character. Other experiences of the government have been similarly character-forming rather than mind-changing - for example, participating in the nerve-testing wars over Kosovo and Afghanistan. But the success of the Budget is a landmark for the government that should bolster the confidence and daring of its members. The biggest challenge, which the government is applying its collective mind to now, is the reform of public services, including the radical decentralisation of the British state. The reason why voters were open to Margaret Thatcher's attacks on the state sector - every nationalised industry and public service alike - was not because they were hostile to the public sector or government action per se but because of the particular weaknesses of the British state. It is highly centralised and bureaucratic, its decision-making is remote and unaccountable, it is insufficiently tailored to local needs and circumstances and, as a result, it is trusted too little. Schools, hospitals, trains and even police forces are uneven in their performance across the country. But while substantial improvements have been achieved - for example, in healthcare, primary schools, welfare and even fighting crime - top-down, micro-management from Whitehall, which characterised the government's approach initially, did not provide the basis for long-term transformation. The public services agenda of the second term - national standards, decentralisation, local flexibility and customer choice - will be far more effective. It will also be a lot harder to achieve in practice. Ministers will need intellectual and political self-confidence in plentiful supply in the months and years ahead if, as I believe, the best is yet to come. The writer is MP for Hartlepool and author of The Blair Revolution Revisited (Politico's, revised May 2002) Full article at: http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT3IZEZIP0D Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From lnp3 at panix.com Fri May 3 08:23:01 2002 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:43 2006 Subject: [A-List] Giddens: get tough on crime Message-ID: <200205031421.KAA11869@hickory.cc.columbia.edu> (Posted to Marxmail by Ed George) [Anthony Giddens is the man generally accredited with founding the ideology of the 'third way', the ideological camouflage preferred by neo-liberal European social democracy, the most complete practitioner of which generally being held to be Tony Blair. This article is Giddens' attempt to meet the criticism that the generalised difficulties faced by European social democracy - and by extension the rise of far-right forces - are a result of a too great move to the right. Giddens responds with more of the same. Particularly significant - and alarming - is Giddens' conclusion that to save itself, and to counteract the threat of the right - social democracy has to be more tough on crime, and on immigration: i.e. to defeat the far right it has to adapt itself to its positions.] -- Louis Proyect, lnp3@panix.com on 05/03/2002 Marxism list: http://www.marxmail.org From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 3 08:43:02 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:43 2006 Subject: [A-List] Caspian Sea carve-up Message-ID: Military muscle a new impediment to Caspian solution By Sergei Blagov Asia Times, May 4 2002 MOSCOW - In the wake of last month's flawed Caspian Sea summit, it has become plain as day that the status of the sea is unlikely to be determined any time soon. Any deal will require consensus between all five littoral states - Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkmenistan. As any multilateral agreement on how the Caspian Sea is to be formally divided remains a distant dream, some of the littoral states increasingly favor a sort of interim solution in the form of bilateral deals. Now, an upcoming Russian naval exercise on its waters further complicates the issue. Russian officials believe that in the absence of an overall agreement, bilateral agreements on the Caspian are needed now so as to protect the sea's unique bio-resources. For instance, Russia's special envoy on the Caspian and Deputy Foreign Minister Viktor Kalyuzhny has long urged reaching agreement over joint measures for the preservation and use of its bio-resources without waiting for a final deal over the sea's status. The Caspian is famous for its sturgeon and black caviar. The most pressing environmental problem of the sea is its sturgeon population, representing some two-thirds of the world's reserves. The official sturgeon and caviar catch is plummeting, while poaching is estimated at five to 10 times the official catch. The tapping of offshore oil and gas reserves also threatens the Caspian's sturgeon, as well as its other bio-resources. Russia plans to boost environmental monitoring in the Northern Caspian, Ivan Glumov, Russia's deputy minister of natural resources, announced in Moscow earlier this week. Glumov also stated that the Caspian is being polluted mainly by rivers and not by oil rigs. Azerbaijan concurred: On Thursday, Gusein Bagirov, the Azeri minister of natural resources and environment, told journalists in Baku that the bulk of the Caspian's pollution came was a result of in-flowing river waters, notably the Volga, Kura and Ural rivers. He claimed that oil rigs in the Caspian are responsible for a mere 0.08 percent of the sea's pollution. However, Azeri officials seemingly would not subscribe to Moscow's view that bilateral agreements on the Caspian would be instrumental as a means of protecting the area's valuable bio-resources. It is impossible to improve the state of the Caspian environment without formally dividing the sea into national sectors, Bagirov was quoted as saying by the official Russian Information Agency (RIA). The Caspian Sea region is widely viewed as important to world markets because of its large oil and gas reserves. It has almost become an article of faith that the Caspian basin is the Persian Gulf of the 21st century. However, uncertainty over the status of the Caspian has held back oil development in the resource-rich water body, although an US$8 billion international consortium is already in production off the shores of Azerbaijan. Moscow has long been keen to have more say relative to the Caspian oil riches. No big wonder then that on May 23-24 Russian authorities are to hold an "Oil and Gas Summit: Caspian XXI". The gathering in Russia's Caspian capital Astrakhan is to be attended by oil executives as well as foreign ministry officials from the littoral states. However, informal discussions of hydrocarbon riches can hardly be a substitute for full-scale political consensus over the contested sea. The most high-profile attempt to clinch an overall deal took place on April 23-24 when leaders of the five countries met at the unprecedented Caspian summit in the Turkmen capital Ashgabat. Not surprisingly, they yet agani failed to achieve a consensus on how to divide the Caspian riches. In the wake of the failed Caspian summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that Moscow would push for a series of bilateral deals, instead of an overall agreement betweem all five littoral states. Furthermore, Putin also ordered Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov, commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy, to stage military exercises this summer with Russia's Caspian fleet because "we have had no opportunity to test it in a decade". Moscow promised that observers of the other littoral states would be invited and said that fighting terrorism and drug-smuggling are to be the main objectives of the exercise of the Caspian Fleet, Russia's military muscle in the contested sea. However, Moscow now faces a tricky task of dismissing fears that the naval exercise is designed to put pressure on its fellow littoral states. "The exercise does not threaten peace and stability in the region," Russian Ambassador to Tehran Alexander Maryasov asserted this week. According to Maryasov, on-going cooperation of the Caspian littoral states to combat terrorism, drug trafficking and the "caviar Mafia" should not become a pretext for "some politicians to seek military aid from non-littoral states in order to strengthen their naval forces in the Caspian". "Russia categorically opposes any outside military presence in the Caspian as a development, which could entail further destabilization," Maryasov was quoted as saying by RIA on Tuesday. Until last year, Russian officials used to argue that further delays in determining the Caspian's status could entail new tensions between the Caspian states, and now it has moved toward separate deals with Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan on how to agree to the sea's division. Mowcow's pending bilateral agreements with Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan "should not be viewed as a challenge to other littoral states", Maryasov was quoted as saying by RIA. Bilateral deals on environment protection, navigation, as well as oil and gas deposits, are quite natural, he said. In the meantime, Iran has arguably become more engaged in the regional "great game" on its own. Following the failed Caspian summit, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami traveled to Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan to boost ties with those Central Asian states. In Dushanbe, Khatami told journalists that any foreign military presence in the region should be transient. In a yet another sign of Iran's growing clout in the region, the next Caspian summit is tentatively scheduled to be held in Tehran. During the past decade, disagreements over the division of the Caspian hydrocarbon riches and other valuable resources have proved sufficient to prevent the littoral states from finding common grounds. With naval gun-toting added to the picture, it is increasingly clear that prospects for an overall Caspian Sea solution look even more remote. Full article at: http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/DE04Ag05.html Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 3 08:44:02 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:43 2006 Subject: [A-List] US/Japan tensions: Iraq Message-ID: US puts Japan in a spot over Iraq By Axel Berkofsky Asia Times, May 3 2002 Just when Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi was getting ready to celebrate his first year in office, United States government officials were asking Japan to be ready for the worst-case scenario. At a Japan-US working-level meeting on foreign and defense affairs at the end of April, US government representatives informally requested Japan to be ready to dispatch troops and the state-of-the-art Aegis destroyers to the Persian Gulf in the event of a US attack on Iraq. "Politically and legally difficult" was the immediate answer from Japanese officials, expressing somehow less enthusiasm about Japan's support for US military operations than Koizumi, who promised nothing less than "unconditional support" for the US fight against global terrorism when visited by US President George W Bush earlier in February. Asking for support to get rid of Saddam Hussein is an unpleasant reminder for Japan that the US is serious about militarily engaging its junior alliance partner into the fight against international terrorism, although Japanese policy makers seemingly do not really see reason to worry just yet. "We are not taking Washington's requests terribly seriously because the US side did not push very hard," the prime minister's security policy advisors commented after the US-Japan meeting, indicating that Japanese policy makers prefer to stay in the usual wait-and-see-mode and in sticking to their strategy of last-minute decisions. "It is important to keep Tokyo focused on what may be ahead. The US will accept no more Japanese Persia Gulf War experiences even if military action against Iraq is not yet imminent," counters an American expert of Japanese security policy, indicating that the US will without a doubt make sure to get its message across when Japanese support for US military operations is on the agenda. Currently, Japanese supply vessels are refueling American and British warships in the Indian Ocean close to the island of Diego Garcia as part of Japan's rear-area support for the US-led military operation in Afghanistan. The US request to dispatch high-tech Aegis warships and P3C anti-submarine patrol aircraft to the Arabian Sea and on to the Persian Gulf somehow indicates that US strategic planners might have new plans for the Japanese military, expecting support beyond logistical means in the event of a military strike against Iraq. Six months ago and after weeks of controversial discussions, mainly evolving around the question whether deploying the destroyers would already constitute an act of collective self-defense, the Japanese government turned down the first US request to dispatch Aegis destroyers to the Indian Ocean as a part of the Japanese supply fleet, claiming that the destroyers were militarily too high-profile for a self-declared pacifist country. The Aegis destroyers, which Japan bought from the US in recent years, could indeed change the quality of Japan's contribution to US military operations when dispatched as they are equipped with radar able to detect missiles 300 kilometers away, interceptor missiles and weapon systems that closely complement American systems, thereby enabling Japanese Aegis vessels to share real-time battle data with sister ships of the US Navy. Despite the pleasant prospects of showing off with the high-tech ships in the Arabian Sea or Persian Gulf, it still remains to be seen whether the Japanese government is willing to promote its soldiers from gas pump attendants to "real" military allies engaged in joint operations with American soldiers close to the where fighting takes place. Japanese discussions on the constitutionality of dispatching the destroyers are very likely to repeat themselves instead, although Japanese reluctance to use military power cannot stand in the way of a more active Japanese role in fighting global terrorism forever, claim supporters of a more visible Japanese contribution. "Japan is again unnecessarily gun-shy," complained a senior official from Japan's defense agency recently, adding that "worrying too much about criticism against Japan's military role from China and South Korea is only making Japan vulnerable to US pressure and bullying". The Japanese government, for its part, however, is unlikely to make any decision before the usual US pressure sets in and is yet less impatient to see its troops sailing towards the Persian Gulf. For now it takes care to stick to the official line that dispatching ships and troops towards Iraq under the Japanese anti-terrorism law implemented last October is only possible if the al-Qaeda terrorist network is the target of an attack. There is, however, little doubt that the Pentagon and US intelligence will have any difficulty linking the Iraqi regime to global terrorism and Osama bin Laden's network of terror, giving Japan a helping hand to speed up its decision-making process if necessary; the Asahi Shimbun, on the other hand, is urging its government to clarify its own stance on the country's position on the war against terrorism instead of repeating US rhetoric in parrot-style. "Japan must set limits for simply falling into line behind US policy. Koizumi continues to be a disappointment with his rhetoric of unconditional support of America," the paper recently wrote, wondering why Japan does not voice any opposition against attacking Iraq when everybody else does. The US is indeed running out of allies supporting an attack on Iraq and asking Japan to be part of the shrinking anti-coalition comes at a time when even America's closest and loyal military ally, Britain, is having second thoughts about US plans to put an end to Saddam Hussein's regime by force. The timing to request Japan's support, however, seemed somehow favorable since Japan's ruling coalition, led by the premier's Liberal-Democratic Party (LDP) very recently submitted a package of three national emergency laws to the Diet enabling Japan's armed forces to defend Japanese security at home and abroad. The national security bills are likely to pass the Diet at the end of its current session on June 19 and Japan commentators are suspecting that the US might indeed have "seized the opportunity" in trying to make sure that America would be the first "beneficiary" of Japan's upgraded military profile. A law, however, that would further strengthen US-Japanese military cooperation on Japanese territory and beyond allowing US troops unrestricted access to medical and infrastructure facilities on Japanese soil was withdrawn from the original law package, indicating that Japan's preparedness to fight alongside the US is not to be taken for granted just yet. With the public relations disaster and unpleasant memories of American Japan-bashing for failing to send troops to liberate Kuwait from Saddam during the Gulf War a decade ago in mind, Japan's policy makers might be less willing to turn down the US request to sail to the Persian Gulf this time. "Japan is intensely worried about a repeat of the Persian Gulf and Korean peninsula crises of 1991 and 1994, which easily could have turned into crises for the US-security relationship if the United States had taken significant losses. At the same time, policy makers wish to avoid alarming the Japanese public and are probably hoping, in their heart of hearts, that this crisis would just go away," says Thomas U Berger, professor of International Relations at Boston University. Given the Bush administration's determination to replace the Iraqi regime by force sooner rather than later, this, however, looks more like a case of wishful thinking, and while refueling American and British warships on "floating gas stations" far away from combat zones is acceptable to the Japanese public, sailing to the Persian Gulf and into the range of possible enemy fire is likely to cause strong public disapproval. With or without the public blessing and worries about dispatching troops without a clear-cut legal basis, the Japanese government is already more prepared to dispatch ships and troops to the Persian Gulf when requested in a straight line from Washington than it is yet willing to admit, suspects Berger. "Sending Japanese forces to the Gulf in a support role is a very real possibility this time around, representing another important step in moving away from Japan's postwar, anti-military ideals, especially if Aegis destroyers were sent," he points out, indicating that Japanese participation in a Persian Gulf war scenario could give Koizumi a chance to live up to his high-sounding rhetoric of being "always by America's side". More opportunities to fill the prime minister's compassionate rhetoric with action might be in the offing these days given the fact that US efforts fighting global terrorism as well keeping militant Muslim fundamentalism and suspected sponsors of international terrorism in check could be taking place much closer to Japan's doorstep than far away Iraq. "As a country with far-reaching economic and political ties in Southeast Asia - including the world's largest Muslim country, Indonesia - Japanese diplomatic assistance may be very useful in preventing conflicts from spreading there. Japan is also an important player on the Korean peninsula, where Bush's axis of evil remark as well as the current administration's determination to confront terrorist regimes has heightened tensions. Japanese support will be needed to shore things up," Berger maintains. For now, it seems Japan feels more comfortable sitting on the fence, closely observing the reactions of the international community to US plans to expand its military campaign, while thinking of a statesman-like line to drop in here and there. Full article at: http://www.atimes.com/japan-econ/DD03Dh02.html Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 3 08:46:01 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:43 2006 Subject: [A-List] Europe/US rivalry: Japan Message-ID: Iran spreads its wings By Syed Saleem Shahzad Asia Times, May 4 2002 KARACHI - With the United States making Afghanistan its nucleus and starting to spread its influence across the region, Iran aims to expand its ties in the old Persian plateau, as well as to forge better trade ties with the European Union as a counterbalance to the US. Iranian President Mohammad Khatami arrived in Dushanbe, the capital of Tajikistan, on Tuesday for a three-day visit on the last leg of a Central Asian tour that has taken him to Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. During his talks with his Tajik counterpart Emomali Rakhmonov over bilateral, regional and international issues, Khatami called for the expansion of economic cooperation between the two nations, saying that such cooperation would promote peace and stability in the region. Rakhmonov in turn stressed that cooperation between Iran and Tajikistan would serve their mutual interests and be conducive to regional security as well. He also invited broader ties and more extensive cooperation between Tehran and Dushanbe. Tajikistan and the Islamic Republic of Iran have, in fact, always enjoyed close bonds and friendly relations due to their numerous historical, cultural and linguistic affinities. Even at the time of the bitter conflict between the Tajik government and the opposition some 10 years ago, Tehran played a crucial role in bringing about national reconciliation and restoring peace to that country. Considering that during Khatami's visit some 10 agreements are expected to be signed between the two countries, it is clear that the visit will play an important role in boosting bilateral economic relations, as well as maintaining regional stability and security. Iranian diplomatic circles believe that peace and security are the most important elements for regional countries, considering what they consider "provocative" measures by some outside powers in the sensitive Central Asia and the Caucasus and their coveting the natural resources of this part of the world, especially the rich oil and gas reserves. This is why, prior to his visit to Tajikistan, at a joint press conference with the Kyrgyz president in Bishkek, Khatami pointed out that "we need security more than anything else, and we believe that insecurity is not fostered from within the region, but is imposed on us from the outside". Some outside powers, such as the US, are believed by Iranian diplomats to be trying to create rifts, tension and mistrust among regional countries in order to undermine their harmony and cooperation and further their own interests. For instance, the US ambassador to Dushanbe in a recent interview described Tajikistan's cordial relations with its neighbors as an obstacle to US aid to Tajikistan. This remark, the diplomats believe, shows that Washington is trying to sow discord in the region and then "fish in troubled waters". Iranian insiders say that the present Iranian move should not be taken as "anti-West", but rather as an attempt to create a strong wall against US interests in the region. In addition, Iran, after prolonged internal debate, is now forging special trade relations with the European Union in an attempt to reduce the dependency of each party on the US. This week, European External Relations Commissioner Chris Patten said in Brussels that the EU would "continue its communications with the Islamic Republic of Iran". After a meeting with US Undersecretary of State for European Affairs Beth Jones, he said that the EU would soon launch negotiations with Iran over a cooperation and trade agreement. The EU executive commission has already approved a plan to hold talks on a comprehensive trade cooperation agreement, last November. Although Iran-EU ties have progressed slowly in the past, the two sides have expressed a desire to promote and strengthen their relations in different areas, especially trade and economy, within the framework of a "comprehensive dialogue". Iran-EU economic ties are of great importance, not only from a bilateral perspective, but also from a regional outlook. Under the present circumstances, the reconstruction of Afghanistan is a matter of concern for both Iran and the European Union. In addition, the cooperation of Iran and the EU in efforts to put an end to the Middle East crisis are also important. Iranian diplomatic sources said that the US and the Israeli administrations were trying to unilaterally end the current crisis in the Middle East in a way beneficial to the interests of Israel and "ignoring the rights of the oppressed Palestinian nation". As a result, both Washington and Tel Aviv are reluctant to allow the EU a role in helping to end the crisis. Full article at: http://www.atimes.com/front/DE04Aa01.html Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 3 08:48:02 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:43 2006 Subject: [A-List] Indonesian sub-imperialism: East Timor Message-ID: Indonesia wants in on Timor Gap talks Asia Times, May 4 2002 JAKARTA - House of Representatives Speaker Akbar Tandjung says Indonesia should be involved in talks on the Timor Gap. "Talks on the Timor Gap should not involve two countries only, East Timor and Australia," Akbar said on Thursday after receiving East Timor president-elect Xanana Gusmao at his office. He stressed that part of the Timor Gap belongs to Indonesia. "As such, the exploration of natural resources in the gap should also involve Indonesia," he said. Inter-parliamentary Cooperation Body House Chairman Sabam Sirait agreed, noting that Akbar pointed out that the Timor Gap is actually closer to Indonesian West Timor than to East Timor. He said it would not be right to tap the natural resources in the Timor Gap just for the benefit of East Timor and Australia alone. "Indonesia should also enjoy the benefits of the Timor Gap because it covers the territories of East Timor and West Timor," said Sirait, who is also a politician with the Indonesian Democratic Party-Struggle. He said the House has discussed Indonesia's share of the Timor Gap with various parties, including the Australian parliament and the United Nations. Gusmao has reportedly admitted that it is impossible not to involve Indonesia in talks on the Timor Gap. He noted that such a commitment has been communicated to the Indonesian Foreign Affairs Ministry. For his part, Gusmao issued a call for the promotion of good relations between East Timor and Indonesia. He pointed out that the two countries have close relations, historically as well as geographically. In response, Akbar said the House will warmly welcome the promotion of such good relations because "Indonesia and East Timor have common interests in the future". Full article at: http://www.atimes.com/oceania/DE04Ah03.html Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 3 08:51:02 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:43 2006 Subject: [A-List] Korea & the imperialist chain: autos Message-ID: DaimlerChrysler and Hyundai plan engine link-up By Tim Burt Financial Times: May 3 2002 DaimlerChrysler, the German-US carmaker, is holding top-level talks with Hyundai Motor of South Korea about co-operating in the world's largest joint engine programme. Senior executives at Hyundai, in which DaimlerChrysler holds a 10.5 per cent stake, will this weekend meet Dieter Zetsche, chief executive of the Chrysler division, in Seoul to discuss likely volumes and assembly options for the programme. The link-up will also include Mitsubishi Motors of Japan, in which DaimlerChrysler has a 37 per cent holding and exercises management control. It is understood that the three carmakers hope to assemble 1.5m engines a year, using common components and joint purchasing teams. Officials declined to comment on the likely investment involved, but said "significant sums" would be required to develop production facilities. The engines would be produced in Asia and North America. There is the possibility for European output over the longer term. Hyundai, South Korea's largest carmaker, was said to be the launch brand for the new four-cylinder engine, which will eventually be installed in Chrysler and Mitsubishi mid-to-small sized cars. The first engines are due to be produced in 2004. Although the plans have yet to be finalised, officials hinted that the engine programme could involve joint Chrysler and Mitsubishi production in the US. "This is the largest project of its kind and will achieve significant economies of scale," said DaimlerChrysler. Prospects for such link-ups and product development savings were one of the topics discussed this week at a management board meeting of DaimlerChrysler in New York. The meeting also received an update on trading conditions in DaimlerChrysler's main activities of Mercedes-Benz cars, commercial vehicles and Chrysler. The US brand last month reported its first quarterly profit since mid-2000, with an underlying gain of E127m ($114.6m). The company is predicting a break-even result for this year. Full article at: http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT3PV50XQ0D&live=true&tagid=IXLC078IH7C&Collid=Any Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 3 08:52:02 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:43 2006 Subject: [A-List] Argentina pensions swindle Message-ID: Argentina's pensions system vision in tatters By Thomas Catan Financial Times FTfm: April 29 2002 Eight years ago, at the height of its economic fortunes, Argentina embarked on a brave attempt to move towards a private pension system. In doing so, the emerging market would have accomplished something developed nations seemed unable to do: bite the fiscal bullet to avoid a cash crunch two decades down the road, when the bulk of the population started to to retire. The ambitious move would have brought other benefits. For the country and its companies, the private system would represent a new source of domestic savings to help wean them off foreign borrowing. For Argentine workers, the change meant their pensions would no longer be held hostage to the regular financing crises suffered by a spendthrift government. In theory, no one should ever lose their pensions again. Today, that experiment has ended in failure, with an industry in shambles following the country's economic collapse. No one knows how much the assets held by the pension funds are worth and few Argentines will willingly pay into the system. Fewer still expect they will ever be able to retire on their contributions to the private pension funds, known in Argentina as AFJPs. "It's probably the first failure of a Latin American pension system," says Thomas Ciampi, director of Latin Asset Management, an industry consulting group. "There's not much to cheer about here." Over the past 18 months, the fortunes of the private pension funds have closely followed those of the government. In December 2000, Argentina cobbled together a package of financial assistance to help allay growing fears that it would default on its debt following several years of recession. The International Monetary Fund and other multilateral lenders extended credit lines worth about half of the headline figure of $40bn (?28bn). The rest of the package was made up of promises by local institutional investors either to buy government paper or roll it over. This included a commitment of $3bn by the AFJPs. However, such largesse was found wanting. Upon returning to the economy ministry in March 2001, Domingo Cavallo, the man who had originally set up the private pension fund system, began to lean on them to get through the funding crisis. He strong-armed local banks and pension funds into lending another $3.5bn to the government. In June, the government paid local and international investors high rates to stretch out the maturation dates on nearly $30bn in rapidly maturing debt. But it was not enough. In November, Mr Cavallo coerced local bondholders, including AFJPs, into accepting lower-interest loans instead of $40bn in high-interest, dollar-denominated bonds. Stuffed full of government paper, the AFJPs had little choice but to go along. On top of that, Mr Cavallo also "seized" pension fund assets by forcing them to transfer $2.3bn in fixed-term deposits to the state-owned Banco de la Nacion, to be used to purchase yet more government paper. And in a last-ditch bid to free up money to restart the economy, Mr Cavallo cut the mandatory monthly contributions to the pension funds from 11 per cent to 5 per cent, cutting monthly revenues in half. "This was one of the greatest blows to the system, particularly over the long term," says Victor D'Atri, general manager of HSBC Maxima, one of the largest pension funds in the country. "People's pensions were damaged and consumption wasn't reactivated. This was a total improvisation." By the time the government's finances collapsed in December, forcing it to default on $141bn in debt, the pension funds had more than 70 per cent of their assets in public sector securities, according to Standard & Poor's. Pension fund managers say they had few alternatives in the local market to properly match assets and liabilities several decades away. Even so, analysts say they should never have allowed themselves to become virtual hostages to a bankrupt state. "The fact that the AFJPs financed the government to such an extent was one of the gravest errors, in my opinion," said Diana Mondino, managing director of S&P's in Buenos Aires. "Their primary objective was not to finance the government, but to provide a future income to contributors." Certainly, their accommodating stance towards the government has not helped. Since coming to power at the start of the year, the government of Eduardo Duhalde has stopped paying the "guaranteed loans" which the pension funds received from Mr Cavallo, as well as the treasury bills that they were forced to purchase, people at the AFJPs say. The pension funds are now trying to get their original foreign bonds back through negotiations and court action, but it will probably take a long time before any agreement with the government is reached. "This is simply not a priority right now," says an economy ministry spokesman. "We won't be entering into any conversations with creditors until an agreement is reached with the IMF." That in itself could take some time. The result has been catastrophic for the pension funds, many of which are owned by foreign banks operating in Argentina that have in turn been rendered insolvent. Of course, the pension funds have also been hard-hit by the recession itself. Soaring unemployment means fewer affiliates; more than a fifth of Argentines are unemployed. And of those who are employed, fewer are paying into the pension system. In 1994, 60 per cent of those signed up to a private pension fund were paying up every month, according to Standard & Poor's. By February this year, the proportion was less than 30 per cent. Do Argentines have a hope of seeing their pensions? Yes. But like the state pensions before them, they may be woefully inadequate. The only good news is that with the average contributor in their 30s or 40s, the pension funds have some time to right past wrongs. The bad news is that rising inflation could end up wiping out the value of any savings left. "What you've seen since 1994 is a gradual return to what the system had tried to get away from - a reliance on the federal government to honour pensions," says Mr Ciampi. Simply put, "they allowed the government to influence their investment decisions and didn't do enough to protect the assets of the pensioners". Full article at: http://specials.ft.com/ftfm/FT396A6FI0D.html Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 3 08:57:01 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:43 2006 Subject: [A-List] Cuba: whither the war on terrorism? Message-ID: The Cuban Bin Laden * Otto Reich's principal task as ambassador to Venezuela was to free Orlando Bosch, that diabolical pediatrician and CIA tool, and his accomplice Posada Carriles, after they masterminded the sabotage of a Cuban airliner off Barbados. Working for the FBI, Bosch advocated, encouraged, organized and personally participated in acts of terrorism within the United States and in other countries. The State Department denied him a visa in 1987 because of his criminal past and his implication in terrorism, and Associate Attorney General Joe D. Whitley described him as a public danger. Nevertheless, he still walks the streets of Miami freely and continues to incite and organize attacks in that terrorist sanctuary, while the five Cuban patriots who risked their lives to prevent those attacks have received life terms. Is there really a war against terrorism? BY JEAN-GUY ALLARD (Special for Granma International) 30 January 2002 "EXILES financed explosions in Cuba," read a Nuevo Herald newspaper headline on November 16, 1997. That affirmation couldn't be clearer. However, in Miami, the United States' terrorist sanctuary, the such news didn't perturb anyone. And some years later, that metropolis is still totally beyond the reach of the law, the Senate and even the multimillion-dollar War on Terrorism. A living example of the extent of this criminal tolerance is Orlando Bosch, the pediatrician of death, anti-Cuba arch-terrorist, protected by the Bush family, the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF) and the CIA. The brains, together with Luis Posada Carriles, behind the sabotage of a Cubana airliner in full flight, provoking the death of 73 passengers on October 6, 1976, killer Bosch is now personally represented in the White House by his lifetime buddy Otto Reich, who sprung him from a Venezuelan jail. Responsible for numerous acts of terrorism over the last 40 years, Bosch continues to practice his profession of terrorism, constantly advocating violence as a political method while being protected at the highest level of U.S. society. The history of Bosch's crimes has been recounted on various occasions under various circumstances. However, one account that certainly has much credibility, bearing in mind his privileged relationship with the U.S. authorities, is that of Associate Attorney General Joe D. Whitley who, in May 1989, denied that dangerous character the asylum he was seeking. During this period of the War on Terrorism, his ruling is extremely relevant. ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT, TERRORIST ACTIVIST In his written report, Whitley recalled how Orlando Bosch Avila, born in Cuba, had been admitted into the United States as a visitor on July 28, 1960, and authorized to remain in the country for no more than 30 days. However, Bosch remained there illegally from that time until April 12, 1974. Despite his illegal status in the country, for eight years Bosch headed the Revolutionary Recuperation Insurrectional Movement (MIRR), which Whitley defined as an anti-Castro terrorist organization. On September 16, 1968, Bosch was involved in firing a projectile from bazooka on the Polish vessel Polanica, which was then docked in the port of Miami. On November 15, 1968, Bosch was convicted in the District Court for the Southern District of Florida of various felony offenses arising out of the assault on the Polish vessel. At that time he was also convicted on an indictment that had charged him with using the telegraph to send letters to the president of Mexico, General Francisco Franco of Spain; and British Prime Minister Harold Wilson, threatening to damage and destroy their countries' ships and airplanes. Bosch was paroled in 1972 and left the United States in 1974, thereby violating the terms of his parole. More obsessed than ever with his terrorist mission, Bosch created and headed the Command of United Revolutionary Organizations (CORU) which, according to Whitley's dossier, claimed responsibility for numerous bombings in Miami, New York, Venezuela, Panama, Mexico, Argentina and elsewhere. FROM VENEZUELAN PRISONS TO SANCTUARY SIDEWALKS Then came the sabotage off the coast of Barbados, the most horrific of Bosch's crimes. Whitley describes it: "In October, 1976, Bosch was arrested in Venezuela in connection with the October 6, 1976 in-flight bombing of a civilian Cuban airliner, which resulted in the deaths of 73 men, women, and children. Though detained in Venezuela for eleven years on charges arising from this incident, he was finally acquitted." The prosecutor adds: "At his trial, evidence was presented that the two men convicted of homicide in connection with the bombing were in contact with Bosch both before and after the bombing." And there was a clear allusion to Bosch's privileged links with current Undersecretary of State Otto Reich, then U.S. ambassador to Venezuela, as well as with the CIA and the Miami anti-Cuba mafia: "Despite being related to a number of United States citizens or permanent resident aliens who have sought to help him obtain lawful immigration status in this country, Bosch's applications for both immigrant and non-immigrant visas were denied in 1987 by the Department of State because of his criminal history and involvement in terrorism." We are still talking of the individual who is now freely walks the Miami streets, in the midst of the War on Terrorism. Whitley continues: "Bosch, nevertheless, came to the United States from Venezuela on February 18, 1988, without valid entry documents. Upon arrival, Bosch was taken into custody on an outstanding warrant for his 1974 parole violation, and he served an additional three months for his violation." After his release on May 17, 1988, Bosch was detained by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). At that time, the INS district director in Miami served Bosch with a notice of temporary exclusion, alleging that he was excludable from the United States because: * "There is reason to believe he would seek to enter the United States solely, principally, or incidentally to engage in activities prejudicial to the public interest. * "That he is or has been an alien who advocates or teaches or has been a member of an organization that advocates or teaches the duty, necessity, or propriety of assaulting or killing officers of any organized government. * "That he is or has been an alien who advocates or teaches or has been a member of an organization that advocates or teaches the unlawful damage, injury or destruction of property..." In other words, the associate attorney general viewed Bosch as a public danger. TERRORIST DOSSIER EVEN IN FBI FILES The portrait of Bosch as drawn by Associate Attorney General Whitley is confined to the contents of the dossier presented him, but the record of the killer pediatrician is much wider, as we will see. However, when delineating his own views, Whitley came to a devastating conclusion and ended up by roundly rejecting the asylum application of the hero of the Miami mafia: "The files of the FBI and other government agencies contain a large quantity of documentary information which reflects that, beginning in the early 1960's, Bosch held leadership positions in various anti-Castro terrorist organizations. The information contained in these files clearly and unequivocally reflects that Bosch has personally advocated, encouraged, organized and participated in acts of terrorist violence in this country as well as various other countries. While some of this information is of a non-confidential nature, greater quantity, both classified and unclassified, is of a confidential nature because of the need to protect intelligence sources and methods. The information presented for my review included all of the evidentiary materials made available to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the material submitted by Bosch to the Regional Commissioner, and additional classified information furnished by the FBI." It should be noted that the CIA is conspicuous in its absence when it comes to documenting its disciple's activities. Among the various documents later quoted by Whitley, apart from the material linked to the legal process, there are certain extremely interesting pieces, such as: * "Documents reflecting that in June, 1974 Bosch publicly admitted having sent package bombs to Cuban Embassies in Lima, Madrid, Ottawa, and Buenos Aires. * "A radio interview of Bosch during his incarceration in Venezuela in which he advocated violent action against the Venezuelan government. Letters from Bosch to CORU requesting that Venezuelan property be bombed if he were not brought to trial. * "An interview of Bosch, tape-recorded by the author of an article entitled 'I Am Going to Declare War' which appeared in the New Times, May 13, 1977. Apparently, Bosch claimed CORU was responsible for over fifty bombings, but refused to take personal credit for terrorist actions within the United States because of 'FBI heat.'" In his role as a U.S. government attorney, Whitley certainly cannot be suspected of pro-Cuban sympathies, and even less so in the 1980's; he was a senior official within the U.S. legal apparatus that is currently waging the War on Terrorism, at least outside of the Miami sanctuary. His report describes Bosch as a full-fledged terrorist, in no uncertain terms: "For 30 years Bosch has been resolute and unwavering in his advocacy of terrorist violence. He has threatened and undertaken violent terrorist acts against numerous targets, including nations friendly toward the United States and their highest officials. He has repeatedly expressed and demonstrated a willingness to cause indiscriminate injury and death. His actions have been those of a terrorist, unfettered by laws or human decency, threatening and inflicting violence without regard to the identity of his victims." He concludes: "The United States cannot tolerate the inherent inhumanity of terrorism as a way of settling disputes. Appeasement of those who would use force will only breed more terrorists. We must look on terrorism as a universal evil, even if it is directed toward those with whom we have no political sympathy." Whitley subsequently ordered Bosch's deportation, but more than 12 years have gone by since this finding, and Orlando Bosch has never been expelled from the United States. Quite the opposite. Combined pressure from the CIA, the anti-Cuba mafia and extremist Republican circles procured his release, after 31 countries refused the official U.S. request to accept the terrorist. WHITE HOUSE MEETING TO ABSOLVE A TERRORIST According to The New York Times of August 17, 1989, Cuban origin Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen personally negotiated Bosch's release with then President George Bush Sr. The meeting was organized by Jeb Bush, who thus secured the anti-Cuba mafia vote for his election as governor in 2000. Bosch, the brain behind what is known as the Cubana airliner explosion, the author of more than 50 attacks in the United States and abroad, the apologist for terrorism, received a presidential pardon from George Bush on July 20, 1990. Was Orlando Bosch going to stop preaching terrorism as a method of political struggle? Since then, his name has been bandied about as a possible accomplice of Luis Posada Carriles, his old partner during years of CIA work, in connection with a series of terrorist acts in Havana in 1997. In an interview published in The Miami Herald in September of that year, Bosch refused to confirm his participation, to then comment: "Besides, even if we had, we would deny it because it's illegal [to direct bombings] from this country." And he concluded: "In any case, we don't criticize that form of struggle, if it's the Cuban people's choice." During the trial of the five Cubans accused of espionage last year, an allegation came up that Bosch himself had confessed to one of the accused who had infiltrated his milieu, to having gotten explosives smuggled into Havana during that same period. In a final demonstration of his uninterrupted activism Bosch and other accomplices made a call to violence "by all means and methods necessary," in the August 22, 2001 edition of The Miami Herald, that "objective" daily lending space in a perfectly irresponsible manner to this promotion of terror. September 11 arrived, and then the war against Afghanistan and an unprecedented national and international campaign against terrorism. Decrees and laws, billion-dollar budgets, all to support the battle against evil. And Orlando Bosch walks the streets of Miami. Free as a bird! Better still, his partner, his godfather, the man who engineered his exit from Venezuelan jails and then did everything he could to get him asylum in the United States, Otto Reich, the most famous agent of the terrorist CANF, is now the White House's representative in Latin America. It couldn't be more ridiculous: killer Bosch is in Miami, free to engineer other attacks with dozens of followers willing to use the most extreme forms of violence, and protected by powerful forces - but Cubans who entered the United States precisely to watch over the terrorist circles and prevent them perpetrating from further acts of terrorism, remain in jail. Will someone stand up, at some time, in the U.S. Senate to demand a true investigation of Miami, sanctuary of the terrorist mafia? Perhaps the number of deaths weighing on Bosch's conscience is not greater than that of Binaden, but in terms of the number of lethal actions and his years of serving criminal objectives, his record is unequaled. Full article at. http://www.granma.cu/ingles/enero02-4/5bin-i.html Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar Sat May 4 02:12:02 2002 From: nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar (Nestor Gorojovsky) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:43 2006 Subject: [A-List] (Spa) An excellent analysis of media in Argentina Message-ID: <3CD339D8.29030.74C32B@localhost> Dear cdes. and friends, This has been sent to the Reconquista-popular list I moderate. Sorry for absence of English translation. But it deserves thorough reading and retransmission. ------- Forwarded message follows ------- From: La Se?al radio y periodico To: "Lista Reconquista Popular" Subject: [R-P] En el d?a mundial de la libertad de prensa Date sent: Fri, 3 May 2002 15:52:13 -0300 [ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] An?lisis sobre una investigaci?n En Europa no se consigue Por Gabriel Fern?ndez La lectura de un t?tulo brutal e inexacto proferido por el diario ?mbito Financiero nos impuls? a desplegar una pol?mica a fondo; es decir, a indagar mediante una investigaci?n sobria el v?nculo entre medios y verdad en la Argentina de hoy. Cierto es que, como consumidores habituales de todo tipo de medios, hallamos muchos m?s incentivos que los ofrecidos por el evidente diario de Julio Ramos, cuya portada del 22 de febrero del 2002 anunciaba una ?Reacci?n contra gobierno estatista?. Quien transita con cierta perspicacia los diarios, las revistas, las radios y los canales televisivos argentinos, percibe las irregularidades. Sin embargo, nos pareci? ?til y, en algunos casos, esclarecedor, efectuar una indagatoria a fondo y volcarla as?, en un art?culo compacto, dirigido a los periodistas en primera instancia, a la militancia popular y al p?blico en general en un segundo movimiento. Es probable que un an?lisis intenso como el presente, asentado en una observaci?n precisa, brinde la perspectiva de un sinceramiento sobre rasgos del oficio y tambi?n, herramientas para cuestionar y contrastar. Los medios abordados, en primera instancia, son los gr?ficos nacionales; se incluyen libremente consideraciones sobre radio y televisi?n. Posteriormente, efectuamos una comparaci?n con los medios gr?ficos de los pa?ses centrales, adoptados habitualmente como modelos profesionales de valor. Una descripci?n sint?tica La vida en nuestro pa?s ha devenido, por obra y gracia de la profundizaci?n del proyecto conservador, en un infierno. El nivel de desocupaci?n es imponente, creciente y fomenta una desesperanza solo equivalente a la desesperaci?n. La situaci?n salarial es ?nica en nuestra historia: la mayor parte de los argentinos gana menos de la mitad de la canasta familiar. Seg?n datos oficiales, en la Argentina hay m?s de 14 millones de pobres. Es una cifra que equivale al 43,8 por ciento de la poblaci?n. M?s de seis millones de los mismos, son indigentes. En el Gran Buenos Aires, una de cada dos personas es pobre. El ?ltimo tramo del programa conservador desestabiliz? a las franjas medias que hasta el a?o pasado estaban colgadas de un pincel. Los abusos de todas las casas comerciales que entablaron un v?nculo crediticio con sus clientes evidencian la profunda deslealtad empresarial y tambi?n la desprotecci?n a que se ve sometido el ciudadano com?n. Las actividades culturales dependientes del Estado est?n suspendidas, las escuelas subsisten merced al esfuerzo de padres, alumnos y docentes; los hospitales padecen un deterioro hist?rico del que ser? dif?cil volver. El presupuesto 2002 plantea m?s ajuste y recesi?n con el expl?cito objetivo de evitar el crecimiento nacional. Economistas y funcionarios explican que si el consumo crece, si los sueldos aumentan y si el corralito se abre, todos nos perjudicaremos porque ?habr? inflaci?n?. De todos modos, hay inflaci?n. Los formadores de precios aumentan a pesar del dato central: la mayor parte de los argentinos gana un sueldo que equivale al 10 por ciento de la canasta familiar. El aporte social estatal cubre, con suerte, el 5 por ciento de la misma. Los firmas p?blicas privatizadas presionan a las familias para que paguen como sea sus prestaciones deficientes y caras. No importa que todos los miembros de un n?cleo se encuentren sin trabajo; no importa que las ganancias de esas compa??as resulten superiores al promedio mundial. El Estado y la Justicia las apoyan. El mismo Estado que resuelve aplicar suaves retenciones a los exportadores ultra beneficiados por la devaluaci?n sin contrapartida de control de precios, en lugar de destinar esos fondos a impulsar la industria local y paliar el panorama social, los destina al pago de los intereses de la deuda externa. Pero eso no es todo: otra parte de los recursos p?blicos est? siendo orientado hacia el salvataje de un sistema financiero delictivo, que en la actualidad contin?a saqueando los bolsillos de los ahorristas. Como nadie piensa en poner un peso en un banco, y como la Justicia no act?a, persiste el latrocinio directo. ?Qu? importa? Las empresas petroleras van incrementando el precio de los combustibles con todo lo que ello implica. Pero la nafta es extra?da del subsuelo argentino. El gobierno impulsa la eliminaci?n de la Ley de Subversi?n Econ?mica para permitir las actividades criminales del empresariado local e internacional. El Fondo Monetario Internacional, generador de com?n acuerdo con el poder local de las pol?ticas que nos llevaron a la ruina, audita la econom?a local para garantizar que ning?n rubro alcance un desarrollo m?nimo. Todo crecimiento econ?mico es evaluado como un factor que ?recalienta? la econom?a. Recaliente est? la gente, pero la profunda protesta social sigue sin hallar cauces pol?ticos que permitan potenciar cambios de fondo como los que se necesitan. Los grandes medios argentinos Ahora bien: la insistencia de los medios en la continuidad de los caminos que derivaron en este p?ramo, as? como la agitaci?n a favor de la violencia institucional, constituyen deleznables acciones de quienes a partir de 1983 se comprometieron a revertir su apoyo al terrorismo de Estado. El gobierno respalda la propuesta neoliberal que dice combatir; a trav?s de su gesti?n concreta en medios controlados directa o indirectamente. El sistema estatal puede quedar en manos de H?ctor Ricardo Garc?a y Alejandro Romay; dada la vocaci?n privatista de esos empresarios es previsible que todo culmine en el desguace de Canal 7, Telam y otras v?as nacionales. Y m?s all? de las predicciones, es seguro que los lineamientos de esos medios clave para la formaci?n y la informaci?n de la comunidad se asentar?n en los criterios que tales empresarios han manejado hasta el presente en sus propios espacios. Nadie puede decir que no hayan dado a conocer sus ideas. Clar?n, a trav?s de su diario, su radio y sus canales, superficializa la informaci?n y brinda un destacado lugar a ajustadores y violentos lo cual desnivela su presunto centrismo. Los diarios La Naci?n, ?mbito Financiero, BAE, La Prensa y La Raz?n, promueven descaradamente la intervenci?n militar, la dolarizaci?n, limitaciones para la libertad de expresi?n y el asesinato de ciudadanos sospechosos de delitos menores. Las radios Am?rica, Continental, Rivadavia, entre otras, utilizan el viejo cartab?n neoliberal para el estudio de la realidad argentina, mintiendo abiertamente sobre el origen de los problemas econ?micos y ofreciendo micr?fono a quienes argumentan a favor de la profundizaci?n de los programas recesivos. Radio Diez y el programa de Canal 2 Despu?s de Hora son vulgares cloacas en las cuales se hostiga a las escasas personas p?blicas decentes que pueblan la Argentina, se promueve la violaci?n de los derechos humanos con sorna y se humilla racialmente a los luchadores sociales. El caso de ?mbito Financiero es digno de ser resaltado: numerosos art?culos est?n destinados a condenar abiertamente todas las variantes de protesta social, pero un tratamiento similar merecen las propuestas ?pac?ficas, elevadas a trav?s de documentos en reuniones formales?destinadas a promover la inversi?n interna y mejorar la producci?n en los rubros de consumo masivo ligados al mercado interno. Vale la observaci?n: mientras recorr?amos sus p?ginas, el ?golpe de vista? amparado en la raz?n sencilla nos llevaba a presumir errores de edici?n. La mirada atenta confirmaba la intenci?n del medio: todo estaba donde deb?a estar. ?A qu? nos referimos? Es impactante que iniciativas muy b?sicas destinadas a fomentar la elaboraci?n y el consumo en rubros como el calzado, por dar un ejemplo, resulten catalogados con la misma carga adjetivadora empleada con los piqueteros, los gremialistas y los asamble?stas. ?mbito, BAE, La Prensa y, hasta cierto punto el siempre distante Cronista Comercial, parten de premisas que se extienden en todos los art?culos originados en las plumas de su redacci?n: los sindicatos y los partidos pol?ticos son ?socializantes? ?atenci?n: ?sin distingos!--, las asambleas y las organizaciones de desempleados con manejadas por ?el marxismo? y las centrales empresariales ?a excepci?n de la Asociaci?n de Bancos Argentinos, la Sociedad Rural y alg?n compa?ero de ruta?son calificadas como ?intervencionistas?, ?estatistas?, ?promotoras del gasto p?blico y la inflaci?n?, e inclusive ?demag?gicas?. Puntualicemos; todos los medios citados, y varios m?s, han coincidido en los ?ltimos meses en los siguientes puntos: la defensa de los banqueros que incautaron los ahorros de los ciudadanos; el cuestionamiento y condena a las diferentes formas de protesta social; la difusi?n de las opiniones vinculadas a la dolarizaci?n; el falseamiento de los casos policiales para inducir al gatillo f?cil y la pena de muerte; la defensa de pol?ticas financieristas de car?cter recesivo; el ocultamiento de las cr?ticas a las empresas privatizadas. Esta no es una afirmaci?n general, aunque contenga el accionar de numerosas empresas comunicacionales; es el fruto de un trabajo de seguimiento de la informaci?n y los medios realizado por este periodista en los ?ltimos tres meses. A partir de esta descripci?n vamos a realizar algunas consideraciones relacionadas con el resultado del seguimiento. Y luego continuamos con el mismo. Periodistas y empresas Se?alemos que la perspectiva de hundimiento de la econom?a nacional resultaba clara desde el inicio mismo del proceso dictatorial llevado adelante, entre otros, por Jos? Alfredo Mart?nez de Hoz, y muy espec?ficamente en la nueva etapa, desplegada durante la gesti?n menemista por su heredero Domingo Felipe Cavallo. ?Santa neutralidad! ?Es esto el an?lisis de un informe? Si. ?Estamos ante un problema ideol?gico? ?Una afirmaci?n de esa naturaleza va en desmedro de la objetividad period?stica? No, porque se trat? de algo comprobable, con informaci?n abierta en manos de cualquiera y muy especialmente de los periodistas profesionales. Vale una an?cdota para ilustrar la situaci?n. Durante la crisis del tequila quien esto escribe estaba al frente del peri?dico de Madres y de varios espacios radiales. Nos pusimos en contacto con colegas de otros medios para analizar el panorama: gente de La Naci?n, de P?gina 12, de Clar?n, de La Raz?n, de las agencias informativas y de varios medios alternativos. Las coincidencias resultaron casi absolutas: las privatizaciones iban a resultar ruinosas para el pa?s; el sistema financiero se desnacionalizaba paso a paso; la deuda externa era un drenaje imponente e insostenible; la concentraci?n econ?mica ?lejos de promover el efecto derrame?s?lo pod?a generar una miseria acentuada; el establecimiento del gasto p?blico m?s bajo del mundo fomentar?a la desinversi?n social; entre otros puntos. Bien, s?lo unos pocos, demasiado pocos, efectuamos consideraciones period?sticas fundadas en los datos disponibles, mientras el resto se dedic? a mentir descaradamente. Cuando indagamos a los colegas que ?en el mejor de los casos?ocultaron informaci?n, nos respondieron que, simplemente, se trataba de ?la l?nea editorial? del medio en el cual desarrollaban sus tareas. A partir de ah?, vale realizar dos comentarios. El primero de tono menor, vinculado a la exigencia de dignidad individual. Lo hacemos en honor a los colegas que arriesgando su trabajo y tambi?n su seguridad personal resolvieron plantear, en momentos decisivos para la Naci?n, la verdad. El segundo, un tanto m?s trascendente. Vamos: ser periodista no es obligatorio. No es uno de esos oficios a los cuales se llega por descarte. Muy especialmente en el per?odo mencionado (primeros seis o siete a?os de los 90) el desempleo en el gremio resultaba creciente aunque no como para presionar sobre periodistas reconocidos. Y mentir est? mal. Aunque la afirmaci?n suene ingenua. M?s all? de la evidente y b?sica responsabilidad empresarial, debemos decir: muchos colegas mintieron abiertamente y a conciencia. No se trat? de temas opinables: sab?an que las privatizaciones conduc?an a la quiebra de un Estado endeudado artificialmente y afirmaron que nos llevaban a un progreso ostensible. Aqu? no hubo ?dos campanas? ni exasperaci?n de la objetividad. La otra: los medios son empresas y proceden como tales. Sin embargo, su atadura a la rueda del enriquecimiento en base a intereses internacionales deterior? la base de sus beneficios originados en el mercado local. Defendieron pol?ticas que damnificaron sus ventas y disminuyeron sus pautas publicitarias. Ahora est?n directamente ligados a las privatizadas y los bancos. De ah? su violenta editorializaci?n en contra de toda b?squeda de desarrollo local y de justicia social. Lo cual redunda en la hegemon?a de medios de comunicaci?n con una militancia expl?cita por el aplastamiento de la econom?a nacional. La voz de los voceros El diario La Naci?n del 18 de febrero, en su editorial, destaca que ?cuando manifestantes callejeros piden a gritos `que se vayan todos` salta a la vista que se est? queriendo conducir a la Argentina por el camino ?sin duda equivocado?de los gestos fundacionales y mesi?nicos?. Un d?a despu?s BAE indica en tapa que ?Un inusitado clima de violencia, anarqu?a social y ausencia de autoridad se instal? definitivamente en la sociedad argentina (...) Piqueteros y activistas de todos los colores vienen cabalgando sobre el descontento de la sociedad y provocan continuos incidentes (...) ?Qu? hacen las fuerzas de seguridad? Hasta ahora, nada?. El mismo 19 La Prensa supera su propia historia y titula, para referirse a las protestas de los ahorristas contra los bancos: ?La voz y el martillo. ?Hay agitadores infilitrados en la City y en el f?tbol??. El 25 de febrero, Ambito Financiero sostiene que ?A nadie sorprende ya que el ?nacionalizar la producci?n`, `vivir con lo nuestro` (viejo lema de los 70 del economista Aldo Ferrer ahora actualizado), echemos a patadas al Fondo Monetario (del moyanismo sinidical), `cambiemos este modelo de desocupaci?n` otras inconsciencias del proteccionismo exacerbado en mezcla explosiva con el populismo y la izquierda han logrado una Argentina, como era descontable, mucho peor que la de De la R?a?. El 28 de ese mes, el diario reci?n citado consider? ?vampiros? a los que cuestionan a Escassany. Y ese mismo d?a BAE titula ?Peligro: la Naci?n cedi? todo a provincias para conseguir la foto?. El Cronista Comercial ?inform?? el 1 de marzo en su p?gina 4 que ?Aumentan el gasto social, los fondos a las obras sociales y a provincias?. Ese d?a Ambito se pregunta en tapa ??D?nde va Duhalde?? y responde ?...Eduardo Duhalde ha tomado una decisi?n: no abandonar el populismo de toda su vida a?n habiendo llegado a presidente de la Naci?n?. La Raz?n del 27 de marzo editorializa sobre ?la mala memoria de los argentinos? y reivindica las privatizaciones menemistas y los ?avances obtenidos por las empresas. Como curiosidad, entre otras barbaridades, destaca que cuando los ferrocarriles eran del Estado hab?a ?vagones sucios, vidrios rotos, asientos destruidos? y ?la insuficiencia de vagones llevaba a que en horas pico los pasajeros viajasen como sardinas?. Sorprendente, pues cabe preguntarse: ?ahora no? Le recordamos al lector, por muy asombrado que est?, que semejantes afirmaciones son reproducidas textualmente. No hubo agregados ni tergiversaciones destinados a empeorar titulares o comentarios. Los medios del Primer Mundo Hemos buscado, hemos le?do, hemos consultado. No hay medios con una l?nea editorial equivalente en el llamado primer mundo. Se trata de coincidencias aparentes: todos apuestan al recorte del ?gasto p?blico?... en la Argentina. Tambi?n promueven las privatizaciones y la apertura... en la Argentina. Un gran enga?o: La Naci?n y The Wall Street Journal coinciden en la necesidad de aplicar recetas neoliberales en nuestro pa?s. Hasta el New York Times tiene sus puntos de contacto con Clar?n, en tanto los medios econ?micos de aqu? y de all? suelen manejar hip?tesis semejantes sobre lo que debe ocurrir en Am?rica latina. Pero ninguno de los diarios y revistas a los cuales accedimos a lo largo de esta investigaci?n hostiga su propio mercado del modo en el cual lo hacen sus ?pares? argentinos. Ninguno ?y muy enf?ticamente los medios europeos?admiten un deterioro de la salud p?blica y la educaci?n como el que promueven a trav?s del respaldo a los recortes presupuestarios sus ?iguales? argentinos. No hallamos propaganda a favor de la ?desaceleraci?n? ni de la desinversi?n en sus territorios espec?ficos. Por el contrario, de izquierda a derecha, los medios de los pa?ses centrales se manifestaron preocupados, el ?ltimo a?o, por la baja ?muy relativa por cierto?en la velocidad de la ?locomotora? industrial estadounidense. Y requirieron, mayoritariamente, intervenci?n estatal. Apenas puede considerarse coincidente la tendencia a cuestionar la carga impositiva estadual sobre las grandes ganancias; pero el paralelo se desvanece cuando se observan las cifras de recaudaci?n fiscal y se comprende que esas cr?ticas ?propias de medios conservadores?de todos modos parten de un nivel sumamente razonable de carga impositiva. Adem?s: salvo excepciones a las que haremos referencia a continuaci?n, la defensa de los derechos c?vicos es homog?nea y abarcativa. Las p?ginas referidas al comportamiento empresarial analizan ?tambi?n?la ?tica desde un plano ideol?gico burgu?s vinculado al inter?s de la ciudadan?a nativa. Por supuesto: hay presiones de avisadores y empresarios, pero rara vez los resultados superan la eliminaci?n de adjetivos. Esto contrasta con el an?lisis de las empresas europeas y norteamericanas que se desenvuelven en nuestro territorio: all? s?, desinformaci?n y prejuicios se amalgaman para darles carta blanca. Podr?amos sintetizar la posici?n en los alegatos de Mariano Grondona desde La Naci?n y su programa televisivo para limitar el control del delito empresarial en aras de ?atraer inversores?. La sutil diferencia s?lo se percibe en el posicionamiento geogr?fico. La ?sorpresa? para argentinos no avisados aparece cuando se abordan los medios ultra conservadores, filo nazis o neofascistas del Primer Mundo. Es claro que coinciden ?ah? s??en cuanto a la necesidad de incrementar los niveles de violencia para resolver contradicciones horizontales y situaciones derivadas del alto ?ndice de inmigraci?n. Pero jam?s aceptan, como sus suced?neos aqu?, una pol?tica aperturista que priorice la producci?n externa o que favorezca la apropiaci?n de empresas locales por parte de ?extranjeros?. La ret?rica patriotera y violentista de Daniel Hadad a trav?s de Radio Diez, BAE, La Primera y Despu?s de Hora, se asienta en el respeto a propuestas antinacionales como la de Roberto Alemann, a bancos extranjeros que roban ahorros argentinos y a empresas de origen europeo que drenan recursos locales. Bien: no encontramos un solo medio primer mundista situado en la misma zona del arco pol?tico que plantee semejantes cosas con respecto a sus respectivos pa?ses. Conclusiones sencillas Finalmente: como nos estamos dirigiendo a lectores inteligentes, evitamos ?probar? con porcentajes las afirmaciones. Podr?amos decir, por ejemplo, que en la prensa escrita argentina poco m?s del 90 por ciento de los editoriales se manifiestan a?n a favor de las privatizaciones, la ?apertura econ?mica? y la ?reducci?n del gasto p?blico?. Tal y como lo hicieron en el primer lustro de la d?cada menemista, y a pesar de los resultados evidentes. Y as? seguir hasta aburrir. No lo consideramos imprescindible: invitamos al lector a desarrollar su propia investigaci?n a bajo costo. Puede ingresar a los medios m?s importantes, nacionales y extranjeros v?a Internet y cotejar, ma?ana mismo, las afirmaciones aqu? planteadas. Aclaramos sin embargo que nuestra tarea fue m?s minuciosa a?n que esa, pues hasta donde nos fue posible abordamos directamente el soporte en papel. (*) Hay dos conclusiones claras que emergen del seguimiento: por un lado, los diarios argentinos ?salvo una relativa excepci?n, P?gina 12-- tergiversan intencionadamente ?es decir, a pesar de disponer de informaci?n adecuada?elementos centrales y corroborables de la realidad nacional. La imagen que surgi? n?tida es la de medios militantes cuya ?nica posici?n de principios es la obturaci?n del desarrollo econ?mico social argentino. Por otro, los diarios argentinos no guardan vinculo editorial real con los medios de los pa?ses desarrollados que suelen considerar como referencias v?lidas. El abordaje de los problemas econ?micos del espacio geogr?fico propio es diametralmente opuesto al que plantean sus presuntos equivalentes. La prensa del Primer Mundo manipula la informaci?n referida a la Argentina y Am?rica latina, pero es bastante certera en la que ofrece sobre su regi?n. (*)Mediante la investigaci?n pudimos cotejar los medios gr?ficos locales con los internacionales. No hicimos comparaci?n con las radios y la televisi?n. El acceso por cable brinda la posibilidad de tener un ?pantallazo? ?claro?pero no nos permite un seguimiento estricto de las informaciones suministradas en otros espacios geogr?ficos. GF/ _______________________________________________ Para suscribirse o borrarse por v?a Internet, visite http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/reconquista-popular. Para suscribirse o borrarse por correo electr?nico, env?e un mensaje escribiendo 'help' en el asunto o en el cuerpo, a reconquista-popular-request@lists.econ.utah.edu Para comunicarse con la persona que administra la lista, env?e correo electr?nico a reconquista-popular-admin@lists.econ.utah.edu _______________________________________________ Lista de correo electr?nico Reconquista-popular Reconquista-popular@lists.econ.utah.edu http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/reconquista-popular ------- End of forwarded message ------- ------- End of forwarded message ------- N?stor Miguel Gorojovsky gorojovsky@arnet.com.ar ********************************************************************** ******* Compa?eros del exercito de los Andes. ...La guerra se la tenemos de hacer del modo que podamos: sino tenemos dinero, carne y un pedazo de tabaco no nos tiene de faltar: cuando se acaben los vestuarios, nos vestiremos con la bayetilla que nos trabajen nuestras mugeres, y sino andaremos en pelota como nuestros paisanos los indios: seamos libres, y lo dem?s no importa nada... Jose de San Mart?n, 27 de julio de 1819. ********************************************************************** ******* From nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar Sat May 4 02:12:06 2002 From: nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar (Nestor Gorojovsky) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:43 2006 Subject: [A-List] Argentine pension swindle: a detail which explains it all. Message-ID: <3CD33DFA.32689.84E86D@localhost> Commissions cashed by the AFJP's (in fact, a "business name" for trusts held by the banks) are, _by law_, of around 30% of each contributors' savings. The whole system was a swindle from the very beginning, as the outrageous figure above shows. Once you put your money in an AFJP, you immediately lose 3 out of every 10 pesos you have incorporated to your capital. No investment engineering on Planet Earth, however smart, can return this money back to you. On the other hand, the AFJP's worked thusly: (a) the current pensions system was left unfunded, because people was forbidden by law to adhere to the State-owned system (b) immediately, the State was forced to seek money to keep paying the current pensions (however miserable) (c) the AFJP's rushed to offer that money, for which they charged the highest interest rates imaginable. Thus, what happened was that the State graciously granted to a gang of highwaymen the funds that up to that moment had been collected directly at almost no cost, allowed -nay, "forced"- them to grab for their own wallets 30% of the money collected, then went to the burglars and begged them to lend money to the State so it would be possible to meet the requirements that were met by direct collection before the system was introduced. The criminals en gants jaunes eagerly helped the State, and charged unbelievable rates (in dollars, keep in mind we are talking of a practically dollarized economy) for money that should have cost nothing. And the IMF, now, is forcing the government to revoke the laws which would take these guys to jail. Once you are in the "family", the "family" will protect you (this line comes from "The honor of the Prizzis" or from the "Godfather", don't remember which --or maybe from "The wealth of Nations"?). N?stor Miguel Gorojovsky gorojovsky@arnet.com.ar ********************************************************************** ******* Compa?eros del exercito de los Andes. ...La guerra se la tenemos de hacer del modo que podamos: sino tenemos dinero, carne y un pedazo de tabaco no nos tiene de faltar: cuando se acaben los vestuarios, nos vestiremos con la bayetilla que nos trabajen nuestras mugeres, y sino andaremos en pelota como nuestros paisanos los indios: seamos libres, y lo dem?s no importa nada... Jose de San Mart?n, 27 de julio de 1819. ********************************************************************** ******* From jfgf.consult at mail.telepac.pt Sat May 4 03:40:02 2002 From: jfgf.consult at mail.telepac.pt (Jorge Figueiredo) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:43 2006 Subject: [A-List] Visit resistir.info (Portuguese only) Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020504104225.01a997d0@mail.telepac.pt> Visite http://resistir.info, um sitio web internacionalista. Ultimas inser?oes: "N?o temos rela??o com o FMI nem queremos t?-la", por Guillermo Garc?a Ponce Senten?a final, do Tribunal Internacional da D?vida Externa Do pudor em pol?tica, por George Labica Dial?ctica e processo, por Melvine Entrevista de Marta Harnecker, por "Cuadernos del Marxismo" 28 anos depois do 25 de Abril, por Gen. Vasco Gon?alves O Brasil, os EUA, a OPAQ e Bustani, por Samuel Pinheiro Guimar?es A derrocada de Jospin, por Laerte Braga A elei??o na Col?mbia e a longa luta das FARC-EP, por Miguel Urbano Rodrigues O regresso de Bolivar, por Miguel Urbano Rodrigues Aprendizes de feiticeiro, por Rui Namorado Rosa O MST na primeira barricada, por Marta Harnecker Congressista dos EUA quer investigar liga??es da Administra??o Bush, por Cynthia McKinney As cinco dificuldades para escrever a verdade, por Bertold Brecht Instru??es para censurar o Congresso dos EUA, por George Bush Petr?leo, pico de Hubbert, ambiente & crise, por Jorge Figueiredo A utiliza??o do ur?nio empobrecido nos Balc?s, por Rui Namorado Rosa Lembrai-vos do inc?ndio do Reischstag !, por Miguel Urbano Rodrigues http://resistir.info From mjlima at uol.com.br Sat May 4 08:41:01 2002 From: mjlima at uol.com.br (Mario Jose de lima) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:43 2006 Subject: [A-List] Visit resistir.info (Portuguese only) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020504104225.01a997d0@mail.telepac.pt> Message-ID: <006201c1f370$76311760$8d469ec8@x3o1s7> JORGE / FIZ ALGUMAS TENTATIVAS, MAS O ENDEREÇO NÃO PODE SER ACESSADO. O QUE ESTÁ ACONTENCENDO? MÁRIO ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jorge Figueiredo" To: Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 6:48 AM Subject: [A-List] Visit resistir.info (Portuguese only) > Visite http://resistir.info, um sitio web internacionalista. > > Ultimas inserçoes: > > "Não temos relação com o FMI nem queremos tê-la", por Guillermo García Ponce > Sentença final, do Tribunal Internacional da Dívida Externa > Do pudor em política, por George Labica > Dialéctica e processo, por Melvine > Entrevista de Marta Harnecker, por "Cuadernos del Marxismo" > 28 anos depois do 25 de Abril, por Gen. Vasco Gonçalves > O Brasil, os EUA, a OPAQ e Bustani, por Samuel Pinheiro Guimarães > A derrocada de Jospin, por Laerte Braga > A eleição na Colômbia e a longa luta das FARC-EP, por Miguel Urbano Rodrigues > O regresso de Bolivar, por Miguel Urbano Rodrigues > Aprendizes de feiticeiro, por Rui Namorado Rosa > O MST na primeira barricada, por Marta Harnecker > Congressista dos EUA quer investigar ligações da Administração Bush, por > Cynthia McKinney > As cinco dificuldades para escrever a verdade, por Bertold Brecht > Instruções para censurar o Congresso dos EUA, por George Bush > Petróleo, pico de Hubbert, ambiente & crise, por Jorge Figueiredo > A utilização do urânio empobrecido nos Balcãs, por Rui Namorado Rosa > Lembrai-vos do incêndio do Reischstag !, por Miguel Urbano Rodrigues > > http://resistir.info > > > From annewilliamson at msn.con Sat May 4 09:07:02 2002 From: annewilliamson at msn.con (Anne Williamson) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:43 2006 Subject: [A-List] Another govt swindle References: <3CD33DFA.32689.84E86D@localhost> Message-ID: <001601c1f37c$c0926b40$0100a8c0@igrushkii> Many thanks to Nestor for the very interesting detail regarding the Argentine pension swindle, a truly appalling read/situation. Ex-Im Bank is another swindle, this one US taxpayers fund. Despite Congressman Paul's fine speech (analysis), funding was re-authorized in the Committee on an unrecorded vote that had been stepped up in the schedule in order to catch opponents unawares. There is nothing the Congressional swine won't do, no outrage they will not commit, in order to reward their campaign donors from the public treasury; IMF, the WB, OPIC, USAID, and the "enterprise funds" are all of a piece with Ex-Im. Anne ************************************************************* No Corporate Welfare by Congressman Ron Paul, MD Mr. Chairman, we are here today to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, but it has nothing to do with a bank, do not mislead anybody. This has to do with an agency of the government that allocates credit to special interests and to the benefit of foreign entities. So it is not a bank in that sense. To me it is immoral in the fact that it takes from some who cannot defend themselves to give to the rich who get the benefits. And I just do not see that as being a very good function and a very good program for the U.S. Congress. Besides, I would like to see where somebody gives me the constitutional authority for doing what we do here and we have been doing, of course, for a long time. But I do not want to talk about the immorality of this so-called bank or the unconstitutionality of it. I want to talk just a second or two about the economics of it. It is really bad economics. It is pointed out that it helps a company here or there, but what is never talked about what you do not see. This is credit allocation. In order to take billions of dollars and give it to one single company, it is taken out of the pool of funds available. And nobody talks about that. There is an expense. Why would not a bank loan when it is guaranteed by the government? Because it is guaranteed. So if you are a smaller investor or a marginal investor, there is no way that you are going to get the loan. For that investor to get the loan, the interest rates have to be higher. So it is a form of credit allocation, and it is also a form of protectionism. We do a lot of talk around here about free trade. Of course, there is a lot of tariff activity going on as well, but this is a form of protectionism. Because some argue, well, this company has to compete and another government subsidizes their company so, therefore, we have to compete. So it is competitive subsidization of special interest corporations in order to do this. Now, it seems strange that we here in the Congress are willing to give the beneficiary China the most number of dollars. They qualify for nearly $6 billion worth of credits. And that just does not seem like the reasonable thing for us to do. So I strongly urge a no vote on this bill. Mr. Chairman, Congress should reject H.R. 2871, the Export-Import Reauthorization Act, for economic, constitutional, and moral reasons. The Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) takes money from American taxpayers to subsidize exports by American companies. Of course, it is not just any company that receives Eximbank support; the majority of Eximbank funding benefit large, politically powerful corporations. Enron provides a perfect example of how Eximbank provides politically-powerful corporations competitive advantages they could not obtain in the free market. According to journalist Robert Novak, Enron has received over $640 million in taxpayer-funded ``assistance'' from Eximbank. This taxpayer-provided largesse no doubt helped postpone Enron's inevitable day of reckoning. Eximbank's use of taxpayer funds to support Enron is outrageous, but hardly surprising. The the vast majority of Eximbank funds benefit Enron-like outfits that must rely on political connections and government subsidies to survive and/or multinational corporations who can afford to support their own exports without relying on the American taxpayer. It is not only bad economics to force working Americans, small business, and entrepreneurs to subsidize the export of the large corporations: it is also immoral. In fact, this redistribution from the poor and middle class to the wealthy is the most indefensible aspect of the welfare state, yet it is the most accepted form of welfare. Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me how members who criticize welfare for the poor on moral and constitutional grounds see no problem with the even more objectionable programs that provide welfare for the rich. The moral case against Eximbank is strengthened when one considers that the government which benefits most from Eximbank funds is communist China. In fact, Eximbank actually underwrites joint ventures with firms owned by the Chinese government! Whatever one's position on trading with China, I would hope all of us would agree that it is wrong to force taxpayers to subsidize in any way this brutal regime. Unfortunately, China is not an isolated case: Colombia and Sudan benefit from taxpayer-subsidized trade, courtesy of the Eximbank! At a time when the Federal budget is going back into deficit and Congress is once again preparing to raid the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, does it really make sense to use taxpayer funds to benefit future Enrons, Fortune 500 companies, and communist China? Proponents of continued American support for the Eximbank claim that the bank creates jobs and promotes economic growth. However, this claim rests on a version of what the great economist Henry Hazlitt called, the ``broken window'' fallacy. When a hoodlum throws a rock through a store window, it can be said he has contributed to the economy, as the store owner will have to spend money having the window fixed. The benefits to those who repaired the window are visible for all to see, therefore it is easy to see the broken window as economically beneficial. However, the ``benefits'' of the broken window are revealed as an illusion when one takes into account what is not seen: the businesses and workers who would have benefited had the store owner not spent money repairing a window, but rather had been free to spend his money as he chose. Similarly, the beneficiaries of Eximbank are visible to all. What is not seen is the products that would have been built, the businesses that would have been started, and the jobs that would have been created had the funds used for the Eximbank been left in the hands of consumers. Some supporters of this bill equate supporting Eximbank with supporting ``free trade,'' and claim that opponents are ``protectionists'' and ``isolationists.'' Mr. Chairman, this is nonsense, Eximbank has nothing to do with free trade. True free trade involves the peaceful, voluntary exchange of goods across borders, not forcing taxpayers to subsidize the exports of politically powerful companies. Eximbank is not free trade, but rather managed trade, where winners and losers are determined by how well they please government bureacrats instead of how well they please consumers. Expenditures on the Eximbank distort the market by diverting resources from the private sector, where they could be put to the use most highly valued by individual consumers, into the public sector, where their use will be determined by bureaucrats and politically powerful special interests. By distorting the market and preventing resources from achieving their highest valued use, Eximbank actually costs Americans jobs and reduces America's standard of living! Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind my colleagues that there is simply no constitutional justification for the expenditure of funds on programs such as Eximbank. In fact, the drafters of the Constitution would be horrified to think the Federal Government was taking hard-earned money from the American people in order to benefit the politically powerful. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, Eximbank distorts the market by allowing government bureaucrats to make economic decisions in place of individual consumers. Eximbank also violates basic principles of morality, by forcing working Americans to subsidize the trade of wealthy companies that could easily afford to subsidize their own trade, as well as subsidizing brutal governments like Red China and the Sudan. Eximbank also violates the limitations on congressional power to take the property of individual citizens and use it to benefit powerful special interests. It is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 2871, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act. May 4, 2002 Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas. From annewilliamson at msn.con Sat May 4 09:56:02 2002 From: annewilliamson at msn.con (Anne Williamson) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] US Domestic Political Disputes References: <3CD33DFA.32689.84E86D@localhost> Message-ID: <002801c1f383$8fe80f20$0100a8c0@igrushkii> I've really enjoyed Michael's posts on UK politics (Labor, Blair, punk Thatcherites, Ian McKinnon - all of it), and though I'm not well enough versed in the personalities and the contemporary British scene to appreciate those posts in full (and I'm even - gasp! - a subscriber to The Spectator; I know, I know - Quel horreur!), I still profit from what I am able to absorb. I thought perhaps some readers of this list might similarly enjoy reading some vigorous commentary on one of the US right's internecine quarrels, and so the below post. (Calling it a "quarrel" really isn't correct - it's a split if ever there was.) What strikes me is that nobody's happy these days politically, except maybe the neo-cons (but not on the days when DUH-bya kinda, sorta thinks maybe the Israelis oughta take a break from killing Palestinians) and the wildly free-spending US Congress. I really worry about how all this misery, disappointment and aggression will shake itself out. Anyway, here's a cri de coeur from a paleolibertarian (anarcho-capitalist), I could have written myself. Anne ************************************************************* Behind the Headlines by Justin Raimondo Antiwar.com May 3, 2002 LONG LIVE LIBERTARIANISM! We haven't 'fallen' - only the sell-outs have stumbled Today's Wall Street Journal [May 2] proclaims, with a flourish of editorial trumpets, "The Fall of the Libertarians." The cause of the movement's alleged demise? 9/11. Oh yes, "everything's changed" since that awful day, including the possibility of getting Big Government off our backs: "The great free-market revolution that began with the coming to power of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan at the close of the 1970s has finally reached its Thermidor, or point of reversal." THE END OF 'THE END OF HISTORY' The great irony of this exceedingly odd little screed is that it was written by someone whose philosophy most definitely bit the dust on 9/11: Francis Fukuyama's "the end of history" thesis was blown to smithereens along with the World Trade Center and lost amid the smoking rubble on that fateful day. In essence, the central argument of his famous article, published in the summer of 1989, is summarized in a single sentence: "What we may be witnessing in not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government." While he was careful to note that "the victory of liberalism has occurred primarily in the realm of ideas or consciousness and is as yet incomplete in the real or material world," this qualification only underscores the colossal scale of Fukuyama's error. For it seems no one informed the 9/11 hijackers of this alleged "victory" over their consciousness. Their terrible act was a dramatic (and unanswerable) refutation of Fukuyama's deterministic evolutionism. Yet now this recycled neoconservative has-been is being dragged out in the service of - what? War, naturally, the chief preoccupation and joy of every neocon. WARMED-OVER HEGELIANISM Set down as the Soviet empire was tottering into oblivion, Fukuyama's warmed-over Hegelianism soon became the favorite intellectual clich? of Marxists-turned-neocons from Commentary to National Review. Fukuyama's giddy triumphalism provided a fitting backdrop for the unabashedly neo-imperialist flights of fancy indulged in by the post-cold war, post-9/11 neoconservative right. Bill Kristol's clarion call for "benevolent global hegemony" and National Review's crazed campaign demanding that George W. Bush invade and occupy the Saudi oil fields come immediately to mind. As neocon columnist Charles Krauthammer proclaimed in the pages of The National Interest [Winter 1989-90]: "The goal is the world as described by Francis Fukuyama. Fukuyama's provocation was to assume that the end [of history] - what he calls the common marketization of the world - is either here or inevitably dawning; it is neither. The West has to make it happen. It has to wish and work for a super-sovereign West economically, culturally, and politically hegemonic in the world." The triumph of the liberal values supposedly represented by the US government is inevitable, according to Fukuyama, but, just in case it isn't, Krauthammer and his fellow neocons want to use the American military to "make it happen." Like Marx, who also posited the inevitable victory of his adherents, Fukyama is more than willing to go along with this. Fukuyama recently signed on along with a passel of neocon intellectuals to a call issued by the Project for a New American Century calling for the outright invasion and military occupation of large swatches of the Middle East. FUKUYAMA VERSUS THE LIBERTARIANS Libertarianism is an obstacle to Empire, and, as such, must be removed: conservatism, says Fukuyama in the War Street Journal, has "matured," and it's time to cast away the youthful chrysalis of libertarianism: "Like the French Revolution, it derived its energy from a simple idea of liberty, to wit, that the modern welfare state had grown too large, and that individuals were excessively regulated." To begin with, it is absurd to identify the free-market "revolution" that supposedly triumphed in the 1980s with the electoral victories of either Thatcher or Reagan, since neither reduced the size, scope, or arrogant presumptiveness of government power, but only - at best - momentarily slowed the rate of increase. And I would argue that Reagan, in pursuing a military build-up unprecedented in our history, did more to increase the power of the public sector than any other President since Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But then this confusion on Fukuyama's part is unremarkable in someone who sees libertarianism embodied in the complaint that "the modern welfare state had grown too large." Libertarians abhor the day the welfare state was spawned, and have called for its complete abolition ever since. As for Americans being "excessively regulated," it is not the degree but the presumption that regulation is required that libertarians have always contested. RED RHETORIC "Yet the revolution entered a Jacobin phase with the election of Newt Gingrich's Congress in 1994," Fukuyama continues - hey, wait a minute! This guy is supposed to be a (neo)conservative, I know, but how come he writes as if he were Leon Trotsky? His prose is chockfull of references right out of some Trotskyist tract: "Thermidor" (Trotsky's term for what called the "degeneration" of the Soviet "workers state"), "Jacobins," and comparing the conservative-libertarian ascendancy to the French Revolution. What is this - the Wall Street Journal or the Socialist Worker? With Fukuyama and his neocon fan club, it's often hard to tell. LIBERTARIAN 'JACOBINS'? Okay, so this "Jacobin" phase of the alleged free-market revolution, according to Fukuyama, went too far, allowing the Clintonites to seize the vital center. "For many on the right," he avers, "Mr. Reagan's classical liberalism began to evolve into libertarianism, an ideological hostility to the state in all its manifestations. While the dividing line between the two is not always straightforward, libertarianism is a far more radical dogma whose limitations are becoming increasingly clear. The libertarian wing of the revolution overreached itself, and is now fighting rearguard actions on two fronts: foreign policy and biotechnology." Well, he's right about one thing: libertarianism, while most emphatically not a "dogma," is indeed radical, in that its critique of the status quo strikes at the very root of the evil that besets us, which is the State. If Reaganism represents "classical liberalism," in any sense, then perhaps Fukuyama means classical liberalism at the end of its tether, after a long decline into utilitarianism and gradualism. In any case, Fukuyama's conflation of Reaganism and libertarianism is interesting only because it prefaces the real point of his piece: "The hostility of libertarians to big government extended to U.S. involvement in the world. The Cato Institute propounded isolationism in the '90s, on the ground that global leadership was too expensive. At the time of the Gulf War, Cato produced an analysis that argued it would be cheaper to let Saddam keep Kuwait than to pay for a military intervention to expel him--a fine cost-benefit analysis, if you only abstracted from the problem of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a megalomaniac." Of course, the reality is that Saddam and Kuwait have kissed and made up, forming a common front, along with the Saudis, against the US. So it turns out that it would indeed have been cheaper - in terms of lives, both American and Iraqi, as well as dollars - to let Saddam keep Kuwait after all. As for weapons of mass destruction being in the hands of a Middle Eastern megalomaniac, I, too, am disturbed that Ariel Sharon has his finger on the nuclear trigger, but are we going to blame the Iraqis for that, too? So there was the "isolationist" (i.e. pro-peace) Cato Institute, daring to question Washington's pro-war consensus. Ah, but then along came 9/11, when "everything changed" - and the rug was ostensibly pulled out from under the libertarians: "Contrary to Mr. Reagan's vision of the U.S. as a 'shining city on a hill,' libertarians saw no larger meaning in America's global role, no reason to promote democracy and freedom abroad. Sept. 11 ended this line of argument. It was a reminder to Americans of why government exists, and why it has to tax citizens and spend money to promote collective interests. It was only the government, and not the market or individuals, that could be depended on to send firemen into buildings, or to fight terrorists, or to screen passengers at airports." Oh, thank God for the US government! They did a great job of screening, now didn't they? Why, if not for them, the 9/11 hijackers would've wriggled through our security nets and managed to smuggle weapons aboard four aircraft, hijack the planes, and ram them into the - hey, uh, hold on there, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't something terrible happen that day in spite of all the warnings, all the precautions, all the "anti-terrorist" task forces and government studies, all the billions poured into "security"? It's pathetic, really, that the neocons are now imitating the Daschle Democrats in proclaiming that big government, post-9/11, is back in style. Good lord, we may not have reached the end of history, but surely we have reached the end of our patience with Fukuyama's sloppy polemic. What makes it interesting to begin with, however, is that this attack on the Cato Institute is completely gratuitous. True, the Cato folks were once committed to the cause of noninterventionism, because they, like all authentic libertarians, know that war is the health of the state, as Randolph Bourne famously put it. The centralizing effect of military priorities in wartime, the comprehensiveness of state controls for the duration of the conflict, necessarily shrinks the sphere of liberty and increases the role and reach of government. Even more importantly, just as libertarians oppose the consolidation and expansion of the public sector at home, so they must logically oppose its geographical extension abroad. This view was held by Murray N. Rothbard, the real intellectual founder of the Cato Institute, and advocated in one form or another by Cato (in spite of their break with Rothbard in the early 1980s) up until 9/11. CATO SELLS OUT In the post-9/11 atmosphere, however, this principled opposition to warmongering - dubbed "isolationism" by Fukuyama - is understood to be "anti-Americanism" of the worst sort, and has been explicitly disavowed by Cato. As I pointed out in a previous column, their representatives now have set themselves in the vanguard of the War Party, with Cato foreign policy honcho Ted Galen Carpenter calling for the invasion of Pakistan (!) and Cato coming out in favor of Bush's endless "war on terrorism." Carpenter has even gone so far as to jump on the "Let Sharon be Sharon" bandwagon, urging "nonintervention" by opposing US pressure on Israel to stop slaughtering the Palestinians. But intervention in the form of US tax dollars filling Israeli coffers as Israeli tanks roll over the Palestinians - for some reason this form of intervention goes unmentioned by Cato's chief foreign policy "expert." But all that backtracking and neocon ass-kissing, in the end, didn't get them anything but an attack in the Wall Street Journal - and a particularly galling one, at least from the pro-war "libertarian" perspective. LIBERTARIAN CLONES FOR WAR For the one big crusade of the Virginia Postrel-Glenn Reynolds-Warblogger axis of cyber-evil has been the legalization of cloning; on their endless little "blogs," calls to nuke Mecca and replace the House of Saud with the International House of Pancakes are interspersed between earnest little petitions for the legalization of cloning, which will supposedly usher in a golden age. To Fukuyama and his fellow neocons, this is monstrous, and must be stopped, while the pro-war libertarians are ready to make the first scientist prosecuted for illegal cloning their very own Mumia Abu Jamal. Without taking a position on cloning one way or the other, it is interesting to note that the neocons wouldn't cut their "libertarian" satellites any slack, not even on this somewhat abstruse issue. It didn't matter that Postrel and her little blogger kids kowtowed on the all-important foreign policy question. Not even running interference for Sharon's blitzkrieg was enough to earn them sufficient brownie points for any kind of exemption. Any deviation from the neocon line is the occasion for a denunciation, a reminder of who is on what end of the leash. The pro-war libertarians thought that, if only they allowed themselves to be properly domesticated, if only they bought into the globalist foreign policy agenda of the neocons, and stuck to economics and exotica like cloning and drug legalization, they would be left alone in peace. Let this be a lesson to them - not that they can afford to learn it, as this point. I am reminded of what Murray N. Rothbard said of the Catoites back in the 1980s, when they were trying to pass off libertarianism as "low-tax liberalism": "They have sold out for a mess of pottage," he wrote, "without even getting the pottage in return." DEVELOPING A TASTE FOR THE LASH Fukuyama is right to herald the fall of the pro-war libertarians: they have corralled themselves into a tiny and rather unrewarding ideological niche, where individualism is conflated with a narcissism so overweening that the Postrelian embrace of cloning issue seems almost too parodic to be true. Relegated to the fringe, the "libertarian" branch of the War Party will be allowed to feed off crumbs from the neocons' ample table only as long as they keep quiet about their more unconventional ideas. Okay, drug legalization, well, maybe that's okay, since even Bill Buckley agrees with them: but cloning? No way. It was time for them to feel the editorial lash, time to let them know who's the dominant force in this coalition: but they shouldn't despair. The lash may sting the first couple of times, but they'll get used to it after a while - and may even come to like it. Indeed, such masochistic tendencies are obvious in Cato "scholar" Brink Lindsay's craven reply to Fukuyama. As the number one critic of those libertarians who have retained their opposition to empire-building interventionism, Lindsay loudly protests his loyalty to the War Party and even distances himself from his employer: "Yes, it's true that some libertarians, including folks at the Cato Institute, opposed the Gulf War. But I'm a libertarian, I support cloning, and my only complaint with the Gulf War is that we didn't take Baghdad. Virginia Postrel, far and away the most prominent libertarian on the cloning issue, supported the Gulf War.. Many prominent libertarians have been front and center in urging vigorous and aggressive military action" Yes, Brink, why don't you crawl on your belly all the way over to Bill Kristol's doorstep? Maybe that will do some good. Or maybe you can make your argument for cloning in terms of the US acquiring an invaluable military asset. Imagine cloned American soldiers, genetically-designed warriors ready to fight practically from birth: why, we could win the war on terrorism, and even conquer the whole world, given such bioengineered Myrmidons! Surely such a prospect could go a long way toward helping us achieve Bill Kristol's dream of "benevolent world hegemony." CLONING AND THE PROMISED LAND Another way to appeal to a neocon audience is to show how cloning will benefit Israel. And of course the benefits to the Israelis are glaringly obvious. Instead of trying to convince the Diaspora to move to one of the most dangerous places on earth, a socialist Sparta where the government takes more than half your income, the Israelis could solve their demographic problem by simply cloning new citizens - more than enough to populate the Greater Israel of Sharon's dreams. It's sickening, really, to contemplate the self-abasement of these social-climbing careerists, whose degenerate "libertarianism" is but a distorted shadow, a caricature of the real thing: and they aren't worth contemplating, really, except as a lesson and a warning to the young. This is what you turn into when you sell out: as Rothbard put it, "and they didn't even get the pottage!" The fall of the pro-war libertarians, and their absorption into the neoconservative grand consensus, is an event worth noting only as an object lesson in what it means to fail. LIBERTARIANISM - ALIVE AND WELL The real libertarianism, however, is alive and very well, thank you, flourishing as a result of the great work being done by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, as well as Antiwar.com's sponsoring organization, the Center for Libertarian Studies. We are reaching, every day, tens of thousands of people from practically eve ry country on earth. From the Midwest to the Middle East, from Northern Europe to South and Central America, the libertarian message on the vital issue of war and peace - as well as free trade and economic and personal liberty - is being broadcast globally to a large and steadily increasing audience. Let the "warbloggers" and pro-war "libertarians" congratulate each other on their career-advancing war fervor, and imagine they are defining the terms of the debate. We are defining the future of libertarianism - that is, if it is to have one. Please Support Antiwar.com Antiwar.com 520 S. Murphy Avenue, #202 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 From jenyan1 at uic.edu Sun May 5 12:02:02 2002 From: jenyan1 at uic.edu (jenyan1) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] "IMF cannot be reformed" In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20020502073750.031fcf00@pop3.norton.antivirus> Message-ID: On Thu, 2 May 2002, Chris Burford wrote: > > To mitigate this there is some talk of Marshall Aid plans. Bush has used > the term in connection with Afghanistan. Brown has promoted a global > Marshall Aid plan at least ten times larger than the amount Bush > suggested in Monterrey should go to the developing countries. > > The IMF and the World Bank are already instruments for grudgingly > transfering capital to other countries. So is periodic patronising "debt > forgiveness". So I do not see how you can argue that they cannot do it. > They do. What they are considering is a smoother more rational way of > doing it. > Ideological flat-earthism, repeated ad nauseam and in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. The functions of IMF and World bank include bailing out Northern bond holders, imposing neo-liberal "reforms" and otherwise subordinating the economies of the colonial countries to the requirements of northern capital. Its about time Mr Burford stopped peddling here his squalid lies such as the above./J.Enyang Peter Gowan NLR Sept/Oct 2001: World institutions Any form of liberal cosmopolitan project for a new world order requires the subordination of all states to some form of supra-state planetary authority. NLC occlusion of the role of the US in the Pacific Union is compounded by a misrepresentation of the relationship between the US and the various institutions of eglobal governancef that are either in place or being canvassed. There is no evidence that these institutions have strengthened their jurisdiction over the dominant power in the international system. If anything, the evidence of the 1990s suggests a trend in the opposite direction, as most of these organizations are able to function effectively only insofar as they correspond to the perceived policy priorities of the United States, or at least do not contradict them; indeed, in many instances they should rather be viewed as lightly disguised instruments of US policy. [snip] If we turn to international financial institutions, the pattern is even starker. The IMF is so completely an agency of American will that when the Mexican debt crisis struck in 1995, the Treasury in Washington did not even bother to consult European or Japanese members of the Fund, but--in brazen contravention of its Charter--simply instructed the IMF overnight to bail out American bond-holders, while appropriating additional funds, not even tenuously at its disposal, from the Bank of International Settlements in Basle for the same purpose. The East Asian crisis of 1997-8 offers further evidence, if it were needed, of the ability of the US Treasury to use the IMF as an instrument of its unilateralism, most flagrantly and coercively in the South Korean case. From mstainsby at tao.ca Sun May 5 12:14:01 2002 From: mstainsby at tao.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] Mayworks editorial Message-ID: <004b01c1f3bd$2e7877e0$291f5318@vc.shawcable.net> (Mordecai Briemberg, April 2002) Connections, not conspiracies Seattle to Quebec to Genoa: our numbers, our capacities, our optimism were growing. Those with power publicly worried, indeed quarrelled among themselves over how to respond, with carrots or sticks or both. Yet today we in B.C. have barely noticed, let alone celebrated, the largest-ever anti-globalization protest, the gathering of between 300 to 500,000 people in Barcelona in March. Between Genoa and now was . September 11. September 11 marks a reconfiguration of the political culture, the division into "the good" and "the evil". Stimulating a profound popular xenophobia, the American state publicly proclaimed a policy of permanent war-making, war without geographic or time limits. This was the beginning of their major counter-offensive against our movements, our campaigns focused on halting the acronyms: FTAA, NAFTA, MAI, IMF, WTO. The power-holders displayed a face little evident to our movements against the acronyms. Their state, that some imagined to be in the process of dissolution, supplanted by acronyms, reappeared - active and aggressive. To paraphrase Mark Twain, the rumours of the death of the state had been greatly exaggerated. And its apparatus of repressive laws was significantly expanded, with little opposition. War with its massacre of civilians in the attacked country also makes a profound appeal to racist passions, directed abroad and at home; it refurbishes as well a male-dominant, soldier-culture, whittling away without direct attack the advances feminists have made in the recent decades. Yes, for a brief moment there was an anti-war movement that filled the breach of the paralyzed anti-globalization movement. And this anti-war movement made some beginning effort to challenge the racism at home and abroad of the war-makers. But the anti-war movement soon fizzled. This was not the first but the third time in the last decade an anti-war movement fizzled. The movement against the first United Nations' war on the people of Iraq fizzled; the movement against the NATO war on the people of Yugoslavia fizzled next. Now when it is so clear that the fourth major war of the "new world order" has been meticulously planned, to target the people of Iraq once again, it has been only the heroic popular resistance of the Palestinian people in the Israeli occupied territories that has derailed the timing of a U.S.-U.K. invasion. Here, where we are, there is a bare murmur of an anti-war movement. Now our energies seem focused on a much needed response to the Campbell attacks. Corporate globalization, or the capitalist destruction of the commons and the common good, has come home with a vengeance. As the slogan says: they are all Enron, we are all Argentina. There is much to do. It seems there is "too much to do". Corporate globalization, war-making and empire building, racist profiling, soldier culture, and repressive laws. For those in power these fronts of attack are a co-ordinated strategy. They too have a lot to do, but they see the connections and they focus their energies. We are at a point when we must do the same. We must discover the connections to be able to focus our energies, without simply hopping from one foot to the other. We are at a time when thinking is practical, when we need better ideas to understand the major facets of our world and their connections. Honest, open, tough-minded thinking, thinking together democratically, is a priority. Mayworks is an important opportunity for us to do this. Make time to contribute. ------------------------------------------- Macdonald Stainsby http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international "Simply BEING a Palestinian in what used to be Palestine is a form of suicide...slower and more painful than using a bomb to blow up yourself [...]." - American Jew writing to others, email correspondence. ---- In the contradiction lies the hope. --Bertholt Brecht From magellan at west.com.br Sun May 5 12:40:02 2002 From: magellan at west.com.br (magellan) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] The Young Marx May, 5th Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.20020505153715.00d6fe5c@pop3.west.com.br> Today is the birthday of Karl Marx. He was born on May, 5th, 1818. You may seen a rare beardless photo of him between 15 and 16 years old at http://br.groups.yahoo.com/group/attacorg/ The following message is a very brief biography of him focused on some personal traits. It is written intermixing Portuguese and Spanish: http://br.groups.yahoo.com/group/attacorg/message/8918 From:moderadores moderadores List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 19:58:18 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [AttBR] NOVA GRAVURA: jovem Marx, 5 de maio Nova gravura: o jovem Marx (5 de maio) Nuevo grabado: el joven Marx (5 de mayo) ########################################## En nuestra p?gina principal, http://br.groups.yahoo.com/group/attacorg/ se puede ver una fotograf?a de Marx poco conocida, imberbe y en uniforme de estudiante, entre 15 y 16 a?os de edad (alrededor de 1833 / 1834). Se puede notar su mirada firme e inteligente. Karl Marx naci? el 5 de mayo de 1818 en Tr?veris (como se dice en castellano y portugu?s), vieja ciudad de origen romano que en alem?n e ingl?s se llama Trier, en franc?s Tr?ves y en lat?n Tryria. Se ubica en el r?o Mosela, en la Renania-Palatinado (Rheinland-Pfalz), cercana a la frontera. Posee una de las m?s bi?n conservadas construcciones romanas, la _Porta Nigra_, del siglo I, siendo tambi?n conocida por su catedral, de los siglos IV a XI. Marx es el apellido alem?n escogido por su padre para substituir al hebreo Mordechai cuando se converti? al luteranismo. Hubiera ya se beneficiado por la emancipaci?n civil de los jud?os, en consecuencia de las transformaciones causadas por la invasi?n napole?nica. Por el costado paterno Marx descend?a de un viejo linaje de rabinos de Tr?veris desde el siglo XVI y, por el materno, de jud?os h?ngaros que se establecieron en Holanda en el siglo XVII. Su padre, un abogado liberal, le le?a Voltaire y Racine, en tanto que su futuro suegro le hac?a gustar a Homero y a Shakespeare. Um ano depois da idade com que tirou a foto, Marx escreveu em latim as "Reflex?es de um Jovem sobre a Escolha de uma Profiss?o" (entre 10 e 16 de agosto de 1835). N?o ? um texto das funda??es do marxismo, por certo, mas ajuda a compreender significativamente a g?nese da sua vida e obra. Come?a o Marx adolescente por comparar o animal e o ser humano e conclui que Deus deu ao homem a faculdade de mais bem servir a si mesmo e ? sociedade, o que constitui um privil?gio em rela??o ao restante da Cria??o, mas pode tamb?m arruin?-lo e destru?-lo. Fala longamente das d?vidas e ilus?es de um jovem na escolha de uma profiss?o e constantemente invoca a Deus, assim como adverte sobre os riscos do erro, que pode levar ao perigoso sentimento de autodesprezo. Lamenta que a raz?o n?o possa servir como conselheira, "pois n?o se ap?ia na experi?ncia nem em observa??o profunda, sendo iludida pela emo??o e cegada pela fantasia" - frase que o velho Marx, o fil?sofo da praxis, certamente assinaria de novo. J? ao final conclui: "O valor, contudo, pode ser assegurado somente por uma profiss?o na qual n?o somos instrumentos servis, na qual agimos independentemente em nossa pr?pria esfera. Pode ser assegurado somente por uma profiss?o que n?o requeira atos repreens?veis, ainda que repreens?veis somente na apar?ncia externa, uma profiss?o que os melhores possam seguir com nobre orgulho." ................ "A Hist?ria designa como os maiores aqueles homens que se enobreceram ao trabalhar para o bem comum; a experi?ncia aclama como os mais felizes os homens que hajam feito o maior n?mero de pessoas felizes; a pr?pria religi?o ensina-nos que o ser ideal a quem nos esfor?amos por copiar sacrifica-se em nome da humanidade." ................ "Se tivermos escolhido a posi??o na vida em que possamos muito trabalhar pela humanidade, nenhuma carga pode curvar-nos, pois s?o sacrif?cios em benef?cio de todos; ent?o n?o experimentaremos nenhuma alegria mesquinha, limitada, ego?sta, mas nossa felicidade pertencer? a milh?es, nossos feitos viver?o, silenciosa, mas perpetuamente, e sobre nossas cinzas ser?o derramadas as l?grimas de nobre gente." O Marx de 17 anos assim antecipou toda sua biografia real. Mucho tiempo despu?s, sus hijas, con el solo prop?sito de divertirse, formularon a su padre una serie de preguntas, "Confesiones" - hechas en ingl?s, ya que la fam?lia Marx, tan internacionalizada y con tantos amigos de distintas nacionalidades, hablaba corrientemente el alem?n, el ingl?s y el franc?s. Marx dijo: "Virtud que tiene en m?s aprecio: la simplicidad. .......... Su rasgo caracter?stico: la unidade del fin. Su idea de felicidad: la lucha. Su idea de desdicha: la sumisi?n. Defecto que se siente m?s inclinado a perdonar: _gullibility_, la credulidad (con respecto a los hombres). Defecto que le produce m?s repugnancia: El servilismo. Sus literatos predilectos: Shakespeare, ?squilo, Goethe. Su prosista favorito: Diderot. Su h?roe favorito: Esp?rtaco (el l?der de la mayor revuelta de esclavos contra Roma), Kepler (el astr?nomo y matem?tico). Su hero?na favorita: Gretchen (la Margarita del "Fausto", de Goethe). .......... Su color preferido: el rojo. Su plato predilecto: el pescado. Su sentencia favorita: Nihil humani a me alienum puto (Nada humano me es ajeno). Su lema favorito: De omnibus dubitandum (Dudar de todo)." Una broma de adolescentes, pero una broma que tiene much?simo de verdad. Hay as? en el Marx maduro una continuaci?n del joven: seguramente uno de los hombres m?s cultos del siglo XIX, incluso en las ciencias naturales y las matem?ticas, as? como su compa?ero inseparable Engels. Conoc?a todas las lenguas europeas, incluso el castellano, el portugu?s y el ruso (exceptuadas las fino-ugrianas, el basco y el malt?s), as? como el lat?n y el griego antiguo. Le?a en el original los grandes literatos de su tiempo y los cl?sicos del pasado, adem?s de los fines utilitarios. Repet?a la frase de Hegel: "El pensamiento criminal de un bandido es m?s grande y m?s noble que todas las maravillas del cielo." Era un hombre hondamente vinculado a todas las inquietudes humanas, como se resalta de su obra. Un humanista, en suma, en la acepci?n cl?sica del vocablo. En las universidades de Bonn y Berl?n, para dar gusto a su padre, Karl Marx estudi? derecho, pero, por su placer, tambi?n la historia y la filosof?a. En 1842 iba a ocupar un puesto de preceptor de filosof?a en la Universidad de Bonn, pero el movimiento pol?tico liberal iniciado en 1840 lo atrajo hacia el periodismo. Fu? encargado, el el oto?o de 1842, de la direci?n de "La Gaceta Renana", ?rgano liberal, como redactor en jefe a los 24 a?os de edad. Se hizo notar por su cr?tica inteligente contra los despotismos y su lucha contra la censura. En 1843 el gobierno prusiano se decidi? a suprimir la hoja. En ese a?o Karl Marx se cas? con su amiga de infancia Jenny von Westphalen, de la alta nobleza alemana y escocesa, y la pareja se fu? a establecer en Paris. En la primavera de 1845 el gobierno prusiano, por intermedio del conocido cient?fico y publicista liberal Alejandro von Humboldt, solicit? de Guizot su expulsi?n de Francia y la pareja tuvo que irse a B?lgica. En este pa?s se adhiri? al clandestino partido comunista, que bajo su inspiraci?n se transform? en una organizaci?n internacional de obreros. La revoluci?n de febrero de 1848, el mes de la publicaci?n del "Manifiesto Comunista", provoc? una sublevaci?n de los trabajadores belgas, de lo que se aprovech? el gobierno para arrestarlo y expusarlo. Se le segui? un per?odo de hu?das y expulsiones, incluso en Alemania, y vino finalmente a fijarse en Londres, donde vivi? alrededor de trinta a?os, hasta su muerte. El 28 de septiembre de 1864, durante una reuni?n p?blica en favor de Polonia, una de cuyas insurrecciones acababa de ser violentamente reprimida por el gobierno ruso, Marx present? su proposici?n, que fu? entusiasticamente acogida, para fundarse la Asociaci?n Internacional de los Trabajadores, hoy conocida como la I Internacional. Aunque Marx no fu? formalmente sino el secretario corresponsal para Alemania y Rusia, fu? de hecho el animador de todos los congresos internacionales que siguieron y de sus actividades en general, lo que ha perjudicado su labor te?rico. El aplastamiento de la Comuna de Par?s en 1871 y la persecuci?n polic?aca hizo necesario, a proposici?n de Marx, trasladar la sede de su Consejo General de Londres a Nueva York, durante el Congreso de La Haya, en 1873. Adem?s de esto, por diferentes lados, surg?an elementos que trataban de explotar, por vanidad o ambici?n, el renombre conquistado por la I Internacional. Marx casi ha enmigrado hacia Estados Unidos, pero a partir de entonces se consagr? enteramente a su obra te?rica. ?Mucho m?s se habr?a que hablar, aunque fuera para quedarnos solamente en los aspectos estrictamente personales de Karl Marx! Ten?a un vozarr?n tronante y la apariencia de profeta del Viejo Testamento y, sin embargo, era un hombre muy simple y llano. Su mayor placer era la compa??a de los ni?os, cont?ndoles cuentos de hadas que no terminaban nunca. El gran ateo sol?a decir que lo m?s le gustaba del Cristo era su amor por los ni?os. Cuando se iba de paseo pod?a verse con frecuencia el intelectual ya m?s odiado y calumniado por la burgues?a jugar con una banda de sus hijas y otros pilluelos. Marx ha vivido momentos de terrible miseria, acosado por acreedores y sufriendo la p?rdida de cuatro hijos y de su casa. Solamente al final de su vida tuvo paz. El hombre que hizo inscribir en el programa de la Internacional la jornada de ocho horas y que consideraba esencial disminuirla para liberar los hombres para el ocio creador, trabajaba a menudo doce y hasta diez y seis horas diarias, hasta muy tarde de la noche y muchas veces hasta la ma?ana. Trabajaba para la humanidad, como ya se hab?a destinado a los 17 a?os. Marx era un fumador empedernido y cada vez m?s sufr?a de una tos perniciosa. Desde 1875 se vi? obligado a dejar el tabaco por prescripci?n m?dica, pero m?s tarde el m?dico le di? permiso para fumar un cigarillo diario. Ya viejo, contrajo una pleuris?a poco antes de la muerte de su mujer. Restablecido, se fu? a Argelia en febrero de 1882, adonde lleg? con nueva pleuris?a. Cuando se mejor? se le envi? a Montecarlo, donde lleg? atacado de nuevo de pleuris?a. Luego que se restableci?, parti? para la casa de su hija mayor, Jenny Longuet, esposa del militante franc?s Charles Longuet y madre del diputado socialista Jean Longuet. All? trat? su bronquitis cr?nica con las aguas sulfurosas de Enghien. Fu? despu?s a Vevey por seis semanas y regres? en septiembre en buen estado de salud. Se le fu? permitido pasar el invierno en la isla de Wight, en el sur de Inglaterra, donde regres? con nueva bronquitis. Despu?s de la muerte de su esposa en deciembre de 1881 y de su hija Jenny en 1882, su vida no fu? sino un encadenamiento de duros sufrimientos y complicaciones pulmonares. El 14 de marzo de 1883, a los dos y media, despu?s del almuerzo, Marx hab?a tenido una hemoptisis y asfix?a. Se fu? a reposar en su mesa de trabajo mientras llegaba dos minutos m?s tarde su amigo de siempre, Friedrich Engels. Su vieja sirvienta Lenchen y Engels lo encontraron acostado para siempre, una muerte r?pida y sin dolor. Uno de los mayores pensadores de toda la civilizaci?n muri? ante su mesa de trabajo a los 65 a?os de edad, el 14 de marzo de 1883. Marx ten?a costumbre de repetir una m?xima de Epicuro, que con Dem?crito fu? el tema de su disertaci?n doctoral: "La muerte no es una desgracia para el que muere, sino para el que sobrevive." Marx fu? sepultado en el cementerio de Highgate, en Londres, y la oraci?n f?nebre pronunciada por Engels. En 1912, la oraci?n f?nebre de su hija Laura Lafargue y de Paul Lafargue, un destacado comunista franc?s de origen afro-americano, ser?a pronunciada por un obscuro revolucionario ruso llamado Vladimir Lenin, desconocido a?n. ? El hilo de la historia! "Que las clases dirigentes tiemblen ante la idea de una revoluci?n comunista. Los proletarios no tienen otra cosa que perder que sus cadenas. En cambio, tienen todo un mundo que ganar. PROLETARIOS DE TODOS LOS PA?SES, ? UN?OS! " Marx pasaba largas horas en el Museo Brit?nico, recogiendo materiales para sus estudios. Hasta hoy la instituci?n mantiene en exposici?n su mesa preferida. Su casa natal en Tr?veris fu? tranformada en oficina de un peri?dico nazista y hoy es la sede de un museo e instituto de estudios marxistas mantenidos por la fundaci?n del partido social-dem?crata alem?n, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung: Museum Karl-Marx-Haus Trier, http://www.fes.de/marx/falt_en.html Parte de sus obras contin?a in?dita, lo que habla muy mal del r?gimen sovi?tico, que las publicaba paulatinamente hasta 1932, bajo los auspicios del Instituto Marx-Engels de Mosc?, una instituci?n que tiene un tesoro riqu?simo y ?nico no solamente de la vida y obra de Marx y Engels pero de toda la vida pol?tica y filos?fica de Europa, desde la Revoluci?n Francesa. Su fundador y compilador de la obra de Marx y Engels, D. Riazonov, muri? en las c?rceles de Stalin, que tambi?n lleg? a cerrar la instituci?n. Hoy el Instituto de Historia Social de Amsterdam. Holanda, ha reanudado la publicaci?n de los in?ditos de Marx y Engels, lo que incluye una inmensa masa de apuntamientos sobre las ciencias naturales y las matem?ticas: http://www.iisg.nl/~imes/index.html From ewc at onetel.net.uk Sun May 5 13:05:03 2002 From: ewc at onetel.net.uk (ewc) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] Clarification please References: Message-ID: <001201c1f467$59f4aa60$ea604ed5@oemcomputer> > Once you are in the "family", the "family" will protect you (this=20 > line comes from .....maybe ....The wealth of Nations"?). Dear Michael Please let me know the page number - else withdraw ewc N=E9stor Miguel Gorojovsky > gorojovsky@arnet.com.ar From xxxx at earthlink.net Sun May 5 15:58:02 2002 From: xxxx at earthlink.net (xxxx) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] "IMF cannot be reformed" Message-ID: <002901c1f480$2a1fc180$af3a3b80@2ct0p01> >Its about time Mr Burford stopped peddling here his >squalid lies such as >the above./J.Enyang which means ending ideological obfuscation= social democratic Burfordism Mine From hliu at mindspring.com Sun May 5 16:28:01 2002 From: hliu at mindspring.com (Henry C.K. Liu) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] A Financial Scandle Rap Sheet Message-ID: <3CD5B1D6.773616B5@mindspring.com> The web site gives a comprehensive list on the dirt on finance capitalism. http://www.ex.ac.uk/~RDavies/arian/scandals/classic.html#inside From nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar Sun May 5 17:19:02 2002 From: nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar (Nestor Gorojovsky) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] Smith's recognition of "families" Message-ID: <3CD59367.24289.16B9CE@localhost> Joke after joke, Michael (me, I guess) has been asked to report page where Smith has stated anything regarding "families". But, actually, there is not only a page, in fact a whole line of thought in Adam Smith that betrays his ideas about "families". Cnl. Mc Culloch has shown, on his History of Economic Thought, that while Smith did not take into consideration the population when considering the wealth of China, he did take the population in consideration when considering the wealth of the Netherlands. That is, even in such an early author as Adam Smith we can already see the difference between "first class" and "second class" nations... Jokes have twist, sometimes. N?stor Miguel Gorojovsky nestorgoro@fibertel.com.ar ********************************************************************** * Compa?eros del exercito de los Andes. ...La guerra se la tenemos de hacer del modo que podamos: sino tenemos dinero, carne y un pedazo de tabaco no nos tiene de faltar: cuando se acaben los vestuarios, nos vestiremos con la bayetilla que nos trabajen nuestras mugeres, y sino andaremos en pelota como nuestros paisanos los indios: seamos libres, y lo dem?s no importa nada... Jose de San Mart?n, 27 de julio de 1819. ********************************************************************** * ****** From hliu at mindspring.com Sun May 5 19:16:02 2002 From: hliu at mindspring.com (Henry C.K. Liu) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] Predicting a 50% Drop Message-ID: <3CD5D94A.7B2AEF35@mindspring.com> John Mauldin is president of Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC, a registered investment advisor. He has been kind enough to send me his newsletter gratis, the latest issue is below: I (Mauldin) have been meditating in the implications of a very important new article in the AIMR Financial Analysts Journal. It is a lengthy and devastating analysis of what investors should expect by way of returns in the stock market over the next decade or so. I will do my best to give you the highlights. Plus, there has been a lot of data which has serious implications for my prediction of a Muddle Through Economy. I have been mulling over where to start, and I think we will begin with the AIMR article by Bob Arnot and Peter Bernstein. AIMR is a very mainstream organization of analysts and economists and NOT prone to bearish sentiment. The fact that this article is in this journal is significant. (Bernstien wrote a magnificent book on the history of risk called Against the Gods which is extremely readable, even though the topic of risk can be complex. The AIMR article is still password protected, though as soon as it is publicly available, I will provide you with a link.) Investor Expectations I have written in the past about investor expectations. Many individual investors, based upon the past two decades, assume they can get 15% per year in the future. Most major corporations assume their pension portfolios will grow 9-10% or more in the coming years. By the way, these assumptions add to their projected corporate earnings. If their pension portfolios grow at less that those rates, they will have to re-state earnings downward and lower future estimates. A drop of only a few percent in stock market growth expectations can lower future earnings estimates at many companies by as much as 10%. To me, the AIMR article says you can bank on earnings estimates to be dropped as a result of exuberant projections. You should check to see if the stocks you own are making aggressive assumptions. How many times have you had a stock broker quote you the Ibbotson Survey or something similar which shows the stock market growing 8% per year over long periods of time? All you have to do is just keep the faith and buy and hold. You should especially never sell their funds. Bernstein and Arnot show that this number is VERY misleading. If you break it down, it shows you something entirely different. First, the largest component of stock market return, up until 1982, was inflation. From 1802 to present, $100 would have grown to $700 million if you assumed all dividends re-invested. However, if you take out inflation, we are left with a still impressive $37 million. If you take out dividends, however, you find that your $100 is only worth $2,099! Here's the kicker: in 1982, the stock portfolio would have been worth only $400. The bulk of the growth, over 80% of current value, came in the last 20 years. This data simply says that conventional wisdom which says equities get most of their value from capital appreciation is false. It is based upon recent experience, and a bubble mentality. Risk Premiums Conventional Wisdom says stocks yield a risk premium of 5% over bonds. You can look at the returns of the last 75 years and demonstrate that fact. But in 1926, when you looked at actual expectations, based upon then current yields, the risk premium (that amount by which stocks were expected to out-perform bonds) was only 1.4%. Investors in 1926 did not expect to get 5% over bonds over the next 75 years. But they did. The question one has to ask is why did this happen and is it likely to repeat itself? Bernstein and Arnot says the increase in returns was due to a series of historical accidents. The first was a "decoupling" of yields from real yields. By that they mean that the coming of inflation changed the way in which bonds were valued. In essence, in 1926, and for years after that, bond holders assumed no inflation. Bond-holders began to demand more in order to compensate for the risk of inflation. In fact, real returns on bonds were often negative after WW II. That means inflation was higher than the yields on the bonds. That change in the way bonds were valued accounted for almost 10% of the increase in the "risk premium" from 1926 to present. Secondly, valuation multiples rose dramatically. From a level of 18 times dividends in 1926, we now see dividend multiples of over 70. This means that a dollar of dividends is valued at over 4 times what it was 75 years ago. However, the entire increase has happened in just the last 17 years. Not coincidentally, this was when we had a bubble. This accounts for over 1/3 of the increase in the risk premium. Why were investors willing to take so little risk premium for stocks over bonds in 1926? Because they did not believe there was "0" risk in living in America. There were still those who remembered the Civil War. Four of the largest 15 stock markets in the world had completely collapsed within recent memory, with many others coming close to collapsing. The US was not the pre-eminent world power it has become the last two decades. Historical accident number three is that investors have become increasingly confident in America. This is a good thing, I think, but how likely is it that we are going to grow even more confident from where we are today. Using a rough analogy, let us say that we have grown 4 times more confident in the future of America over the past 75 years in terms of being confident in bonds and stocks. Is it likely we will grow another 4 times? Thinking back from what the world looked like in 1926, seeing where we have come and trying to extrapolate that sense of growth in security into the future, it think it is very unlikely we will feel significantly better in the future than we do today. Finally, regulatory reform has done much to increase returns in the stock market. In the early parts of this century, management would routinely vote themselves more stock if a company did well, diluting current investors, and keeping rates of return low. This changed as securities laws were introduced. This has been a very good thing, but is not likely to be repeated. In short, the events which led to the significant increase in the value of stocks over bonds were basically one time events, and not likely to be repeated. It is very unlikely that this trend will continue. Yet that is what would have to happen if the Dow were to get to 25,000 by 2010 as some predict. If the risk premium reverts to more normal measures, then either the stock market, or the bond market, or both, are in for some turmoil. (See details below.) The authors show that earnings and dividend growth for the past two centuries is far less than the forward earnings expectations most analysts have today. Interestingly, this study uses a different way to analyze earnings than the National Bureau of Economic Research that I cited last year, but both conclude that total market earnings will not grow faster than the economy. Let's look at some of their direct conclusions. This is a rather long quote, but it is critical. If you grasp what they are saying, you could save yourself a lot of investment grief over the coming decade. "The historical average equity risk premium, measured relative to 10-year government bonds as the risk premium investors might objectively have expected on their equity investments, is about 2.4%, half what most investors believe. The "normal" risk premium might well be a notch lower than 2.4% because the 2.4% objective expectation preceded actual excess returns for stocks relative to bonds that were nearly 100 bps higher, at 3.3% a year. "The current risk premium is approximately zero, and a sensible expectation for the future real return for both stocks and bonds is 2-4%, far lower than the actuarial assumptions on which most investors are basing their planning and spending." Predicting a 50% Drop Then we come to the meat of the matter: "On the hopeful side, because the "normal" level of the risk premium is modest (2.4%or quite possibly less), current market valuations need not return to levels that can deliver the 5% risk premium (excess return) that the Ibbotson data would suggest. If reversion to the mean occurs, then to restore a 2% risk premium, the difference between 2% and zero still requires a near halving of stock valuations or a 2% drop in real bond yields (or some combination of the two). Either scenario is a less daunting picture than would be required to facilitate a reversion to a 5% risk premium. "Another possibility is that the modest difference between a 2.4% normal risk premium and the negative risk premiums that have prevailed in recent quarters permitted the recent bubble. Reversion to the mean might not ever happen, in which case, we should see stocks sputter along delivering bondlike returns, but at a higher risk than bonds, for a long time to come." They then conclude, "The consensus that a normal risk premium is about 5% was shaped by deeply rooted naivet? in the investment community, where most participants have a career span reaching no farther back than the monumental 25-year bull market of 1975-1999. This kind of mind-set is a mirror image of the attitudes of the chronically bearish veterans of the 1930s. Today, investors are loathe to recall that the real total returns on stocks were negative for most 10-year spans during the two decades from 1963 to 1983 or that the excess return of stocks relative to long bonds was negative as recently as the 10 years ended August 1993. "When reminded of such experiences, today's investors tend to retreat behind the mantra "things will be different this time." No one can kneel before the notion of the long run and at the same time deny that such circumstances will occur in the decades ahead. Indeed, such crises are more likely than most of us would like to believe. Investors greedy enough or naive enough to expect a 5% risk premium and to substantially overweight equities accordingly may well be doomed to deep disappointments in the future as the realized risk premium falls far below this inflated expectation." "Hopeful" Outcomes I smiled when I read their concept of a "hopeful" outcome. It gives a new meaning to the word hopeful. Their view of hopeful is only a 50% drop in the stock market or a dropping of long term rates to levels which imply outright deflation. Or we would see a Muddle Through Market, with stocks going sideways for many years. What could make their scenario wrong or irrelevant? They could be wrong about earnings growth. Earnings could grow rapidly, and thus valuations drop back to normal levels without the pain suggested in their study. Many analysts think earnings are going to rebound dramatically in the near future. However, my friend Gary Shilling points out in his recent newsletter that this is not likely. For stock valuations simply to come back to the mean, earnings would have to grow at 38% in 2002 and 38% in 2003 to get back to an operating earnings P/E of 15. Shilling does a relatively straight-forward analysis to show that this would mean a rise in the GDP of 13%, which he says appears patently impossible. In order for such an event to happen, labor would have to be willing to give back wages and consumers would have to be willing to pay a LOT more for products. The Texas Rangers will be in the World Series before these happen. In fact, the data shows that the economy is much more likely to grow around 2.5% for the year. That is not bad, but it is not enough to help corporate profits grow back to the levels forecast by Wall Street analysts. Abbey Joseph Cohen still thinks the S&P 500 is going to 1300. She is wrong. Dollar Merry-Go-Round All this has profound implications for the dollar. One of the hottest and most interesting current debates among economists is about the value of the dollar. Dollar bulls say that the rest of the world will continue to buy our stocks, bonds and assets. Why should demand for the dollar change? They have been right for a long time, as those who worry about our trade deficit have been wrong in predicting a crash in the dollar. Why should the next few years be any different than the past? For the record, I have been bullish on the dollar for many years, up until recently. What has made me change my mind? The "current accounts deficit" is approaching critical mass. Think of it this way. If you spend more than you make, you have to do something to make up the difference. You can sell the furniture, borrow money, hock the kids, get a second job and so on. If you do nothing, you will soon be bankrupt. On a macro scale, it is not much different for governments and currencies. We are buying more products from overseas than we sell. To make up the difference, foreigners have bought our companies (called mergers and acquisitions or M&A), bought our stocks and bonds and sometimes bought our currency (in the form of bonds and t-bills). Much of the M&A has been from Europe. This has been drying up at an alarming rate in the past few months (see below). It is almost like Europeans smell blood, and realize they will be able to get the US assets cheaper in the future if the dollar drops. The longer this stock market goes sideways, the less enthusiastic the world will be with US equities. If you are not convinced the dollar is going up, you will invest in your own currencies or in Euros. Morgan Stanley analysts Jen and Yilmaz point out that if the world shifts from the current equity regime to a bond regime (their word) that the dollar would go from being slightly over-valued to dropping by as much as 15-20%. In other words, if Bernstein and Arnot are right and investors are going to become increasingly interested in the absolute returns, then the dollar is at real risk. And then one of my favorite analysts., Stephen Roach, weighs in with these thought-provoking words: "Never before has the United States commenced economic recovery with a current-account gap totaling 4% of its GDP. (They predict it will rise to 6% in 2003, although Fed studies show that when the trade gap gets to 5%, serious problems will develop - JM) Given the high level of import penetration now structurally embedded in the US economy -- with goods imports at 30% of GDP in early 2002 -- another stretch of US-led global growth will most assuredly result in a significant further widening of the external shortfall. "If such a massive external funding requirement doesn't lead to a saturation of the foreign appetite for US assets, I'm not sure what will. Just because America's external financing was manageable in the 1990s doesn't mean it will be so as the as the ever-widening current-account deficit now ups the ante on capital inflows. Needless to say, that conclusion is in direct contradiction to that of the capital-flow-driven justification of the Bush Administration. "Interestingly enough, there are signs suggesting that this point of saturation may now be at hand. As Joe Quinlan and Rebecca McCaughrin have recently noted, the portfolio portion of capital inflows into the United States has slowed dramatically in early 2002. Over the first two months of this year, foreigners purchased just $27 billion of dollar-denominated assets, a dramatic reduction from the $100 billion pace in the first two months of 2001. "Meanwhile, foreign direct investment into the United States -- the other major piece of the capital inflows equation -- has also slowed dramatically. FDI into the US was $158 billion in 2001 -- only a little more than half the $295 billion average pace of 1999 and 2000. Fully two-thirds of this slowdown is traceable to diminished FDI activity from Europe; that's largely a reflection of a dramatic downshift in the cross-border M&A cycle -- a trend that has continued into the early months of 2002. "I remain convinced that America's current-account deficit represents a key point of tension for the US and global economy. It is the crux of our "global decoupling" thesis -- that the world can no longer afford to be dependent on the American growth engine as the dominant source of economic growth. The coming US current-account adjustment speaks of a new recipe for sustained global growth -- a slower pace in the US, a speed-up elsewhere, and a weaker dollar. The logic of the Bush Administration is flawed in the sense that it relies on an ever-expanding stream of foreign inflows into dollar-denominated assets. In this post-bubble era, that may well turn out to be the ultimate in wishful thinking." The dollar is headed down, and perhaps the beginning of the drop is sooner than I had previously thought. You can open foreign denominated CDs in the Euro or other currencies at Everbank right here in the USA. Just click here to view their information page. One of several things will have to happen over time. We will have to decrease our purchase of foreign goods, although since so much is manufactured overseas, this is not a short-term solution. Foreign purchase equal to 30% of GDP is huge. If the dollar drops, manufacturing and production will come back into the country, as it will become cheaper to produce things here. Just as we enjoy cheap foreign products, the drop in the dollar will make our products cheaper in terms of foreign currencies, and so we will sell more of them. The US will still be the premier world economy for some time (decades and decades) to come, and foreign companies will want to have a presence here, and will buy our companies and assets, which will help balance the current accounts deficit. All these should keep the dollar from the crash that many predict, but will not save it from the 20% drop that the Morgan Stanley analysts predict. How soon will all this happen? I don't know, and neither does anyone else. If I say in the next year or so, it is just a guess, and that is my guess. Many analysts hazard a guess which they call a prediction, in case they might be right. If they are, they will remind you of the accuracy of their prediction. If not, they assume you will forget. Muddle Through Still On Track There is lots of other data, like the new recent high in unemployment, to suggest that we will Muddle Through this year. Muddle Through may be the best we can hope for. Next week, we will look at much of the recent studies and take a fresh look at bonds. High yields were good to us last month, as my favorite high yield bond CGM posted some nice numbers. I will also report on what I learned at the recent SAAFTI (Society of Asset Allocators and Fund Timers, Inc.) John Mauldin JohnMauldin@2000wave.com Copyright 2002 John Mauldin. All Rights Reserved. From mstainsby at tao.ca Sun May 5 23:04:02 2002 From: mstainsby at tao.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] "IMF cannot be reformed" References: <002901c1f480$2a1fc180$af3a3b80@2ct0p01> Message-ID: <004801c1f4b7$dc7915c0$291f5318@vc.shawcable.net> ----- Original Message ----- From: "xxxx" > ideological obfuscation= social democratic Burfordism Burfordism? wow! wish I had my own ideological trend. Macdonald From listas-garaventa at speedy.com.ar Sun May 5 23:55:03 2002 From: listas-garaventa at speedy.com.ar (Jorge Garaventa- Listas de Correo) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] =?iso-8859-1?Q?_Psicolog=EDa=2C_Trabajo_Social=2C_Derecho_y_Ni=F1ez?= Message-ID: <016b01c1f48b$dc726300$b1a13fc8@oemcomputer> Festejando el primer a?o de ?tica y Psicolog?a (foro de discusi?n por mail), inauguramos una nueva lista: Psicolog?a y Ni?ez, un inevitable intento de aportar al establecimiento pleno de los derechos del ni?o, la ni?a y la adolescencia.Lamentablemente no se nos permiti? el nombre que figura en el asunto por su extensi?n.Pero ese es el esp?ritu que nos anima. Para inscribirse enviar un mail vacio a infanciaypsicologia-alta@eListas.net o visitar la p?gina www.eListas.net/listas/infanciaypsicologia Les recuerdo que est?n en funcionamiento las siguientes listas de distribuci?n gratuita de informaci?n: 1) Psicolog?a y psiquiatr?a de Capital y GBA.(art?culos y eventos) 2) Cuestiones del ni?o, la Ni?a y la Adolescencia. 3) Psicolog?a y psiquiatr?a Nacional e Internacional. 4) Salud- Medicina 5) G?nero. 6) Educaci?n. 7) Derechos Humanos. 8) Cultura 9) Asociaci?n de Psic?logos de Buenos Aires. 10) Realidad Nacional ( por pedido de numerosos colisteros) 11) Panorama Internacional 12) Solo Eventos de Psicolog?a y Psiquiatr?a 13) Solo Art?culos de Psicolog?a y Psiquiatr?a Finalmente, a quienes no est?n inscriptos/as les recuerdo la posibilidad de participar de la lista de correo (foro de discusi?n por mail) ?tica y Psicolog?a para lo cual sencillamente hay que enviar un mensaje vac?o a eticaypsicologia-alta@eListas.net o visitar www.eListas.net/listas/listas/eticaypsicologia Ruego difundir entre sus contactos. Gracias!!! Jorge Garaventa JorgeGaraventa@speedy.com.ar ConsultorioPsi@speedy.com.ar Listas-Garaventa@speedy.com.ar www.eListas.net/listas/eticaypsicologia 4961-2263 15-5619-3650 ICQ 29964807 From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Sun May 5 23:57:01 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] UK: New Labour RIP? Message-ID: May Day revellers cheer 'death' of New Labour AMANDA WHYBROW The Herald, 6 May 2002 TRADE unionists and party activists welcomed the "death of New Labour" as pronounced by John Edmonds, GMB general secretary, at Glasgow's annual May Day rally, yesterday. He told May Day revellers that Britain was now witnessing the death of New Labour, which had been signalled by the chancellor's decision to put a penny on National Insurance in last month's budget. Mr Edmonds said: "Trade unionists should congratulate themselves on the death of New Labour. It's a rather strange death, because the patient doesn't know it's dead yet, but the indications are clearly there." But he warned there would be no let-up in the campaign against the public private partnership deals which both Westminster and the Scottish Executive seemed intent on embracing. He singled out Jack McConnell, the first minister, as being "even more gung ho than some Westminster ministers" in encouraging the use of the private sector within Scotland's public services. Before joining Mr Edmonds on the speakers' platform following the May Day parade, Janis Hughes, Labour MSP for Rutherglen, pledged to join the fight against the privatisation of public services. She said: "We do have to consider priorities, but my personal view is that no member of staff within the public sector should ever be privatised. I think there are a number of back-bench MSPs who have been involved in the trade union movement or the public services and we have been putting our point forward to the Scottish Executive." Speaking from her own experience in the NHS, where she trained as a nurse and worked as an administrator at Glasgow Royal Infirmary for 20 years, she said she had witnessed the "decimation" of the public sector and vowed to "fight to ensure that this doesn't happen again". Glasgow Labour councillors Jim Mackechnie and John Gray were among the hundreds of activists taking part in the rally. They welcomed Mr Edmonds's speech, and Mr Mackechnie commented: "I believe in protecting our public services rather than exposing them to the vagaries of the private market." Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Sun May 5 23:58:01 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] Afghanistan: the blowback continues Message-ID: Taliban regrouping in mountains ROB CRILLY and IAN BRUCE The Herald, 6 May 2002 FRESH evidence has emerged that al Qaeda and Taliban fighters are digging in for a drawn-out guerilla war in Afghanistan as British troops speak of their frustration at being unable to take on the enemy face-to-face. A Taliban intelligence officer claims fighters are regrouping in mountain hideouts, under Mullah Mohammed Omar, their elusive leader, biding their time until the Afghan government falters. A Scottish-based expert on al Qaeda has meanwhile warned that Osama bin Laden is alive, and is using the internet to recruit fresh support in Britain. The warnings suggest a long haul for British troops in eastern Afghanistan as they attempt to make the area safe. The UK contingent, formed around the four rifle companies of the Arbroath-based 45 Commando, has encountered no enemy in six days of high-altitude patrolling. Members of the 7th Sphinx Commando Battery, the Royal Artillery, have been dismantling shells in their gun positions, removing a horseshoe-shaped part, and using it to play quoits. "A busy gun is a happy gun," said Sergeant Rab Wilson, 30, from Glasgow, "and our guns aren't very happy at the moment." "I think I speak on behalf of all the lads when I say that we're all pretty frustrated," said Sergeant Mark Paterson, 31, also from Glasgow. "We want to justify being here. We want to be able to engage the enemy even if we don't see them, because we have to rely on what is happening from the boys who are on the other side of the mountain." However, while the 74 gunners of 29 Commando admitted frustration at not engaging al Qaeda or Taliban fighters, Brigadier Roger Lane, the commanding officer of the British mission in Afghanistan, urged: "Be patient." The search for remnants of the enemy was bolstered at the weekend by hundreds of Canadian troops. The Canadians, from a unit which suffered four dead and eight wounded by US "friendly fire" two weeks ago, were shuttled to a forward landing zone by Chinook helicopters as part of the final phase of Operation Mountain Lion. However, enemy forces are regrouping before launching a guerilla campaign, according to Obeidullah, who ran a Taliban training camp near Kabul. "We are not unhappy, afraid, or finished. We are just waiting, gathering our strength," he said. Mullah Omar was safe in Afghanistan, he added, "but the guest (bin Laden) could be anywhere. He could be in Afghanistan, or Chechnya or Yemen." He was speaking from a hideout in Peshawar, 30 miles inside Pakistan, underlining the fact that fugitives of the US-led war on terror are able to find safety across the border. Obeidullah said the Taliban in Afghanistan were confident. "There aren't just 100 or 200 of us - there are thousands . . . (and) we know how to fight a guerrilla war," he said. "We will give this government time to show the people how they aren't able to govern, then we will show our face more and more." Obeidullah said fugitive Taliban fighters were taking advantage of fighting between rival warlords to set up small cells in villages and towns, and were able to move freely. There is also evidence that bin Laden continues to mastermind terrorism while on the run. The Saudi-born militant wrote a defiant message posted on an al Qaeda website, according to Dr Rohan Gunaratna, a world authority on Islamic terrorism. The statement in Arabic was posted on Friday on alneda.com, an Arabic website, in response to criticism of al Qaeda for its role in the September 11 attacks. "We don't care about western public opinion because it is for the western people and in any case backs western governments," it said. "Therefore it should not be a matter of concern for us whether western public opinion turns against us or not. We did this operation not for humankind, but for Allah." Dr Gunaratna, who is based at St Andrews University, said: "From the style of that message and the way in which it's been issued it's very clear that this is from Osama bin Laden himself. "It's a very serious decision for a terrorist group to admit to its role in an attack and that can only come from the very top. Only Osama bin Laden could authorise that." However, he added that while the message bore the fingerprints of bin Laden, it did not carry the author's name. Admitting bin Laden was alive, he explained, would intensify coalition efforts to find him, threatening al Qaeda's command structure. Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Mon May 6 05:55:02 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] UK: rightward drift Message-ID: One can only hope that John Edmonds is correct to pronounce New Labour dead. Certainly, this article suggests that yet another setback, over elected mayors, constitutes another nail in its coffin. However, don't hold your breath -- the BNP is a convenient excuse, or confirmation of the blindingly obvious, that New Labour's big tent rhetoric of "inclusion" and "rights with responsibilities" is alienating the public faster than anything Thatcher did during her lamentable tenure. The response of Giddens is simply to ratchet up the dosage levels, and I fear this is indicative of Blair's own mindset. The more opportunist members of the New Labour inner circle can probably finesse themselves out of it, if push comes to shove, but the tightropes that this government finds itself walking, whether fiscally or with respect to its hopelessly overextended militarism, will make it difficult for any substantive change to be enacted for as long as Blair and Brown remain in charge. Mayoral polls delayed amid fears over results By Marie Woolf The Independent, 06 May 2002 Plans to introduce more elected mayors to English cities appeared to have been put on hold yesterday amid fears that the British National Party poses too potent a threat at the ballot box. The decision on whether to hold referendums this year in Bradford and Birmingham, which both have large Asian populations, has not been cleared as expected by Nick Raynsford, the minister for Local Government. It will now be referred to a committee of representatives from Downing Street and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. The committee will look at whether racial tensions could be aggravated in mayoral races, which could see opinion polarised between right-wing candidates and Muslim communities. Mr Raynsford said yesterday that the decision was not linked to fears of a rise of support for the far right. "The suggestion that somehow this is opening the way to the BNP seems to me to be a wholly false analysis," he said. Labour is rattled at the success of alternative candidates such as Stuart Drummond, an independent who dressed in a monkey suit to win the Hartlepool election, and a former police chief, Ray Mallon, who won in Middlesbrough. Yesterday the Government insisted that BNP councillors could be stripped of their powers if they failed to represent all ethnic groups fairly. Mr Raynsford said a legally binding code, which came into force this weekend, would affect the far-right party's behaviour in office. The code of conduct, part of the Local Government Act 2000, has been adopted by all local authorities. Councillors accused of breaching its rules would be called before a "standards board", which had disciplinary powers. "The code sets out certain very important principles that all councillors must subscribe to. Those include treating all people, all constituents, in an equal and fair way," Mr Raynsford told BBC's On the Record. "Now if the BNP candidates, councillors, were to openly and clearly give preference to one particular group of constituents, to say they wouldn't look after the interests of all their constituents whatever their background or their race, then potentially they could be in breach of this code." Simon Woolley, of Operation Black Vote, said the BNP's campaign was blatantly racist and showed that it had no intention of representing the interests of ethnic minorities. He said: "In their manifesto they said that local taxpayers' money should not go to asylum-seekers. This clearly breaches the code of conduct and we will be writing to challenge it." Three BNP councillors - David Edwards, Carol Hughes and Terry Grogan - won seats in last week's local election in Burnley, where it gained 12 per cent of the vote. "What exactly can we do being a minority on the council?" said Mr Edwards yesterday. "We have got a foothold. Now we will get together and decide what issues we can tackle." Full article at: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=292304 Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Mon May 6 06:04:02 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] Creative destruction: Spanish golf courses Message-ID: Has anyone done a proper critique of golf? Personally I detest the sport -- what other activity would lay waste to thousands of trees in order to plant sand pits in the middle of the countryside, while practised by the worst dressed clientele of any popular recreation, morris dancing included? In the parched landscapes of southern Spain, as elsewhere in a world in which the underdeveloped are instructed to whore in the name of tourism, the insatiable appetite of developers and the resultant development of underdevelopment proceed apace, to the great cost of local communities which are being "modernised" out of existence... One further point: it's not only illegal irrigation schemes that threaten to cause water crisis -- Aznar's government plans to construct a dam in northern Spain in order to direct vast quantities of water southward in order to relieve the pressure created by the likes of what is reported below. The dam will involve the destruction of at least one village and farming community. Illegal irrigation schemes threaten to cause water crisis By Elizabeth Nash in Madrid The Independent, 06 May 2002 Spanish environmentalists have condemned the expansion of irrigated land in the parched Mediterranean south, a practice they say depletes further the region's sparse water supply. "New agricultural land is constantly being reclaimed from wild scrubland or forest, while golf courses and urban developments are proliferating wildly, despite a ban on these activities because of the lack of water," Ruben Vives, a spokesman for Environmentalists in Action, said. More than 2,400 acres of irrigated plots were being created every year in the south-east coastal region of Murcia, where plans were afoot to build 34 golf courses, campaigners said in a letter of complaint to regional authorities. The new areas of cultivation are watered from wells driven into already depleted aquifers, or by illegally siphoning water from reserves transferred from the river Ebro in the north-west, the ecologists say. Overexploiting underground water increases its salt content, reducing the fertility of the soil. "The authorities expect extra water to be transferred to Murcia and Andalucia from the Ebro under the National Hydrological Plan, so they are irrigating new zones in anticipation of water to come," Mr Vives said. "This worsens existing shortages and means that even if water is eventually transferred there'll still be a deficit. If the transfer isn't agreed, great shortages could produce a situation of crisis." There have been several large-scale protests against the plan, under which water will be transferred from the Ebro system to the south. Orange and lemon trees were grown on some illegal plots, Mr Vives said. "But these plots are not owned by farmers. They are business operations by industrialists or individuals who buy land cheapand exploit the fact that citrus is not labour- intensive." Then there are the huge expanses of "invernaderos", polythene greenhouses, which have transformed southern Spain's sandy wastes into the country's most profitable region. Tended overwhelmingly by immigrant labour, they supply Europe's supermarkets with salads, tomatoes, cucumbers and aubergines all year round. "In one case we condemn, promoters for 'invernaderos' illegally took over land classified as open space and obtained a subsidy to irrigate it," Mr Vives said. "We sued them and they were fined. But then the land was reclassified and they now plan to build houses on it." Half the land classified as natural open space along Murcia's coast between Mazarron and Aguilas was declassified last year, he said, freeing 5,000 hectares for agriculture or construction. Murcia's regional authorities say water for irrigation is recycled and insist tourist developments and golf courses create jobs and prosperity. But Mr Vives said the schemes were having the opposite effect. "Overdevelopment is happening, and British and German tourists complain to us about the exploitation of green spaces." Full article at: http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=292282 Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Mon May 6 06:06:01 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] Creative destruction: ecology section Message-ID: Species under threat as their habitats are cut in half By Steve Connor, Science Editor The Independent, 03 May 2002 Life on Earth is facing an extinction crisis that could be far worse than previously thought, according to two leading ecologists who have studied the rate at which animal populations are being lost. The scientists have found that the geographical ranges of 173 species of mammals have declined, collectively, by more than 50 per cent over several decades, indicating a severe constriction of the animals' breeding territories. Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University in California and Gerardo Ceballos of Mexico University believe that the loss of viable breeding populations is a critical factor that has often been overlooked. "The loss of species diversity has correctly attracted much attention from the general public and decision makers. It is now the job of the community of environmental scientists to give equal prominence to the issue of the loss of population diversity," Professor Ehrlich said. "We are talking about nothing less than the preservation of human life-support systems. We neglect the issue at our peril." Studies of biodiversity should take into account the number of endangered populations of breeding animals in a species, and not rely on identifying extinct species, the scientists said. In the journal Science they write: "Most analyses of the current loss of biodiversity emphasise species extinctions and patterns of species decline and do not convey the true extent of the depletion of humanity's natural capital ... We need to analyse extinctions of both populations and species," they say. Professor Ehrlich and Dr Ceballos compared the territories of existing breeding populations of 173 mammals living on five continents with historical records of the known distribution of the same species. They estimated, conservatively, that about 2 per cent of all populations of mammals had been lost compared with a global extinction rate of about 1.8 per cent. "But according to our data, the loss of mammal populations actually may be much more severe, perhaps 10 per cent or higher," said Professor Ehrlich. "While distribution maps often showed species occurring over wide areas, it turns out that many of them actually have lost most of their populations in these areas and have been reduced to scattered remnant groups." The North American brown bear and grey wolf, and the Asian tiger are examples of animals whose ranges may be far smaller than suggested by official maps. "We suspect that many less prominent species ... have lost portions of their ranges but without detection because they have not been subject to intensive mapping attempts," the scientists said. The study reveals wide differences between how species resist human interference. All wild populations of Pere David's deer from China, for instance, have gone extinct, whereas the spotted hyena has lost only 14 per cent of its populations despite large loss of its natural habitat caused by man. There were striking differences in the demise of breeding populations of wild animals between continents, with Africa and South-east Asia suffering some of the largest losses. "Population extinctions today seem to be concentrated either where there are high human population densities, or where other human impacts ... have been severe," the scientists said. "Australia, which is the continent with the largest number of mammal species extinctions, is also a continent showing a widespread severe reduction of populations." Some species are threatened further because most or all of their breeding populations are in one country and are, therefore, vulnerable to the vagaries of a single political system. "A combination of political endemism and political instability has certainly made the fates of the black and Sumatran rhinos much more uncertain. In both of these conservation cases, a high priority would be to re-establish populations not only over a broader geographic range but also within a greater variety of countries," they said. At risk: How the world's rare animals have declined Black rhinoceros One of the most endangered animals on the planet, numbers have fallen from about 65,000 individuals 20 years ago to less than 2,500 today. Widely hunted and now poached in sub-Saharan Africa for its ivory. Tiger The largest predator in Asia needs extensive territories to maintain a viable breeding population. Habitat loss, forest logging and hunting have reduced its numbers to precariously low levels. Gorilla Hunted for its meat and threatened by habitat encroachment, the largest of the great apes is suffering a gradual decline, made worse by the isolation of once fully interbreeding populations. Spotted hyena Even this resourceful predator-cum-scavenger has suffered at the hands of man. Scientists estimate that its wild populations have diminished by 14 per cent over the past few decades. Pere David's deer Hunted to extinction in the wild but preserved for centuries in the huge deer parks built by the Chinese emperors. Brought to Europe to grace the deer parks of the aristocracy. Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Mon May 6 06:09:02 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] US corporate credibility crisis Message-ID: Buffett blasts corporate America's crooks and their Wall Street allies By Chris Hughes, Financial Editor The Independent, 06 May 2002 Warren Buffett, the legendary US investor, has launched a blistering attack on sloppy accounting, corporate greed and Wall Street investment banks, while warning that coming years will see poorer investment returns. The chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, aged 71, supported by his deputy and long-standing business partner Charlie Munger, told the US investment group's annual meeting in Omaha that fraud was rife in US businesses. The actions of Enron were "grotesque" Mr Buffett said, with Mr Munger, describing the collapsed US energy trader as "the most disgusting example of a business culture gone wrong". Wall Street and the accountancy profession should share in the blame, the pair went on. Investment banks had no concern for investors, and the only question they asked when dealing with stocks and shares was "can it be sold?". Auditors had been too pliant to their clients' demands, and had succumbed to "dubious accounting". "Many of the crooks look like crooks," said Mr Buffett. "Wall Street loves them as long as they are pushing out securities." Mr Buffett, known affectionately as the Sage of Omaha, said a good way to spot possible frauds was to keep a close eye on those companies that reported results using Ebitda (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation). Mr Munger, 78, also sounded a warning over companies involved in derivatives, saying. "To say derivative accounting in America is in the sewer is an insult to sewage," he fumed. Mr Buffett also backed a call made last week by Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the US Federal Reserve Board, to clamp down on the "shameful" way that companies inflated their profits by excluding employee share options from the main body of their accounts. He did not expect regulators to heed Mr Greenspan's call, however, because chief executives were lobbying hard in Washington and "get what they want every year". Despite his displeasure with corporate America, Mr Buffett said he could not recall ever having had more fun than he was at the present time. The pair took questions for six hours after completing the formal business in 15 minutes. One investor among the 14,000 gathered called Mr Buffett "a hero", a sentiment echoed in the auditorium's applause. Some shareholders were less adoring. Two questioned whether Berkshire's continuing investment in Coca-Cola - one of its largest holdings alongside American Express and Gillette - was sensible, given stiffening competition from Pepsi. Mr Buffett countered that he would be surprised if Coca-Cola surrendered market share in the next five or 10 years. Mr Buffett admitted the performance of Berkshire's core insurance operations during 2001 had suffered due to the mispricing of policies for terrorist attacks, but he expected the group to benefit from strengthening premiums hereon. He warned that it was hard to find suitable investment opportunities. In the present low interest-rate environment, investors should not expect returns to exceed 6 or 7 per cent. Areas of interest were companies bankrupted by asbestos claims, but only if it was possible to insulate Berkshire Hathaway from all liabilities. Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Mon May 6 06:14:02 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] UK corporate state: contradictions unravel? Message-ID: This must be turning into Stephen Byers worst nightmare. If not, it should. Here's where the contradictory elements of the state get to go head to head and thwart whatever grand plan might be thought to exist somewhere. While Byers has long been singled out as a worthy sacrificial lamb, the sort of activities being alleged of Citigroup and the high profile investigation of these by the newly inaugurated FSA spell trouble for a state and financial sector so long accustomed to dealmaking behind closed doors. This is not to claim that the FSA will not be somehow coopted. However, given the current climate, a lot of "collateral damage" is going to be incurred as this arm of the state attempts to shore up the credibility of the financial system. It may also reverse the ridiculous capitulation of Byers to the financial interests that won "compensation" from the government for the latter's putting Railtrack into administration. Fresh blow to Byers as Citigroup faces inquiry By Chris Hughes The Independent, 06 May 2002 The American bank advising Stephen Byers, the Secretary of State for Transport, was involved in the substantial dealings in Railtrack shares that occurred just days before the government announced plans to compensate shareholders for putting the rail network into administration. The revelation threatens to embarrass Citigroup and Mr Byers because the Financial Services Authority (FSA) is investigating whether insider dealing was behind some unusually large trades in the stock made before details of the rescue plan emerged on 25 March. The FSA is not thought to have uncovered evidence of insider dealing, but it is customary for the regulator to investigate transactions characterised by strangely high volume or sharp price movements. This weekend it emerged that an account within Citigroup was the destination for some 500,000 Railtrack shares bought at 82p each, providing the purchaser with a paper profit of ?840,000 after the Government said shareholders would receive compensation of 250p a share. The shares are thought to be held in an account belonging to Vidacos Nominees, a London-based company owned by Citigroup which settles share trades for institutional clients. With ordinary dealings in Railtrack shares suspended on the London Stock Exchange, the transaction occurred in the so-called grey market. Citigroup also owns Schroder Salomon Smith Barney (SSSB), the investment bank that is advising Mr Byers on Railtrack's restructuring. Investment banks are the subject of tough regulations, imposing "Chinese walls" to prevent the passage of price-sensitive information from their advisory operations to their stockbroking unit. An SSSB spokesman said the bank took any suggestion of insider dealing "very seriously". "We will be conducting an internal investigation. We have robust Chinese walls and procedures in place which are designed to prevent inside trading," he said. The FSA recently assumed responsibility for investigating suspected insider dealing from the Department of Trade and Industry, while at the same time gaining tough new civil powers that many think will result in more prosecutions for insider dealing. Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Mon May 6 06:17:02 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] New economy bull: obituary Message-ID: Computer programmers forgot the human factor Larry Elliott Monday May 6, 2002 The Guardian The plug was finally pulled on ITV Digital last week and the paid-for channels were taken off air. Did you care? There was deserved sympathy for those working in the company's call centres, but the business was obviously a massive turkey. Vodafone, not so long ago Britain's most valuable company, saw its share price fall below a pound on Friday as it cut forecasts for its German and Italian operations. Almost ?200bn has been wiped off the company's value in two years. In real money - which this, of course, is not - that represents about 20% of the annual output of the UK economy. But, as the saying goes, there is always someone worse off than you are, so at least Vodafone could take comfort in the fact that AOL Time Warner has just reported the biggest corporate loss in history - $54bn. That's billion, not million. And it was just for the first quarter of the year. Pleasures on offer This was not the way it was supposed to be. In 1999, when the whole millennarian madness was at its height, those of us who warned that it would all end in tears were told to pipe down and get with the programme. The world was getting wired, so it was time to forget about the laws of economics and think big. Every home would have a couple of set-top boxes, have feature films piped directly into the front rooms, and order mangoes over the internet at 3am. On the assumption that we all spend 24 hours a day with a mobile handset clamped to each ear, well over ?20bn was spent bidding for British licences that would allow us to call up the internet on our phones. There was no end to the pleasures that would be on offer from the third indus trial revolution. Before long, you would be able to save yourself a trip to the newsagent by browsing the Guardian on your 3G phone. For those people who enjoy scrolling through page after page of text on a two-inch square screen, it was obviously a winner. An awful lot of intelligent people were taken in by this guff. The craziest business decisions were taken on the basis that the words "new technology" were synonymous with the word "profit", and huge piles of debt amassed on investment that would never show a decent return. Was it ever likely that the deal between ITV Digital and the Football League would wash its face? Shouldn't we expect lavishly paid executives to work out that Grimsby v Watford might not as big a draw as EastEnders? Apparently not. TV money was used by the clubs to justify an inflation in transfer fees and players' wages, creating a secondary bubble from the first. The demise of ITV Digital is a sign that we are now well into the endgame of the technology miracle. Outside the hi-tech sector, the impact will be minimal. When the boom in railway shares came to an end in the 19th century, it did not mean the trains stopped running; what it did mean was that investors came to their senses and realised that many of the lines built when the markets were at their most manic would never be profitable. The market response to over-investment and falling profitability is to scrap capacity, consolidate, merge, cut back. That is happening with a vengeance in the technology sector, where capacity utilisation is low and accumulated debts high. With world shipments of personal computers down last year for the first time since 1985 and mobile phone sales falling by 3%, it is hardly surprising that shares of technology companies are bombed out. Swift recovery looks improbable for three reasons. First, the pace of technological progress has been remarkable. Whereas it took decades for the telephone to be perfected as a business tool, the transformation of the PC from slow, clunky and expensive to fast, slick and cheap has taken less than 20 years. The same applies to mobile phones, which have gone from being the size and weight of bricks in the mid-80s to the feather-light designer objects of today. Manufacturers of the hardware make money by persuading us to upgrade on a regular basis, but there is less of an imperative to do so when improvements are marginal and from an already high base. Dishwashers and washing machines now have a dazzling array of programmes to tempt the consumer, but most households wait for the old machine to give up the ghost before trading in for a new model. The same will apply to PCs and mobile phones, particularly those sold for personal use. The second factor is that over-production is forcing down prices. New technology has ceased to be an aspirational good for which people are prepared to pay premium prices, and has become a commodity. What is true of the market for coffee is now true of that for computers; the search for market share to maximise revenue in an over-supplied market leads inexorably to lower prices. This is good news for consumers, bad news for producers. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there are signs that the passion for the new technology is cooling. In the City, dress-down Friday is being replaced by no-email Friday. Workers are being told that they should rediscover the art of face to face communication rather than firing off electronic messages to someone in the next office. The advertisement used by British Airways to woo customers lost following the September 11 attacks plays on the idea that something has been lost as well as gained from email; the British company that is prepared to fly to the United States for a business pitch wins out over the company that faxes its presentation. There is good business sense in this. The novelty value of email quickly wore off as in-boxes became clogged with hundreds of messages. For every one that is useful or interesting, 10 are junk, abusive or from someone sitting less than 10 yards away. Email has broadened the scope of communication, but cheapened and coarsened it. Meaning is conveyed by tone, inflection, body language rather than simply by words; email can be useful as a business tool but it tends to remove the subtleties and nuance from conversation. These limitations are being recognised; if the board of a company wants to do some strategic thinking it does not brainstorm by email; it goes on retreat to somewhere quiet. A more sophisticated approach is also being taken to use of the internet. It should come as no surprise that after the initial enthusiasm, there is little desire to spend hours surfing the net. The internet is a phenomenal source of information, but so is a dictionary or an encyclopedia. They are all good to have around, but you don't necessarily want to access them all the time. As for the idea that we do all our shopping online, that was perhaps the biggest fantasy of the lot. Why? Aside from obvious security concerns, it's because we like the human contact of shopping. Man is a social animal, and we find the gleaming, atomised vision of the world provided to us by technology alien and hollow. We would not be without our new toys and gizmos any more than we would be without gas and electricity, but we know there is more to life than that. The reality is that the hi-tech bubble was predicated on utterly unrealistic assumptions. It was the world as the technology buffs wanted it to be rather than the world as it is. Those who have lost a packet got the economics wrong, but they got human nature wrong as well. And do you know what? I'm glad that they did. Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Mon May 6 06:24:02 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] Pakistan: International Crisis Group worries Message-ID: The ICG is a rather shady outfit of dubious funding and even more dubious office-bearers -- most egregiously, Gareth Evans, the former Australian foreign minister who negotiated the infamous Timor Gap Treaty in 1994 that carved up the oil deposits under the Timor Sea with the Suharto regime very much to the benefit of Australian interests. Ironically, Evans ended up overseeing East Timor's return to "normality" under the auspices of the UN, following the withdrawal of Wiranto and his murderers in 1999. Now the ICG is declaring itself concerned over the performance of Musharraf in Pakistan. What's interesting is why the ICG should deem it necessary to mark Musharraf out for criticism, given his favoured status in the "war on terrorism". Perhaps Tariq can tell us where the ICG goes wrong... The myth of the good general Musharraf General Musharaff is telling western leaders exactly what they want to hear. But the West's new engagement with Pakistan is based on some dangerous misconceptions - and could easily backfire Observer Worldview Samina Ahmed and John Norris The Observer, Sunday March 31, 2002 Since September 11 and the beginning of the war against terror, Pakistan has been transformed from pariah state to a key diplomatic and military partner for the west. President Bush has praised President Pervez Musharraf's courage and pledged more than a billion dollars in aid. Pakistan's assistance is certainly facilitating the U.S.-led campaign in Afghanistan and, given the Pakistani military's central role in bringing the Taliban to power, its changed posture was bound to make a difference. But the West's new engagement with Pakistan is based on some dangerous misconceptions - and could easily backfire. Uncritical Western support for Musharraf is driven mainly by fear of the alternative. Western officials regularly warn that the military government could be overthrown by angry Islamic extremists, while others point to cleavages between the military and the powerful Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to explain away the military's support for Islamic radicals. Still others justify the military's control of the government as an antidote to corrupt and ineffective secular politicians. For the West, Pakistan?s military government is thus seen as a bulwark against a tide of chaos and religious extremism. Recent attacks by militants, such as the murder of five people at a church service in Islamabad's diplomatic enclave certainly demonstrate the dangerous capacity of Pakistan's Islamic extremists to kill and maim. However, these actions should also underscore the importance of understanding the complex relationship between Pakistan's military and fringe religious groups. In response to the Islamabad attack General Musharraf sacked the top echelon of Islamabad's police force, and he and his ministers reiterated their vow to battle terrorism. But Musharraf's public posturing, which has been well received in the west, has not always been matched by decisive action. There is also little evidence to warrant Western fears that religious zealots could overthrow the government. There has long been a symbiotic relationship between Pakistan's military and security agencies, and Pakistani religious extremists. The military has used religious extremists to weaken the influence of its domestic opposition, to promote its influence over Afghanistan and to bleed India in Kashmir. It has been the military's support that has allowed Pakistani religious extremists to become a well-trained and well-armed threat to regional security. The ease with which the Musharraf government quashed street protests by Islamic parties after 11 September demonstrated that religious extremists pose little menace to a military establishment on which they remain dependent for patronage. Nor does Musharraf face an internal revolt for cooperating in the military campaign in Afghanistan. The Pakistan army remains highly disciplined and Musharraf should be taken at his word when he emphasises that the ISI remains under firm military control. In fact, Musharraf's image as a moderate leader fighting off a rogue ISI contrasts sharply with his past. As Director-General of Military Operations at Army Headquarters, Musharraf oversaw ISI assistance to the Taliban. As Chief of Army Staff, he was personally responsible for masterminding the 1999 Kargil conflict during which hundreds of jihadis were spirited into Kashmir - which almost escalated into a full-blown war with India. After 11 September, Musharraf had no choice in the face of western pressure but to reverse course on Afghanistan and to put a temporary halt to the jihad in Kashmir. Yet, the logic is clear. Since the Pakistani military is the main beneficiary of this changed posture, gaining Western applause and economic rewards, why then would its intelligence arm, the ISI, destabilise the government? The military government has announced its intention to crack down on religious extremism within Pakistan and has taken a number of important steps to change its policies towards Afghanistan and Kashmir. It still remains to be seen if this constitutes a fundamental strategic shift or a tactical move by Musharraf to secure Western support while maintaining his dominant position. Despite some adjustments, the military's approach to Kashmir remains unchanged and it remains too early judge whether Pakistan will continue to exercise restraint in Afghanistan. Nor has the military government done much beyond rhetoric to clamp down on militant madrassas and their pupils in Pakistan. General Musharraf is making an attempt to extend his military rule indefinitely under the guise of a quasi-democracy. By equating continuity with political and economic stability, Musharraf is telling many western leaders exactly what they want to hear. Should the United States and Europe tacitly endorse a military dictatorship with only a window dressing of democracy, Pakistan's extremists could, ironically, be the biggest beneficiaries. Pakistan's history shows that periods of representative rule have strengthened democratic forces against their religious counterparts while military-dominated governments have time and again entered into alliances of expediency with Islamic extremists. As Pakistan approaches elections, there is once again evidence of a new alliance of expediency. Official pressure on extremist parties is easing and the religious right is once again the recipient of official patronage. In recent weeks, the head of the pro-Taliban Jamiat-e-Ulema Islam, Maulana Fazlur Rahman was released from prison while the head of the banned terrorist organization, Jaish-e-Mohammad, Maulana Masood Azhar has traded his cell for the comforts of home imprisonment. On Pakistan's national day, the Jamaat-i-Islami was allowed to hold a public gathering in Rawalpindi, the seat of the army's General Headquarters. Leaders and activists of the moderate and secular Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy were arrested in Lahore when they tried to exercise their right of association. The contradictory signals sent by the military government will only serve to embolden religious extremists, undermining the international war against terrorism.Unless the international community more clearly recognises this, it will likely cede the current military government far too much latitude in delaying, or denying, long overdue moves to restore democratic governance and create a disturbing impression among the citizens of Pakistan that the West actually favours authoritarian governments over freely elected ones. Giving the Musharraf government carte blanche will only likely drive the country further into its long spiral of corruption and economic malaise. In the interests of Pakistani stability and South Asian security, the EU and the U.S. should pressure the military to withdraw to barracks and persuade Musharraf to allow the Pakistani people to express their will through free and fair polls. ?Samina Ahmed is Director of the International Crisis Group's Pakistan project and John Norris is Special Advisor to the Group's President. Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Mon May 6 06:27:01 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] UK sub-imperialism: Chile Message-ID: 'Chile was quite helpful to us in the conflict' Andy Beckett investigates the special - but secret - relationship between Britain and Chile during the Falklands conflict Monday May 6, 2002 The Guardian The detail of the collaboration between Britain and Chile during the Falklands war, which was quite probably decisive in the recapture of the islands, has remained conveniently vague ever since. In November 1982, a few months after the Argentinians had been defeated, the British foreign secretary Francis Pym told the House of Commons that "Chile was quite helpful to us in the conflict". Sixteen years later, Margaret Thatcher offered a slightly more concrete summary. Visiting Pinochet during his captivity in Britain, she publicly thanked him for "the information you gave us, the communications, and also the refuge you gave to any of our armed forces". But she gave no further information. Chile was officially neutral during the Falklands War. In Britain, the popular memory of the conflict is still of the country acting alone, for good or ill. The idea that the sailing of the task force and the eventual, photogenic march to victory across the treeless islands was made possible in large part by the torturer of Santiago is still not very palatable. The Argentinian capture of the Falklands was not a welcome development for the Santiago government. The islands contained the best natural harbour in the South Atlantic. The tense balance of power in the region, which had almost led to Chile and Argentina going to war in 1978, might now be upset. So within a week of the invasion, Pinochet agreed that the British could have unofficial use of Chile's airfields and army bases nearest to the Falklands. He offered to share any Argentinian signals intercepted by Chilean surveillance stations. In return, Britain would provide Pinochet with a squadron of Hawker Hunter fighter bombers, between three and six Canberra high-altitude spy planes, and would discreetly oppose the United Nations' continuing investigations and condemnations of the use of torture in Chile. Precautions were taken to keep this deal secret. The Canberras, for example, flew unannounced from their base in Cambridgeshire to an airstrip in the former British colony of Belize in Central America. There they were repainted in Chilean air force markings. Then they continued south to Punta Arenas, the major Chilean air base nearest to the Falklands where, for the duration of the war, they would be flown by British crews, taking pictures of the Argentinian military deployments. In April and May 1982, the British sent another expedition to southernmost Chile: members of the Special Air Service or SAS. The plan was to use them to infiltrate Argentina and destroy the airfields that were being used for raids on the task force. One such facility was considered an especially important target: Rio Grande, a set of cold runways on the Atlantic. On May 4, two jets from Rio Grande had sunk HMS Sheffield in a single swift assault with Exocet guided missiles. Rio Grande was both the closest Argentinian airstrip to the Falklands and also very near to the Chilean border. The obvious way to attack the base was to use this nearby friendly territory, either as a launchpad or as a refuge for the SAS afterwards, or both. What exactly happened around Rio Grande in mid-May remains as cloudy as the region's weather. In the autobiography of the head of the SAS at the time, General Sir Peter de la Billi?re, there is no mention of any SAS activities on the South American mainland. Yet it has long been established that when dawn broke on May 18, the burnt remains of a Royal Navy helicopter had appeared in the hills west of Punta Arenas. Margaret Thatcher's adviser Alan Walters can testify to that. After the war he visited Pinochet and was invited by the Chilean government to see where all the anti-Argentinian intrigue had gone on. "They took me to where the helicopter landed," says Walters. "There were lots of nods and winks and guffaws." The helicopter, depending on which account you believe, had taken off from either a British aircraft carrier or an unofficial SAS base in Chile. It then flew with its SAS passengers towards Rio Grande, staying in Chilean airspace for as long as possible. To the north of the Argentinian airfield was an isolated country estate where, the plan went, the soldiers would be landed in darkness. But as the helicopter was touching down, rocket flares burst in the distance; the officer in charge decided that the operation was in danger of being discovered. The helicopter took off and headed for safety. But it did not have the range to fly back to the task force. So it clattered westwards, away from the Falklands and the British fleet towards Punta Arenas. Then the helicopter began to run out of fuel. Its crew landed the SAS unit in a deserted spot, where it slipped away and was eventually picked up; then they flew on, landed again, and set fire to the helicopter. Some hours later, the local Chilean police, either by chance or design, came across the wreck and the crewmen. The Chilean government made a show of being offended. The airmen were interviewed in Punta Arenas and then flown to Santiago. There, the Chileans persuaded the British embassy to present the helicopter crew at a press conference. Looking slightly shifty, the pilot read out a statement: "We were on sea patrol when we experienced engine failure due to adverse weather. It was not possible to return to our ship in these conditions. We therefore took refuge in the nearest neutral country." Shortly afterwards, the helicopter crew were flown back to Britain and given medals. The Chilean government's reward was fast in arriving. During 1982 and 1983, the British argued in the United Nations that the Pinochet regime should no longer be specially scrutinised for human rights violations. In 1984, Britain gave one of its Antarctic bases to Chile. In 1985, a demonstration model of a new British half-track military vehicle was shipped to Santiago. Britain also sold Chile anti-tank missiles. By 1988, Britain had shipped so many weapons to Pinochet that the US government complained publicly about the internal stability of South America being disrupted. There is little evidence that the reprimand made any difference. As John Hickman said of part of his time as British ambassador in Santiago between 1982 and 1987, "People spotted as British in Chile ... were liable to find themselves unusually popular." ? This is an edited extract from Pinochet In Piccadilly by Andy Beckett, to be published by Faber on 20th May 2002, priced ?15.99. Copyright ? Andy Beckett 2002. Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Mon May 6 06:34:03 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] UK state chicanery Message-ID: John McDonnell is one of the few Labour MPs worth listening to. Here he reveals the depths to which "the Mother of all Parliaments" will go in order to push through the executive agenda... Tory ex-minister 'made offer' to MP over City legislation Labour opponent 'told he would get seat on Commons committee' David Hencke, Westminster correspondent Monday May 6, 2002 The Guardian The Commons standards and privileges committee has been asked to investigate an allegation that a former Tory cabinet minister offered an "inducement" to a Labour MP so he would stop blocking a private members' bill benefiting big business in the City of London. Lord Brooke, the former Northern Ireland secretary, and sponsor of the City of London bill, has been accused of offering leftwinger John McDonnell, MP for Hayes and Harlington, a place on a select committee that he was desperate to get (having been blocked by government whips) if he dropped opposition to his bill. The government has just taken over the bill to get it through parliament. MPs can delay private bills by shouting "object", so, after talks between Downing Street and the City of London Corporation, No 10 decided the bill would proceed last month in the PM's name. The bill makes sweeping changes to the governance of the tiny corporation by, in effect, allowing companies - including those based overseas - to have a large number of votes at the expense of a small local electorate. In opposition, Labour opposed the move, but Mr Blair changed his mind after the 1997 election. Mr McDonnell has made a formal complaint to Philip Mawer, the new parliamentary standards commissioner, after the Speaker, Michael Martin, declined to make a ruling and warned Mr McDonnell that he must not raise the case in the chamber. In his letter of complaint, Mr McDonnell describes a meeting in Portcullis House (the new parliamentary building) between him, Lord Brooke, Judith Mayhew, chairman of the corporation's policy committee, and parliamentary agents, Winckworth Sherwood. Lord Brooke, then still MP for the Cities of London and Westminster, said he wanted to talk about amendments to his bill. Mr McDonnell alleges: "He said he wanted to talk to me as a fellow parliamentarian. He explained that he was aware of my desire to become a member of the Northern Ireland select committee of which he was the chair. He went on to say that I would know that it was my own side, my own party's whips, who had ensured that I had not secured membership of the committee. He then stated that if I dropped my opposition to the City of London (ward elections) bill it would enable him to obtain for me a place on the committee. "To say the least, I was extremely surprised at this intervention and halted this conversation. I took the amendment drafted by the corporation and left the meeting." Mr McDonnell went straight to the Speaker but he declined to rule on it - suggesting he took advice from the clerk to the House. He left the matter after being told that Mr Brooke was likely to be made a life peer and "I wished to do nothing that would damage the prospects of Mr Brooke entering the Lords". The bill then collapsed only to be revived after the general election. Last month Mr Blair (copying a measure pioneered by Lady Thatcher 14 years ago over the private bill to sell off Felixstowe docks) took over the bill so it could be speeded through parliament. Mr McDonnell has, however, been summoned to see Hilary Armstrong, the chief whip, who is understood to have criticised him for raising the issue and is claimed to have told him he had embarrassed the prime minister. She said that this version was not correct, but added: "I do not wish to talk about a confidential conversation." Lord Brooke confirmed to the Guardian that he had received a copy of the MP's complaint against him. He said yesterday: "I do not think that it would be appropriate of me to comment about this at this moment." Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Mon May 6 06:38:03 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] Pakistan: the blowback continues Message-ID: Pakistani clerics threaten US troops Rory McCarthy in Islamabad Monday May 6, 2002 The Guardian Islamist clerics in Pakistan's tribal areas have threatened to attack American troops who are mounting secret raids to track down senior al-Qaida commanders. In the past month the war against the remnants of the Taliban and al-Qaida has crossed into Pakistan's deeply conservative tribal areas for the first time. US and Pakistani troops launched the operation with a raid near the border town of Miram Shah on a madrassah (religious seminary) owned by Jalaluddin Haqqani, a former Taliban minister who is now high on America's most-wanted list. The raid has enraged tribal elders. On Saturday Maulana Mohammed Dindar, a cleric and former politician from the hardline Jamiat Ulema-i Islami party, told a large gathering of armed supporters at a meeting near Miram Shah that US forces should be stopped. "We will not allow the religious institutions to be desecrated by US and Pakistani commandos in the guise of the search for wanted Taliban and al-Qaida members," he told the crowd. "We will not allow any American or Pakistani soldier to enter our madrassahs." Last week a rocket was fired at a school in Miram Shah where the US troops have been staying. It missed its target. US forces are following up rumoured sightings of Mr Haqqani and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the head of Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Osama bin Laden's most senior lieutenant. US helicopters and jets fly over the area every night and the raids are expected to spread south into other tribal areas in the days ahead. Miram Shah, in the Pashtun-dominated North Waziristan tribal agency, is just 10 miles from the Afghan border and linked by a network of mountain paths to militant strongholds in Afghanistan. Two decades ago mojahedin troops, backed by the US in the war against the Soviets, used the same paths and mountain hideouts. Now the people of Waziristan regard the Taliban as allies. The writ of the Pakistan government does not run to the tribal areas. The Pakistan army only began operating there in December, for the first time in its history. General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's military leader, admitted on Saturday that US troops were operating in the country but he said there were "hardly a dozen" of them, they were helping with communications and they were not special forces soldiers. However, reports from the area suggest that a much larger, heavily armed US contingent is involved in the campaign inside Pakistan. The issue is highly sensitive for Pakistan, where anti-American sentiment now runs deep. So far Gen Musharraf appears to have stifled any criticism from Pakistan's leading Islamist clerics, who were freed without charge a month ago after weeks under house arrest. "We don't want any military actions in Pakistan by anyone other than Pakistani troops," he said. "We want assistance in information, especially from the United States, but the action will be carried out by us." Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Mon May 6 06:41:02 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] UK: the LDCs' friend? Message-ID: Stop debt vultures, demands Brown Chancellor warns UN of poor countries' risk Larry Elliott Monday May 6, 2002 The Guardian Gordon Brown will this week demand urgent action to clamp down on vulture funds - financial institutions that buy up the debt of poor countries at knock-down prices and use the courts to extract payment in full with interest. The chancellor will express concern at a meeting of the United Nations in New York that the activities of vulture funds are putting global debt relief strategy at risk by diverting sorely needed money away from poverty reduction policies and into the coffers of western companies. Amid signs that the funds are deploying their considerable financial resources to bring test cases against developing countries in courts around the world, Mr Brown believes a number of heavily indebted poor countries - or HIPCs - such as Nicaragua and Ethiopia might decide to pay commercial creditors rather than become embroiled in costly legal battles. Mr Brown's move is likely to win the support of the World Bank, which in a report last year said: "In some cases, HIPCs have paid commercial creditors in full because of the threat of litigation or to avoid disrupting a commercial relationship. This could endanger the achievement of sustainable debt levels." Treasury sources said that as yet there was no international plan for tackling the funds, but that one stopgap solution might be for rich nations to provide money and technical assistance to HIPC nations to allow them to fight the legal action effectively. The activities of vulture funds have come to prominence following the success of Elliott Associates - a New York-based hedge fund - in a legal battle against the government of Peru. Elliott Asso ciates paid $11m (?7.5m) in 1996 on the secondary market to buy $20m of Peru's debt and then sued for full repayment plus capitalised interest. The US court of appeal ruled in favour of the hedge fund and it received a total of $58m from the impoverished South American country last October - making a profit of $47m. Mr Brown believes that the actions of vulture funds conflict with attempts by Britain and other industrial nations to reduce the debts of the world's poorest countries to sustainable levels. Although Peru is not classified as a HIPC nation, it has benefited from the so-called Brady bond scheme, under which the commercial debts of Latin American countries were written down and converted into bonds. Peru makes two payments of $80m each year on its Brady bonds, but Elliott Associates used its victory in the US courts to argue that it had preferred creditor status and that no payment should be made on any Brady bond unless it was paid in full. Faced with the threat of defaulting - a move which would have had a disastrous impact on financial market confidence - Lima capitulated. Had the hedge fund opted to collect its debt along with the other Brady bondholders, it would still have made a profit, but of about $10m rather than $47m. Before travelling to New York this week, Mr Brown will defend the increase in borrowing in the Budget at a meeting of Europe Union finance ministers. The chancellor's spending plans have been criticised by the European commission for failing to comply with the strict terms of the stability and growth pact, but the Treasury said Mr Brown had no intention of backing down. Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Mon May 6 06:46:03 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] Unhealthy accumulation: UK GATS preparations Message-ID: Earlier I wrote that the much-vaunted cash injections into the UK NHS were in fact part of a deal to pump prime the development of a UK health sector able to "compete" globally with its US counterparts, while the NHS evolved into a kind of Office of the Health Regulator, guaranteeing a basic level of provision to the public ("social inclusion", you see) and monitoring the quality of all provision. See http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/2002-April/005655.html. Now come further details about what is involved in the creation of the new "super" regulator that formally unites regulation of the private and state sectors. Health regulation needs a level playing field Unifying the inspectorates for private and public hospitals makes sense. But the best of both must be preserved, says Nicholas Timmins Financial Times: May 6 2002 "Having created the most unholy muddle," one of Britain's health regulators said last week of the current arrangements for inspecting health and social care in England, "the government now wants to claim the credit for sorting it out." Indeed it does. But big questions remain about the new inspection regime that Gordon Brown, the chancellor of the exchequer, announced in last month's Budget statement to ensure, in his words, that the extra billions of pounds being poured into the National Health Service "yield the best results". The answers will affect both the NHS and the private sector. Muddle is certainly what there is now. Since 1997, the government has created at least six regulators for health and social care in England alone. They include a modernisation agency to spread best practice in the NHS, a patient safety agency to analyse adverse events, a clinical assessment authority to tackle poor performance by doctors, and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which assesses new technologies and provides guidance on best practice. Each has its role. But each has come on top of existing auditors and regulators from the Audit Commission and the National Audit Office to the medical Royal Colleges, to name but a few. About 35 bodies now inspect, regulate or audit the NHS. It is hardly surprising that the NHS complains of "inspectorial overload". It is this mess that the government is now beginning to sort out, including reversing one of the dafter decisions it made in its first term when it decided to create separate inspectorates for NHS and private hospitals. In deciding to merge the two inspectorates into a new body, however, it will have to face some fundamental questions. Under the current regime, the newly created National Care Standards Commission inspects private hospitals. But it does more than that - it licenses them to operate, using a detailed set of standards covering everything from record keeping to infection control. By contrast the Commission for Health Improvement, the two-year-old NHS inspectorate, does not license NHS hospitals. Instead, it examines whether they have "clinical governance" - processes to ensure that staff follow best practice and work continually to improve services. In other words, CHI attempts to measure whether hospitals have in place systems to improve quality. But the difference doesn't end there. NHS hospitals are inspected once every four years and don't have to pay for it. Private hospitals are inspected annually and do. These are marked contrasts in approach. Merging the two inspectorates makes undoubted sense given the government's recent commitment to a National Health Service where care can come from any provider - private, voluntary, or public-sector owned NHS. But that very commitment is bound to create demands from the private sector for a level playing field in inspection - the same costs, the same levels of supervision and the same standards. If private hospitals have to be licensed, should not NHS ones face the same requirement? Yet the evidence from hospital inspection in the US is that a standardised licensing system can be both expensive and not terribly effective. According to Kieran Walshe of Manchester University's Healthcare Management Centre in the UK, who has studied the US system, the three-yearly accreditation that hospitals go through there costs each hospital hundreds of thousands of dollars in staff time and effort. Hospitals are checked to 500 standards backed by a 725-page manual. Yet this "tick box" approach to inspection too often fails to capture the quality of care delivered. Clinical scandals can still erupt shortly after hospitals have been reaccredited. To be fair, the approach that the National Care Standards Commission is taking aims to get beyond the mere licensing of minimum standards to address the quality of care. How successful it will be remains to be seen. But at the same time the CHI is being given new powers that will take it closer to being a licensing body. For example, under legislation now before parliament it will be able, in extremis, to recommend the suspension of poor NHS services. In other words, it is being given powers to act more like a policeman and less like a consultant to, or a supporter of, those delivering the services. This reflects, as Mr Walshe pointed out in a recent paper in the British Medical Journal, a dichotomy between the two standard models of regulation: deterrence and compliance. The former tends to be used for the private sector where the fear is that profit-maximising companies will prove untrustworthy and thus need to be policed. The latter is used for public sector organisations. These are assumed to be well intentioned, if not always competent. They are seen chiefly as in need of developmental support, with sanctions used only as a last resort. In practice, however, the best regulation may need to use both approaches, adapting them to how organisations behave. Thus proven performers would receive lighter inspection - something closer, perhaps, to surveillance rather than a full-blown standardised inspection - while those in deep trouble that flout stan-dards would face sanctions. The big challenge for health regulation over the next two years is to find a way to apply this approach fairly across both the public and private sectors. Failure to do so could land the NHS with a mighty bureaucracy of inspection and licensing that would provide little guarantee of quality - or leave the private sector complaining that, while the government says it wants it as a partner, the state is not in fact prepared to offer private providers a level playing field. Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Mon May 6 06:48:02 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] The rules of war Message-ID: Drop the great pretence The world must recognise that the rules which govern the use of force have failed, says Michael Glennon Financial Times: May 6 2002 Of humanity's great civic and economic experiments of the 20th century, none was more majestic in design or tragic in consequence than the effort to subject the use of force to the rule of law. The rules established to govern the use of force in the Covenant of the League of Nations and, later, the United Nations Charter, arose directly from the two bloodiest wars ever fought. Yet by the century's close, so thorough had been the failure of those rules that, in reality if not in substance, the world had returned to the non-legalist, geopolitical system that had dominated international relations since the emergence of the nation state 350 years earlier. Today, the international system has come to exist in a parallel universe of two systems, one de jure, the other de facto . The former consists of illusory rules that would seek to govern the use of force among states. These rules are set out in the UN Charter, which prohibits use of force by states with only one exception: self-defence. Even this exception is limited, however; defensive force is permitted only "if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations", not in response to the threat of such an attack. The Security Council alone is permitted to use force in the event of a "threat" to international peace and security. The de facto system reflects actual state practice in the real world, a world in which states weigh costs against benefits in regular disregard of the rules solemnly proclaimed in the de jure system. Since 1945, two-thirds of the members of the UN - 126 states out of 189 - have fought a total of 291 interstate conflicts in which more than 22m people have died - capped by the Kosovo campaign in which 19 Nato democracies representing 780m people flagrantly violated the UN Charter. Today, meanwhile, Washington policymakers openly discuss attacking Iraq, even though no Iraqi armed attack upon the US has occurred or is foreseen. Internationalists regularly rail against these "violations" but policymakers - at least behind closed doors - admit the secret that the de jure rules are not really binding. When Robin Cook, the former British foreign secretary, told Madeleine Albright, then US secretary of state, that he had "problems with our lawyers" over using force against Yugoslavia without Security Council approval, Mrs Albright responded: "Get new lawyers." In fact, new lawyers - good lawyers - might have told Mr Cook that the decaying de jure catechism, even under its own terms, had ceased to be binding. In classic international law, the doctrine of desuetude recognises that treaties may become ineffective as a consequence of non-observance. The unavoidable conclusion is that if states truly had intended to make the rules obligatory, they would have made the cost of violation greater than the perceived benefits of non-compliance. But they did not. States' earlier intent, expressed in words, has been superseded by their later intent, expressed in deeds. Why have states' words and deeds so often collided? A hint lies in the French rendition of the text of Article 51 of the Charter. While the English version speaks of the "inherent right" of self-defence, the French one refers to the droit naturel. This revealing wording speaks of natural law, of eternal right and wrong, of a higher law not susceptible of human modification. The French rendition conjures a rule that trumps any positivist norm that may seemingly supplant it - including any that may flow from years of non-compliant practice. But effective use-of-force rules must be based on geopolitical realities, not on how treaty draftsmen would prefer the world to be. At this point in history, the consensus within the international community on fundamental values has not evolved far enough to sustain an authentic legalist regime that would subordinate the use of force to pre-agreed limits. No advance in the art of legal drafting can bridge the gulf that divides the international community over what constitutes acceptable use of force. One day, humanity may have a chance to construct a new use-of-force regime. That day will come sooner if internationalists drop the pretence that the current regime works. It does not. If a new regime is to work, it must be based on the way states actually behave - not upon how, in some fantasy world, they should behave. New rules must rest far more firmly on actual patterns of practice that reveal, with solid empirical evidence, what regulation of force is possible and what is not. There is no use in telling ghost stories, Justice Oliver Windell Holmes, America's leading jurist, once said, to people who do not believe in ghosts. The writer is a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington and author of Limits of Law, Prerogatives of Power: Interventionism After Kosovo (Palgrave, 2001) Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Mon May 6 06:52:03 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] US dollar jitters Message-ID: Fred Bergsten is not a "dispassionate economist". He was a member of the Carter administration, among the many Trilateralists that staffed that outfit, and remains very much a prominent member of David Rockefeller's public-private partnership, along with the likes of Zbigniew Brzezinski, Peter Sutherland, Joseph Nye (another Carter staffer), Paul Volcker, etc., etc. Keeping the faith The US Treasury secretary is a firm believer in non-intervention over the value of the dollar. But his conviction has yet to be rigorously tested, say Alan Beattie and Edward Alden Financial Times: May 6 2002 One of the periodic bouts of jitters that have shaken the dollar's high-wire act over recent years took hold of the markets last week. The wobbles, which took the currency to six-month lows against the euro, have once again dragged the US administration's hands-off dollar policy into the spotlight. But with the US Treasury refusing to acknowledge that it even has the power to affect where the currency goes, it will take more than minor falls to induce it to take a more active role. Paul O'Neill, the Treasury secretary, takes a dim view of short-term foreign exchange traders. "The people who benefit from roiling the world currency markets are speculators, and as far as I'm concerned, they provide not much useful value," he says. Testifying before the Senate banking committee last week, he said: "There's no intent in anything that I say that should give comfort to those who think we're going to change our policy today." But in Mr O'Neill's insistence that the markets are the best long-run judge of the dollar's value, traders inferred a softening of sentiment towards supporting the currency and sent it lower. The next day, they concluded they had been wrong and bought it back again, before Friday's weak US jobs data once more sent it down. Mr O'Neill's supporters find the market reaction inexplicable. Mickey Levy, chief economist at Bank of America, says: "Paul O'Neill is trying to say that the policy has been unchanged from the beginning, and that policy is: 'We advocate a strong dollar to the extent that it reflects strong fundamentals and a high expected rate of return on US assets, but we will do nothing to manipulate it'." This implies the dollar can swing over a wide range before the administration reacts. But Mr O'Neill's tough line has yet to be seriously tested. Even the movements at the end of last week merely saw the euro-dollar rate wandering around the upper reaches of the remarkably narrow range in which it has traded for the past year. Part of the market's confusion is due to the fact that the Bush administration is far less disciplined about pumping out a succinct message than was its predecessor. Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, Bill Clinton's Treasury secretaries, blanked the many questioners curious about the dollar policy with the Pavlovian response: "A strong dollar is in the national interest." The Rubin and Summers Treasury fiercely resisted giving hostages to fortune with any public elucidation of what this meant - such as whether it referred to a target level for the dollar or a rate of change. Investors apparently thrived on being kept ignorant and bought it anyway, so the performance of the rhetorical policy when faced with a weak-ening dollar was never tested. Now the financial markets, their senses honed razor-sharp for changes of nuance by the Rubin and Summers years, are inclined to over-interpret any perceived change of stance from Mr O'Neill's more talkative Treasury. Spin is not the only issue. For the many economists who believe the dollar is overvalued, the underlying problems have not changed and will at some point force the Treasury to react. With a US current account deficit likely to hit $500bn or nearly 5 per cent of gross domestic product this year, there is an even greater challenge in attracting capital to fund it and support the dollar at current levels. Analysts poring over the entrails of the US current account deficit - or, as Mr O'Neill might prefer to regard it, the investment surplus - can find signs that investors' willingness to fund it may be waning. Avinash Persaud, head of global research at State Street bank in London, detects a shift towards long-term value investing away from chasing short-term growth returns. "Investors today are showing a strong preference for European equity markets, where price/earnings ratios are almost half of those in the US," he says. "Over the past 12 months, cross-border investors have purchased almost $200bn of European equities and just $100bn of US equities. This poses a problem for the US dollar." Alan Ruskin, New York research director for 4Cast, the economic consultancy, also sees a shift towards European assets, with longer-term portfolio flows to the US levelling off. But fewer analysts think these signs are as yet flashing red. "These changes are glacial," says Mr Ruskin. "I do not see the dollar at a tipping point where a lack of confidence becomes self-fulfilling." It is premature to conclude that Mr O'Neill's dollar policy is imminently to be tested by an uncontrolled slide any more than was Mr Rubin's. And there are few signals that Mr O'Neill has accepted that the current account deficit is a problem to which he must react. Last week he reiterated that it mainly reflected investors' assessment of greater returns on US assets and any policy to cut it would merely hurt the rest of the economy. Mr O'Neill is resisting aggressive lobbying by US carmakers, manufacturers, trade unions and farmers, who claim the strong dollar has cost the US 500,000 jobs and $140bn in lost exports. They are urging the Bush administration to encourage a fall in the currency, which they argue is at least 25 per cent overvalued. The "Coalition for a Sound Dollar" is planning to present individual members of Congress with numbers on jobs lost in their states or districts as a result of the high dollar, says Frank Vargo of the National Association of Manufacturers, who is spearheading the campaign. The coalition claims some small victories. Several administration officials, including Glenn Hubbard, chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisors, have at least acknowledged over the past few months that the strong dollar is hurting US manufacturing and agriculture. Last week's hearing was the first time in more than a decade that the Senate had forced a Treasury secretary to testify on exchange rates. During the hearing, called at the behest of manufacturers, Democratic Senator Paul Sarbanes tried to embarrass Mr O'Neill by dredging up statements the Treasury secretary made when he was chief executive of International Paper in 1985. Mr O'Neill had warned that the record high dollar of the time had "turned the world on its head" and severely damaged his company's competitiveness. But the Treasury secretary held his ground. "I don't think you'd be able to find any place where I called on the government to intervene in the financial markets," he said. And manufacturers privately acknowledge that they are still a long way from winning the administration's support for a deliberate weakening of the dollar. Many dispassionate economists as well as parti pris exporters say official policy ought to be changing. Fred Bergsten, director of the Institute for International Economics in Washington, repeats the familiar analysis that current account deficits at present US levels have historically proved unsustainable. He blames the dollar, citing calculations that each 1 per cent rise in the trade-weighted currency contributes $10bn to the current account deficit. The 35 per cent rise between 1995 and 2001 contributes the bulk of the predicted $500bn deficit, he says. He notes parallels with the Reagan administration, which spent its first few years preaching "benign neglect" of the dollar but was forced to engineer the international Plaza accord to weaken the currency in 1985. "That necessary change in policy also required a change in Treasury secretary, from Donald Regan to James Baker," he says. "I like Paul O'Neill and I don't want him to have to go to get this policy reversed." But Mr O'Neill's faith that the strength of the dollar is little cause for alarm remains strong. The markets will have to wait for a substantial movement in exchange rates to test how far his belief in benign neglect will go. Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Mon May 6 06:55:03 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] Asia & the imperialist chain: corporate governance Message-ID: How reassuring that, even 4 years after the Asian crisis, the new financial architecture continues to be put in place, as global standards of "best practice" in corporate governance are implemented throughout the crisis-afflicted region... Sharper claws for Asia's investors The region's financial authorities are at last adopting rules to protect the interests of minority shareholders, writes Joe Leahy Financial Times: May 6 2002 For minority shareholders of Berjaya Sports Toto, the Malaysian betting operator,the odds of scoring a decent return on their investment used to be as tough as winning the jackpot in one of the company's national lottery games. Although profitable, Berjaya Sports Toto regularly diverted most of its earnings to Berjaya Land, its lossmaking parent company, and other affiliates through unsecured inter-group loans. "Investors were going back to the authorities and saying: 'Look, this is the kind of thing we see in otherwise good companies in Malaysia, the kind of companies with the business you like but the management you hate,' " says Amar Gill, head of research at CLSA Emerging Markets, a Hong Kong-based brokerage. In response, the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange last year issued sweeping changes to its listing rules. Among these, companies must now seek minority shareholder approval for inter-group loans, a measure that has forced Berjaya Toto to begin unwinding the debts to its parent. Malaysia is not the only country in Asia taking corporate governance more seriously. Throughout the region, financial market authorities have been pushing through sweeping changes aimed at ending its reputation for mistreating minority shareholders. "There has been a marked convergence towards 'global best practice' in the formal rules of virtually all the big economies," says Jamie Allen, secretary-general of the Asian Corporate Governance Association. The reformist spirit has been gathering momentum since the Asian financial crisis of 1997/1998 exposed the worst excesses of corporate profligacy in the region, leading to huge capital flight. But it is in the past 12 months that the process has really started to produce results, spurred on by the collapse last year of Asia Pulp and Paper, an Indonesian group, under $12bn ($12.1bn) in debt, and by the Enron debacle. Today there are eight official codes of best practice in use in the region and two more under development, compared with just one before the crisis. Independent directors are mandated or in use in 11 places in the region, compared with only three before. China and Singapore are now preparing to implement quarterly reporting of financial results. Hong Kong is tightening up shareholder ownership disclosure rules. Malaysia has formed a minority shareholder action group and Hong Kong is considering one. For the first time in its market history, China last year delisted four companies, starting with a household appliance maker, Shanghai Narcissus Electric Appliances, which had not made a profit in four years. In South Korea, long-running efforts to make the chaebol, or conglomerates, more efficient are starting to achieve results. Chang Sun, managing director of venture capital firm Warburg Pincus in Hong Kong, points to LG Card, a member of Korea's LG Group in which his company has a near 20 per cent stake. Spurred on by government-led restructuring rules, LG Group affiliates including LG Chemical and LG Securities have been selling their holdings in the card business, often to foreigners. LG Card is planning an initial public offering this month through which it will further reduce group stakes. The streamlined ownership structure reduces the chance of conflicts of interest in the controlling shareholder's management of the company, Mr Sun says. In South Korea, for instance, good managers in public companies used to be whisked away to work in the family-owned parts of the empire. "Now they are moving to align their interests better with those of the outside shareholders," says Mr Sun. For all the good news, however, horror stories still abound, ironically often in the more advanced economies. CLSA's rankings revealed that while Hong Kong and Singapore had the best legal and regulatory systems in Asia, many companies active in their markets still followed the letter rather than the spirit of the rules. In Singapore and Hong Kong, for instance, the average company score for corporate governance was 65.4 per cent and 64.4 per cent respectively - below their country ratings of 7.4 and 7.2 out of 10. "There are a lot of companies that are up there doing very well but there are a lot of others that clearly need to improve," says Mr Allen. In the latest controversy in Hong Kong, Boto International Holdings, a profitable manufacturer of artificial Christmas trees and outdoor furniture, last month suddenly proposed selling its core businesses at what critics argued was a significant discount to a company connected to its chairman. This would leave shareholders with little more than a lossmaking start-up computer graphics business, run by the chairman's 25-year-old son. By contrast, companies operating in some of the region's less advanced regulatory regimes often shine. In India and Taiwan, for instance, the average company score for corporate governance was 62.2 per cent and 59.2 per cent, higher than their country ratings of 5.9 and 5.8 out of 10 respectively. Companies in these markets, such as India's Infosys, the global software provider, are sometimes forced to conform to higher standards of governance because they compete in the international market, analysts argue. Part of the problem in Asia remains the dominance of large controlling shareholders, usually family dynasties. The region lacks competent independent directors willing to attend board meetings regularly, let alone stand up to the incumbent shareholders. It also does not help that most of them are hand-picked by the controlling shareholders. "The independent directors are often not really qualified financially to have an independent view," says CLSA's Mr Gill. Some countries, such as Thailand, are trying to fix the problem by requiring that independent directors take courses but the process is in its infancy. Institutional investors, with some exceptions, also remain reluctant to speak out, preferring simply to sell their shares if they are unhappy. The development of pension schemes may lead to more institutional investment but that remains a long way off. Many of the large international financial groups managing pension funds in the region also have relationships with the leading companies through their investment banking arms, creating a potential conflict of interest. Still, if CLSA's study is any guide, the incentives for good corporate governance are becoming clearer in Asia. The study found that the share prices of companies in the top quarter of its sample group ranked by corporate governance outperformed the benchmark stock market indices of their home countries by 147 percentage points in the five years to end-2001. Berjaya Sports Toto is a case in point. Since it began moves to unwind its inter-group loans, its share price has nearly tripled. With capital still scarce in Asia, those are odds that even the most intransigent controlling shareholders may begin to understand. Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Mon May 6 07:07:03 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] Korea & the imperialist chain: autos Message-ID: Last week I forwarded news on the unprecedented partnership involving Hyundai Motor and DaimlerChrysler. At the same time General Motors was completing its takeover of Daewoo, marking yet a further incorporation of Korean capital into the imperialist chain and underlining just how much in the way of rich pickings exist for US and EU capital in the Far East. Meanwhile, those Korean capitals that are not being swallowed up by western interests are redirecting their investments westward in response to the lack of sufficient home demand, the result of an export-based development policy that was suitable under Cold War conditions but which no longer applies at a time when the US and others fret over the record balance of payments deficit and the precarious position of the dollar. It will take much longer for a strong base of domestic demand to build -- far easier to invest capital in those imperialist metropolises promising readier returns. The reforms enforced upon Korea and the other victims of the 1997/8 crisis, as well as earlier liberalisation measures from 1993 onwards, make all this possible. I think it would be worthwhile to study this phenomenon in greater detail, not only with regard to South Korea, but perhaps also concerning Japan. Japanese nationalism and the power of the state bureaucracy may be a stronger obstacle to capital drainage of the kind that Korea's economy seems to be experiencing, but for how long can it hold out? GM's bid to conquer the 'hermit kingdom': Takeover of Daewoo marks a step forward for foreign investors in South Korea, says Andrew Ward: Financial Times; Apr 30, 2002 By ANDREW WARD General Motors is today expected to complete its long-awaited Dollars 400m takeover of bankrupt Daewoo Motor, strengthening the US car giant's position in Asia and saving the South Korean manufacturer from extinction. GM's entry into South Korea will shake up one of Asia's largest car markets, worth Dollars 11.4bn last year, and strike a blow for foreign manufacturers in a country where 97 per cent of all sales are made by domestic carmakers. The expected endorsement today of South Korean chipmaker Hynix Semiconductor's proposed Dollars 3.4bn partial sale to Micron Technology of the US would further strengthen the flow of foreign investment into Seoul and advance the country's globalisation. Analysts said a revived Daewoo would intensify competition for Hyundai Motor, which, together with its affiliate Kia Motors, has grabbed a 70 per cent share of the domestic market since its biggest rival collapsed two years ago under Dollars 10bn of debts. To combat the threat posed by GM, Hyundai is expected to increase its focus on overseas sales and deepen its own international alliance with DaimlerChrysler, the US-German auto group, which owns 12 per cent of the South Korean company. GM faces an uphill battle reviving consumer interest in Daewoo, whose market share has halved to 10 per cent as investment dried up and bankruptcy took its toll on the brand. Analysts forecast that it will take three years for Daewoo to reclaim the 20 per cent market share it enjoyed before its collapse. "Daewoo's brand image is not very good," says Lee So-youn, a 24-year-old Hyundai-driving student. "I would not trust it." Daewoo could fall further out of favour with South Korea's notoriously patriotic consumers once it passes into US ownership. On the other hand, success by GM in South Korea might help change attitudes towards foreign carmakers. A combination of national pride and import restrictions have made South Korea a barren market for overseas carmakers, which had only 3 per cent of sales last year. "Car manufacturing is one of Korea's main industries so it is better that we buy Korean cars," says Kim Kwang-hee, a 48-year-old housewife, who drives a Hyundai. Seoul is under pressure from the international community to lift trade barriers. There are signs that attitudes among consumers could be changing as South Korea shakes off its "hermit kingdom" reputation and becomes more globalised. German cars, such as BMW and Mercedes, have been claiming a growing share of the luxury market - and 2 per cent of the total market - as South Koreans learn to flaunt their new found wealth and seek individuality. "I would consider buying a foreign car," says Ms Lee. "I'm tired of all those same designs." However, after GM's acquisition of Daewoo, there are few remaining alliance partners to ease foreign carmakers' entry into the mass market. Therefore, the likes of Ford, which commanded just 0.1 per cent of sales in South Korea last year, and Toyota, with 0.4 per cent, must rely on imports if they are to make a mark. Any changes in the South Korean market are likely to be gradual following GM's entry, suggesting that Hyundai need not be too concerned. "We're not worried by GM," says a Hyundai official. "Our domestic market share will go down a little bit - perhaps by 5 per cent over the next five years, especially in small cars - but we can more than compensate through increased overseas sales and by focusing on more profitable cars at the high end of the market." Hyundai has reinvented itself in recent years from a volume producer of cheap cars for domestic consumption into a globally competitive manufacturer of higher quality vehicles, such as its Santa Fe or Sonata. Hyundai's exports have more than doubled since 1998 to 59 per cent of total sales and tripled in the US. It began construction this month of a Dollars 1bn car plant in Alabama to cope with surging US demand. Yesterday, it finalised an agreement to build a factory near Beijing with a Chinese partner, further underlining the company's global expansion. DaimlerChrysler is thought to be planning a joint engine development project with Hyundai and Mitsubishi, of Japan, its two Asian partners, lending credence to speculation that Hyundai and DaimlerChrysler could strengthen ties. Hyundai's globalisation and GM's entry into South Korea - following the lead of France's Renault, which bought Samsung Motors two years ago - suggests that one of the world's most closed car markets could at last be opening - but only very slowly. Hynix creditors approve purchase by Micron By Andrew Ward in Seoul Creditors of South Korea's Hynix Semiconductor approved last night a provisional agreement to sell most of the debt-laden company to Micron Technology of the US, in a Dollars 3.4bn deal that would create the world's largest memory chipmaker. A memorandum of understanding, struck by the two companies last week, was supported by nearly 78 per cent of creditors, more than the 75 per cent needed for approval. The vote marks an important step in Seoul's search for foreign buyers for debt-scarred companies damaged in the country's 1997 financial crisis. However, months of further negotiations are expected before a final contract is signed and the deal still faces fierce opposition in Seoul. The South Korean government has been accused of using its stake in the banking sector to force an agreement. Micron would pay about Dollars 3.2bn in equity for control of Hynix's core memory operations and invest an additional Dollars 200m for a 15 per cent stake in the non-memory arm, which would remain under South Korean control. South Korean creditors agreed to invest a fresh Dollars 1.5bn in the memory business after its takeover by Micron. Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Mon May 6 07:30:05 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] Destructive creation: mass marketed malnutrition Message-ID: Meat is murder Nicholas Lezard is alarmed to find out what's in his hamburgers in Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser Nicholas Lezard Guardian Saturday April 6, 2002 Fast Food Nation: What the All-American Meal is Doing to the World Eric Schlosser (Penguin, ?6.99) If you read this book, I defy you to eat a mass-produced hamburger again. This column had a soft spot for the Burger King Bacon Double Cheeseburger (memo to BK: send money to home address this time. We don't want any repeat of that Scruton business, do we?), but now...well, if the ethical side-effects of mass production do not put you off, how about these words, which appear on page 197: "There is shit in the meat." The ethical side-effects should bother you, though. Mass production has made the business of meatpacking more dangerous and worse-paid than it ever has been. Noteworthy among offenders are IBP, or Iowa Beef Packers, who supply an amazing amount of cow meat to the fast food industry. Look at their index entry. "Deceptive practices of, 166, 179-81, 206; emissions violations of, 164-65; lawsuits against, 182-83; and meat contamination, 203, 213-14;...and organized crime, 154-55..." It goes on. Those are just some of the highlights. My favourite IBP story concerns the waivers that employees in Texas are asked to sign the instant they're injured (which is relatively often). Signing the waiver means you can never sue IBP for any reason. Not signing the waiver means you might not receive any medical care from the company. You might also be fired on the spot for good measure. Remember, you don't have medical insurance because your wages are rubbish. You also risk losing all medical benefits from the company if you seek independent help. "The pressure [to sign] is immense," Schlosser writes. "An IBP medical case manager will literally bring the waiver to a hospital emergency room in order to obtain an injured worker's signature...When Duane Mullin had both hands crushed in a hammer mill...an IBP representative persuaded him to sign the waiver with a pen held in his mouth." As for what happens to the food once it arrives at the burger chains - well, what would you do if you were a bored teenager working for a bit less than the minimum wage? Speaking of which, if you fancy a laugh, try starting a union drive at a McDonald's in America. There are 15,000 franchises in the States. Number of workers in them represented by a union: none. Over the Canadian border, a franchise in a Montreal suburb almost managed to become unionised, but was closed down just in time. Schlosser's sober, industrious yet mind-boggling book has become a best-seller. This is very good news. It turns out that thanks to an extraordinarily corrupt relationship between every single arm of the fast-food market and the Republican Party, the market is anything but free. The principles of uniformity turn out to be not only bad for the soul, a seedy Orwellian nightmare, but bad for people. Ray Kroc, one of the founders of McDonald's, once memorably said of independent-minded franchisees: "We will make conformists out of them in a hurry...The organization cannot trust the individual; the individual must trust the organization." Let's hope that he gets to eat those words. Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Mon May 6 07:33:44 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] EU & the imperialist chain: corporate governance Message-ID: Hostile developments: Moves towards relaxing Europe's laws on hostile takeovers are likely to be gradual Financial Times; May 1, 2002 By JOHN PLENDER Will Europe ever develop an Anglo-American-style market in corporate control? The political tide appears to be running against it. Since the European Union's high-level group of company law experts - the so-called wise men - put forward radical proposals in January to give shareholders powers to determine the outcome of hostile takeovers, the opposition has become vociferous. Numerous arguments are offered in continental Europe against hostile takeovers. One comes from Gerhard Schroder, the Social Democrat German chancellor, who has his eye on September's election. Why, he asked in Monday's Financial Times, should the EU allow its companies to be subject to hostile takeovers when US company law imposes high hurdles? Mr Schroder sees no point in a takeover directive that does not lead to fair international competition. And as a former premier of Lower Saxony, where he sat on Volkswagen's supervisory board, he is conscious of the risks of an active takeover market to the currently bid-proof carmaker. Then there is the Enron factor, which featured in a French paper on corporate governance for the recent European finance ministers' meeting in Oviedo. The scandal at the bankrupt Houston energy trader has helped those who say the US model of capitalism is short-termist and that the concentration of share ownership in continental Europe is stabilising. Others complain that the high-level group under Dutch lawyer Jaap Winter is proposing to expropriate those such as the Wallenbergs, whose voting power in Swedish industry vastly exceeds their equity stake. Mr Winter has urged a mandatory requirement to offer all shareholders the same price in a bid, along with a "break-through" rule that could sweep away the unequal voting rights of large minority shareholders. Mr Schroder is technically right that the Winter approach would create an unfair situation internationally. In Delaware, the most popular state in the US for incorporation, the law is protective of incumbent management, permitting the use of "poison pills" that raise the cost of hostile bids. Yet there is academic evidence that Delaware companies are more likely to receive takeover bids than those incorporated elsewhere in the US. The US takeover market is anyway very lively. And economic liberals would argue that the tilt of the playing field is irrelevant. If it is in Europe's interest to promote industrial restructuring, a unilateral move to a liberal takeover regime would be economically beneficial. As for Enron, it was clearly a corporate governance failure on a grand scale. But continental Europe has them too. The huge secret pension payment to Percy Barnevik by ABB and the dismal recent performance of the company are an obvious case in point. Yet the argument about expropriation is tricky. As Erik Berglof of the Stockholm School of Economics says in a recent paper for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development-World Bank Global Corporate Governance Forum, the wise men's break-through rule would deprive controlling owners of the control premium they once paid without increasing the price paid to small shareholders. It would directly transfer value from the incumbent controlling owner to the potential acquirer. There are two ways of looking at these continental concentrations of ownership. On the positive side, he says, such owners have an incentive to incur costs to improve management and thus increase the value of the shares. But they may also seek to extract benefits of control at the expense of other shareholders. In practice, argues Berglof, both things happen. It is hard to see how corporate Europe can move from unequal voting structures to one-share-one-vote unless there is some proposal to compensate block holders whose control rights are being confiscated. But if the block holder is monitoring corporate performance effectively, how would an outside bidder be able to afford to pay a premium to take control via a takeover? If, in contrast, the block holders are extracting private benefits of control at the expense of minorities, a hostile bidder will clearly be able to pay a premium, because the company would be more valuable if the rip-offs stopped. But do block holders deserve to be compensated for giving up the right to loot the company? The prospect of having to compensate for a realistic valuation of the looting rights might also put the company out of any bidder's range. This is difficult practical as well as conceptual territory because the rip-offs can be subtle. If the dominant shareholder is a bank, it may use its position to transfer value to itself at equity holders' expense simply by lowering the overall riskiness of the company, so enhancing the security of its loans. A non-bank dominant holder may increase riskiness on the basis that it takes all the profit on the upside and shares losses with debt claimants on the downside. Can you imagine how they would put their case for compensation? Since the high-level group produced its report its terms of reference have been extended and further moves are expected in the autumn. What is clear is that political pressures now preclude the European Commission from adopting a root-and-branch approach to reform. It is more likely to chip away at the more egregious forms of unequal voting rights. The irony is that Mr Winter, crusading economic liberal, is legal adviser to Unilever - an Anglo-Dutch company that is itself bid-proof thanks to the peculiarities of its capital structure and board. Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From hliu at mindspring.com Mon May 6 08:32:02 2002 From: hliu at mindspring.com (Henry C.K. Liu) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] US dollar jitters References: Message-ID: <3CD693EE.F402CBE7@mindspring.com> Bergsten has been on record that the dollar is 20% over valued since 1997. O'Neill's non-intervention means the dollar will fall, as the dollar is overvalued in relations to market fundmentals, due to arbitrage on open interest parity alone. By keep Fed funds rate low, the Fed is in fact pushing the dollar down. O'Neill is simply saying he did not do it. Henry C.K. Liu Keaney Michael wrote: > Fred Bergsten is not a "dispassionate economist". He was a member of the Carter administration, among the many Trilateralists that staffed that outfit, and remains very much a prominent member of David Rockefeller's public-private partnership, along with the likes of Zbigniew Brzezinski, Peter Sutherland, Joseph Nye (another Carter staffer), Paul Volcker, etc., etc. > > Keeping the faith > The US Treasury secretary is a firm believer in non-intervention over the value of the dollar. But his conviction has yet to be rigorously tested, say Alan Beattie and Edward Alden > Financial Times: May 6 2002 > > One of the periodic bouts of jitters that have shaken the dollar's high-wire act over recent years took hold of the markets last week. The wobbles, which took the currency to six-month lows against the euro, have once again dragged the US administration's hands-off dollar policy into the spotlight. But with the US Treasury refusing to acknowledge that it even has the power to affect where the currency goes, it will take more than minor falls to induce it to take a more active role. > > Paul O'Neill, the Treasury secretary, takes a dim view of short-term foreign exchange traders. "The people who benefit from roiling the world currency markets are speculators, and as far as I'm concerned, they provide not much useful value," he says. Testifying before the Senate banking committee last week, he said: "There's no intent in anything that I say that should give comfort to those who think we're going to change our policy today." > > But in Mr O'Neill's insistence that the markets are the best long-run judge of the dollar's value, traders inferred a softening of sentiment towards supporting the currency and sent it lower. The next day, they concluded they had been wrong and bought it back again, before Friday's weak US jobs data once more sent it down. > > Mr O'Neill's supporters find the market reaction inexplicable. Mickey Levy, chief economist at Bank of America, says: "Paul O'Neill is trying to say that the policy has been unchanged from the beginning, and that policy is: 'We advocate a strong dollar to the extent that it reflects strong fundamentals and a high expected rate of return on US assets, but we will do nothing to manipulate it'." > > This implies the dollar can swing over a wide range before the administration reacts. But Mr O'Neill's tough line has yet to be seriously tested. Even the movements at the end of last week merely saw the euro-dollar rate wandering around the upper reaches of the remarkably narrow range in which it has traded for the past year. > > Part of the market's confusion is due to the fact that the Bush administration is far less disciplined about pumping out a succinct message than was its predecessor. Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, Bill Clinton's Treasury secretaries, blanked the many questioners curious about the dollar policy with the Pavlovian response: "A strong dollar is in the national interest." > > The Rubin and Summers Treasury fiercely resisted giving hostages to fortune with any public elucidation of what this meant - such as whether it referred to a target level for the dollar or a rate of change. Investors apparently thrived on being kept ignorant and bought it anyway, so the performance of the rhetorical policy when faced with a weak-ening dollar was never tested. > > Now the financial markets, their senses honed razor-sharp for changes of nuance by the Rubin and Summers years, are inclined to over-interpret any perceived change of stance from Mr O'Neill's more talkative Treasury. > > Spin is not the only issue. For the many economists who believe the dollar is overvalued, the underlying problems have not changed and will at some point force the Treasury to react. With a US current account deficit likely to hit $500bn or nearly 5 per cent of gross domestic product this year, there is an even greater challenge in attracting capital to fund it and support the dollar at current levels. > > Analysts poring over the entrails of the US current account deficit - or, as Mr O'Neill might prefer to regard it, the investment surplus - can find signs that investors' willingness to fund it may be waning. > > Avinash Persaud, head of global research at State Street bank in London, detects a shift towards long-term value investing away from chasing short-term growth returns. "Investors today are showing a strong preference for European equity markets, where price/earnings ratios are almost half of those in the US," he says. "Over the past 12 months, cross-border investors have purchased almost $200bn of European equities and just $100bn of US equities. This poses a problem for the US dollar." > > Alan Ruskin, New York research director for 4Cast, the economic consultancy, also sees a shift towards European assets, with longer-term portfolio flows to the US levelling off. > > But fewer analysts think these signs are as yet flashing red. "These changes are glacial," says Mr Ruskin. "I do not see the dollar at a tipping point where a lack of confidence becomes self-fulfilling." It is premature to conclude that Mr O'Neill's dollar policy is imminently to be tested by an uncontrolled slide any more than was Mr Rubin's. > > And there are few signals that Mr O'Neill has accepted that the current account deficit is a problem to which he must react. Last week he reiterated that it mainly reflected investors' assessment of greater returns on US assets and any policy to cut it would merely hurt the rest of the economy. > > Mr O'Neill is resisting aggressive lobbying by US carmakers, manufacturers, trade unions and farmers, who claim the strong dollar has cost the US 500,000 jobs and $140bn in lost exports. They are urging the Bush administration to encourage a fall in the currency, which they argue is at least 25 per cent overvalued. > > The "Coalition for a Sound Dollar" is planning to present individual members of Congress with numbers on jobs lost in their states or districts as a result of the high dollar, says Frank Vargo of the National Association of Manufacturers, who is spearheading the campaign. > > The coalition claims some small victories. Several administration officials, including Glenn Hubbard, chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisors, have at least acknowledged over the past few months that the strong dollar is hurting US manufacturing and agriculture. > > Last week's hearing was the first time in more than a decade that the Senate had forced a Treasury secretary to testify on exchange rates. During the hearing, called at the behest of manufacturers, Democratic Senator Paul Sarbanes tried to embarrass Mr O'Neill by dredging up statements the Treasury secretary made when he was chief executive of International Paper in 1985. Mr O'Neill had warned that the record high dollar of the time had "turned the world on its head" and severely damaged his company's competitiveness. > > But the Treasury secretary held his ground. "I don't think you'd be able to find any place where I called on the government to intervene in the financial markets," he said. And manufacturers privately acknowledge that they are still a long way from winning the administration's support for a deliberate weakening of the dollar. > > Many dispassionate economists as well as parti pris exporters say official policy ought to be changing. Fred Bergsten, director of the Institute for International Economics in Washington, repeats the familiar analysis that current account deficits at present US levels have historically proved unsustainable. > > He blames the dollar, citing calculations that each 1 per cent rise in the trade-weighted currency contributes $10bn to the current account deficit. The 35 per cent rise between 1995 and 2001 contributes the bulk of the predicted $500bn deficit, he says. He notes parallels with the Reagan administration, which spent its first few years preaching "benign neglect" of the dollar but was forced to engineer the international Plaza accord to weaken the currency in 1985. > > "That necessary change in policy also required a change in Treasury secretary, from Donald Regan to James Baker," he says. "I like Paul O'Neill and I don't want him to have to go to get this policy reversed." > > But Mr O'Neill's faith that the strength of the dollar is little cause for alarm remains strong. The markets will have to wait for a substantial movement in exchange rates to test how far his belief in benign neglect will go. > > Michael Keaney > Mercuria Business School > Martinlaaksontie 36 > 01620 Vantaa > Finland > > michael.keaney@mbs.fi From ewc at onetel.net.uk Mon May 6 12:26:02 2002 From: ewc at onetel.net.uk (ewc) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] thanks but References: Message-ID: <000201c1f52b$235ed1a0$6c704ed5@oemcomputer> > From: "Nestor Gorojovsky" > To: a-list@lists.econ.utah.edu > Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 20:17:43 -0300 > Subject: [A-List] Smith's recognition of "families" > Reply-To: a-list@lists.econ.utah.edu > > Joke after joke, Michael (me, I guess) has been asked to report page=20 > where Smith has stated anything regarding "families". > > But, actually, there is not only a page, in fact a whole line of=20 > thought in Adam Smith that betrays his ideas about "families". > > Cnl. Mc Culloch has shown, on his History of Economic Thought, that=20 > while Smith did not take into consideration the population when=20 > considering the wealth of China, he did take the population in=20 > consideration when considering the wealth of the Netherlands. > > That is, even in such an early author as Adam Smith we can already=20 > see the difference between "first class" and "second class"=20 > nations... > > Jokes have twist, sometimes. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hi Nestor as I suspected, you cannot. ewc. From soncu at pacbell.net Mon May 6 23:38:02 2002 From: soncu at pacbell.net (Sabri Oncu) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] Theory of Games and Economic Behavior: Middle East Section Message-ID: Washington Times: Let's Talk Turkey Jed Babbin April 25, 2002 LONDON -- For all the talk about our Saudi, Egyptian and Jordanian "allies," America really has only two allies in the Islamic world. Pakistan has been most visible in the war in Afghanistan, and its president, Pervez Musharraf, has been an outspoken critic of terrorism and the culture that produces it. But the widening gap between American interests and our so-called Arab allies is as plain as Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's refusal to meet with Colin Powell last week. If the Arab nations are to play any role, other than adversary, in the war against terror, we need to find a way to narrow that gap. It may be that Turkey "one of our strongest allies and our only other real ally in the Islamic world " can succeed where we failed. If it does, it will be without fanfare because, when it can, Turkey avoids the center stage. Turkey has been the southeastern cornerstone of NATO for decades. Its strategic location put it directly in the path of Russian plans to expand into the Middle East. Turkey controls the only passages from the Russian Black Sea ports to the open ocean, and shares an eastern border with Iraq. For all of its strategic importance, Turkey often gets little respect from us or from our European allies. Early in the Clinton presidency, former Turkish Prime Minister Turgut Ozal died. His personal dedication to NATO should have earned him the honor of presidential attendance at his funeral. Mr. Clinton didn't go, and neither did Vice President Gore, who rejected the duty. Mr. Gore apparently thought that having himself look more important than his predecessor was more important than honoring a valuable ally. Poor Dan Quayle went to so many funerals that some called him America's ambassador to the dead. Turkey forgave, even if it did not forget. Now, with our attention turning to Iraq, Turkey's interests must be accounted for in our plans to remove Saddam Hussein. Iraq poses a more complex matter than it appears, because what comes after Saddam is important to Turkey and, in the long run, to us as well. There is a substantial Kurdish minority in Turkey, and two Kurdish opposition parties in northern Iraq. The Kurdish-Iraqi opposition is split between Masoud Barzani's Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), in the north near Syria, and Jalal Talabani's Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) in the south, near Iran. Neither of the two is capable of toppling Saddam, and the KDP lacks sufficient strength to ensure a stable government after Saddam is gone. The other half of that problem is that Mr. Talabani's PUK is dominated by Shiite Muslim fundamentalists who would turn Iraq into another Iran. Neither America nor Turkey can allow that, because of Iraq's oil and the fact that a fundamentalist government in Iraq would foment revolutions in the surrounding nations. In a private interview last week Turkey's ambassador to the United States, Dr. O. Faruk Logoglu, said that Turkey will not accept a partitioned Iraq. President Bush has agreed that partitioning Iraq will be unacceptable to America as well. Planning for a new and undivided government for Iraq will take time. Our campaign against Iraq is on hold until it is done. Turkey, like America, cannot accept Iraqi possession of weapons of mass destruction. Turkey would prefer U.N. inspections over military action. But like America, Turkey is very skeptical that Saddam will ever cooperate. The ambassador would not say if Turkey would join an attack on Iraq. But there is little reason to doubt that Turkey would join the fight, whether or not other Muslim countries give even their tacit consent to an attack. Over the past two months, American diplomacy has failed conspicuously to get anything from any Arab nation "other than contemptuous opposition" for our plan to remove Saddam Hussein. Vice President Cheney struck out quietly in his eleven-nation tour in March. Mr. Powell could not have gotten more fanfare in failure if he had taken a marching band on the road between Ramallah and Tel Aviv. The gulf that separates America and the Arab nations is widening. If we soon make any progress in narrowing it, the progress is more likely to result from Turkish diplomacy than our own. To get Turkey and Greece to agree on almost anything is extraordinary. But in these strange days, the Turkish and Greek foreign ministers will soon travel together to the Middle East to test the waters for a historic summit. Their mission is not to gather a coalition to fight Iraq. It is to see if they can relieve any of the growing tension between the Arab world and the West. The two ministers plan to meet with Yasser Arafat as a start, and possibly with their counterparts from other nations in the region. If the two foreign ministers meet with Mr. Arafat, they will ask him to participate in a meeting such as the one proposed by Mr. Powell last week. Unlike Mr. Powell's approach, it would place Turkey and Greece "one Islamic nation and one Christian nation " in the place of the honest broker that America cannot now occupy. Turkey and Greece may be able to accomplish what Ariel Sharon and Colin Powell failed to do to make all the Middle Eastern Arab nations responsible for making and enforcing peace. If Turkey and Greece can maneuver the Arab nations into a position of responsibility for peace, there can be real progress toward it. To succeed, Turkey and Greece will have to convince the Arab states to use Mr. Arafat for a different purpose than before. He always has been a pawn, and his terrorism makes it impossible for him to be party to the end game. But the Arab nations can include the Palestinians in an agreement between them and Israel that would both recognize Israel and guarantee its right to exist, as well as establish a Palestinian state. Every serious player will sacrifice a pawn to win the game. Jed Babbin was a deputy undersecretary of defense in the first Bush administration. From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Tue May 7 00:42:02 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] US imperialism: Iraq Message-ID: Innocents who are victims of the 'immoral' sanctions CATHERINE MacLEOD The Herald, 7 May 2002 THE professor of linguistics at Basra University was desperate. "What could we do?" he asked in perfect English learned without leaving Iraq. His 11-year-old daughter had severe epilepsy and was dying. He knew the expertise to deal with her illness was available abroad, but because of economic sanctions, he said, the appropriate treatment was impossible. Kadhim Al-Ali, our delegation's official translator in Basra, was speaking during a tour of the Saddam teaching hospital where the authorities allow visitors to see the impact of economic sanctions and alleged victims of military aggression. The professor's sadness was tinged with anger at the iniquity of a system that was condemning his daughter to a premature death. The three senior doctors we spoke to throughout our visit to the teaching hospital and the children's hospital in Basra insisted that depleted uranium was the cause of the increased incidence of patients with cancer and leukaemia. Their professional integrity was offended because they knew they were doing less for their patients than they could with the appropriate equipment and medical supplies. Whether the Iraqi government could do more to help patients is now academic. Everybody mentions the draconian sanctions and the lack of medicine, from Tariq Aziz, the deputy prime minister, to street traders in Baghdad and Basra. One doctor said: "All our people know the situation and know the truth. They know the shortage of drugs is about sanctions. They know the truth, they really know the truth." Svend Robinson, a Canadian MP opposed to the sanctions, certainly believes the US and Britain have lost the propaganda battle. Speaking to The Herald yesterday, he ridiculed suggestions that sanctions may be working. "They are absolutely not, you just have to look at the reality of it. Saddam has certainly not been weakened, and over 500,000 children, according to Unicef figures, have died as a direct result of the sanctions. That is profound immorality," he said. On new sanctions likely to be endorsed by the UN, Mr Robinson added: "They are idiotic. In real terms, they won't improve the lives of the ordinary Iraqi. The only smart move would be removal of economic sanctions." Iraqis also agree privately that, as long as sanctions remain, any focus of discontent will be targeted on the international community rather than domestic politicians. The Iraqis boast they are a proud people and will not be sanctioned into submission. Hussein Hassan, a poet and journalist, said: "A US general threatened to bomb North Vietnam back to the stone age ... A US secretary of state said the same thing about Iraq 12 years ago. We are still here." Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Tue May 7 00:43:02 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] Afghanistan: the blowback continues Message-ID: America set its sights on the 'crescent of concern' IAN BRUCE The Herald, 7 May 2002 THE US intends to mount a series of continuous counter-insurgency operations along "the crescent of concern", a huge swathe of mountainous terrain running from west of Kandahar to just south of Kabul, the Afghan capital, until snow closes the high passes into Pakistan later this year. The strategy is aimed at mopping up remaining pockets of al Qaeda and Taliban fighters or at least denying them sanctuary and bases for a guerrilla campaign against coalition peacekeepers. Western troops will, however, remain until the nucleus of an Afghan government army can be trained and the bulk of American and British conventional units, such as Britain's Royal Marines and the US 101st airborne division, are withdrawn. In the meantime, the new game plan will rely heavily on American, British, Australian and Scandinavian special forces working as spotters for quick reaction teams which can be helicoptered into ambush positions, rather than pinpoint bombing and unreliable proxy troops drawn from the private armies of local warlords. Despite the current commitment of more than 1000 marines and several hundred Canadian light infantry to clearance sweeps through suspected terrorist strongholds, the Pentagon thinks set-piece battles among the crags of the Hindu Kush are already a thing of the past. Future clashes are more likely to be between small groups of lightly-armed mujahideen and the patrols hunting them in classic counter-terrorist style. Verifiable intelligence on the movement of dispersed enemy forces is seen as the key to success. The Pentagon has promised to keep a limited number of troops in the country until the Afghans can assume responsibility for their own security, but the overriding imperative is to pull vulnerable forces tied down in static positions around Kandahar and Kabul out, before the bodybag count dampens public enthusiasm for the war against terrorism. A spokesman said yesterday: "The goal is to apply unrelenting pressure ... But we have no plans to simply withdraw and leave a vacuum which might be filled by returning terrorists or neighbouring countries with their own agendas." The eight USAF B-1 bombers which have been based in Oman since early in the campaign have been withdrawn to their home base in Texas, and only one of the original three carrier battlegroups patrolling the Indian Ocean and providing additional strike capabilities is still in position. Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Tue May 7 00:43:06 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] US imperialism: star wars Message-ID: Bid for satellite system upgrade IAN BRUCE The Herald, 7 May 2002 THE Pentagon has asked for ?140m to boost the power of its global positioning system satellites to make them invulnerable to jamming and minimise the risk of "a Pearl Harbour from space". The cash would make a new generation of satellites, used to guide everything from ships and aircraft to smart bombs, eight times more powerful than the existing network and capable of burning through any known electronic blocking signals. The hand-held GPS sets used increasingly by civilians for navigation on roads or hillwalking would not be affected by the enhanced satellite emissions, which would be transmitted on channels used exclusively by the military. If funding is granted, the US would be able to disrupt enemy positioning systems without affecting its own ability to drop bombs with pinpoint accuracy. A government commission set up to assess security for space-based GPS and surveillance satellites concluded last month that the US was doing little to protect its assets, making the country "an attractive candidate for a new Pearl Harbour from space". Since Donald Rumsfeld became US secretary of defence, he has begun reorganising the military space command on which American forces have become increasingly reliant for everything from communications to intelligence-gathering. The existing GPS network works by triangulating signals from several satellites to compute the user's location to within 10ft or less. Jamming the signals is, however, relatively easy. A US transportation department report last year said effective jammers could be built for less than ?700. Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Tue May 7 00:47:02 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] UK eurozone membership Message-ID: Britain will join the euro in two years, says minister By Paul Waugh and Stephen Castle The Independent, 07 May 2002 A trade and industry minister and close ally of the Chancellor swept aside Government caution over the euro yesterday by predicting that Britain would join within two years. Nigel Griffiths, the Small Business Minister, went further in public than any other minister when he gave an upbeat assessment of the chances and timing of British membership of the single currency. "I think we will be in [the euro] within two years if things go as they are and we meet our economic tests and my hunch is we will," Mr Griffiths said. His remarks represent a clear break with the caution repeatedly expressed by both Downing Street and the Treasury over the issue and will trigger fresh speculation about Gordon Brown's own views. The Government's carefully worked compromise policy insists that Britain is, in principle, in favour of euro membership but, in practice, waiting for the right economic conditions. Peter Hain, the minister for Europe, has in the past referred to euro membership as "inevitable" but he refrained from putting a precise date on British entry to the euro. Mr Hain, who delivered another strongly pro-EU speech last night, has only ever commented on the possible timing of a referendum, pointing out it could be as early as autumn. The only firm commitment made by Tony Blair is that there will be an assessment before June 2003 to determine whether the five economic tests for entry have been met. Mr Griffiths, who has been a friend of Mr Brown for years and once worked for him as a researcher, said the cost of a changeover would be "minimal for the majority of businesses. "Any business that I visit tends to be neutral, relaxed about it and otherwise fairly enthusiastic. We will learn from the lessons of France, Portugal and the other countries who have bought into the euro," he said yesterday Although not a Treasury minister, Mr Griffiths liaises with firms in Britain and his remarks will surprise many who believe a changeover could be difficult. Simon Buckby, the campaign director of Britain In Europe, said Mr Griffiths' comments were proof of the growing pressure from businesses to enter the euro. He said: "They are paying a rising price for our isolation from the euro and now want action from the Government. A referendum now seems more likely than not and sooner rather than later." The Treasury said yesterday that, although the preliminary technical work on euro entry was under way, the assessment itself had not yet started. However, unlike previous Treasury reactions to Mr Hain's comments, officials did not criticise Mr Griffiths and pointed out that he was simply outlining one scenario. Michael Howard, the shadow Chancellor, said last night that Mr Griffiths' remarks underlined the confusion at the heart of the Government's position. He said: "The Government should stop playing games over the euro. If they want to go in, they should get on with it. If they don't, they should stop talking and concentrate on dealing with the crisis within our public services." In a speech at Chatham House in London today, Mr Hain will outline the benefits Britain derives from its membership of the EU, in terms of travel rights, economic and trading benefits, the environment and foreign and defence policy. He is also expected to claim that large elements within the Conservative Party are eager to pull Britain out of the EU Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Tue May 7 00:48:02 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:44 2006 Subject: [A-List] Third Way RIP? Message-ID: Extremists across Europe capitalise on disillusionment with 'Third Way' By Paul Waugh and Mary Dejevsky The Independent, 07 May 2002 Extreme, sometimes flamboyant but always populist, the extreme right's electoral successes have jolted their mainstream rivals across Europe. Pim Fortuyn's sharp rise in support in the Netherlands was just the latest sign of a wider resurgence of these parties from Copenhagen to Vienna. Jean-Marie Le Pen's National Front has received most attention recently but Mr Fortuyn and similar figures have emerged in Italy, Austria, Germany, Belgium, Denmark and Switzerland. Although varied, they all sought to upset the consensus between social democrats and Christian democrats that has dominated European politics since the war. Capitalising on voter apathy and boredom with the status quo, far-right parties offer simple solutions to complex problems such as globalisation, sovereignty in the EU, mass migration and rising crime. A rash of elections across Europe in the coming year will give them a chance to entrench themselves further in those countries where proportional representation gives minority parties huge leverage. The Netherlands and Ireland go to the polls this month; French parliamentary elections begin next month, followed by elections in Sweden and Germany in September. In 1998, the centre-left, with its "Third Way", held power in 13 EU countries but now the pendulum is swinging back. Denmark, Italy, Austria, Belgium and Portugal all now have right-wing governments. J?rg Haider's Freedom Party had six cabinet posts in a coalition with Austria's conservative party. Although Mr Haider fell out of the limelight, he is quietly preparing a bid for the Austrian chancellery. In Italy, Umberto Bossi's Northern League and Gianfranco Fini's Alleanza Nazionale both hold senior posts in Silvio Berlusconi's cabinet. In Switzerland, the People's Party won 23 per cent of the vote last September. In Denmark, Pia Kjaersgaard's Danish People's Party almost doubled its parliamentary seats and won 12 per cent of the vote in last November's general election. The hardline Progress Party, which wants to cap immigration at 1,000 people a year, has held the balance of power in Norway since last October. In Belgium, the Vlaams Blok party, which backs repatriation of non-Europeans, won 9.9 per cent in 1999 and became the largest political force in Antwerp in 2000. In Germany, the Law and Order Offensive party, which backs forcible deportation and chemical castration for criminals, won 19 per cent of the vote in Hamburg last September. Its leader, Ronald Schill, is the city's interior minister. However, Germany has still not seen a real breakthrough for the extreme right. Mr Schill, known as "Judge Merciless", won only 4 per cent in April's Saxony-Anhalt elections. Similarly, Mr Le Pen's closest ally in Germany, Franz Sch?nhuber, a former SS soldier and leader of the Republican Party, has attracted negligible support in recent years. Although the National Front received less than 18 per cent of the nationwide vote in France on Sunday, its support remains solid in the south, east and parts of the north. In these areas, the extreme right's vote reached 40 per cent in places. Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Tue May 7 00:57:02 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:45 2006 Subject: [A-List] Germany: IG Metall strike Message-ID: The looming presence of the European Central Bank in all this suggests that one outcome of this particular struggle will be an ever more determined German government seeking to reconfigure eurozone monetary policy and scrap the stability and growth pact which has seen Germany already admonished for risking a "too large" fiscal deficit. Should IG Metall win, this will prompt the ECB to raise interest rates thus choking off any "recovery" that is supposedly so essential to global economic health and the performance of the Euro on the forex markets. However, as much as Schroeder might wish to clamp down on militant labour, his electoral performance significantly depends on its support. Interesting times. Car strikes spell trouble for Schroder By Matthew Beard The Independent, 07 May 2002 Germany's economy was dealt a severe blow yesterday when more than 50,000 engineering workers downed tools in the country's biggest strike for seven years. Pickets formed outside the factory gates of flag-carriers of German industry including DaimlerChrysler, Audi and Porsche in a pay dispute that will worry the embattled Chancellor, Gerhard Schr?der, particularly in this election year. The dispute, which started at the weekend at 20 factories in the industrial heartland of Baden-W?rttemberg, is expected to spread across the country in the next few weeks. Germany's largest industrial union, IG Metall, is seeking a 6.5 per cent pay increase for its 2.8 million members. Economists have warned that the series of one-day strikes will quickly reduce production and create inflationary pressure. A resolution to the dispute will test the traditionally warm relations between Mr Schr?der's Social Democrats and the union, whose charismatic leader, Klaus Zwickel, has extra leverage because the general election is only four months away. Mr Schr?der's main challenger, Edmund Stoiber of the Christian Social Union, has benefited in the polls from a weakening domestic economy. Four million people are unemployed and the economy is forecast to grow by less than 1 per cent this year - the lowest rate of economic growth in any European Union country. The one-day strikes began at the DaimlerChrysler plant in Sindelfingen, near Stuttgart, when 2,000 workers responded to calls to boycott Sunday's night shift and a picket line formed outside the factory, where 25,000 workers make luxury Mercedes-Benz models. Yesterday, the Porsche plant in the Stuttgart suburb of Zuffenhausen was picketed by more than 5,000 workers waving red-and-yellow IG Metall flags reading "Fair pay for good work", in the first strike at the sports car maker since 1984. The union said the workers deserved a pay rise considerably higher than inflation because a deal made two years ago had been made ineffective by price rises. Campaigning under the banner "Full Coffers - Empty Pockets", the union claims boardroom salaries have risen across the country by 64 per cent in the same period. Analysts said the Mercedes-Benz and Porsche plants involved were turning out vehicles with high profit margins as fast as they could, and that any stoppage would immediately put pressure on these companies to seek a deal. Workers are expected to strike at about 70 plants in Baden-W?rttemberg this week and are likely to be followed next week by union workers in Berlin and the surrounding eastern state of Brandenburg. In addition to its 2.8 million members, IG Metall has 800,000 engineering workers who would benefit from any deal it secures. Germany's last big strike was in 1995, when IG Metall workers in the southern state of Bavaria refused to work, eventually securing a 4 per cent pay rise for two years. Chancellor Schr?der appealed to the unions to resume talks. He told the Leipziger Volkszeitung newspaper: "I hope they can return to the negotiating table quickly and reach a result there that is reasonable for the economy but takes into consideration the expectations of the employees, who have a stake in the overall economy." But Mr Zwickel pressed home the union's demands. He told Porsche workers: "We're not striking against Schr?der or against anybody else, but to get a fair result and we'll keep it going as long as we need." Uwe Huck, the head of the works council at the Porsche plant, said: "We're very proud that we've scored three record years, one after another, but we are very angry only one side has benefited. I'd like somebody to explain how it can be that there's no money there." Ottmar Zwiebelhofer, the chief negotiator for engineering employers in the south-western region, said a 3.3 per cent pay offer would not be increased. Analysts say a deal of significantly more than 3.5 per cent in the engineering sector would ring alarm bells at the European Central Bank, which has repeatedly singled out wages as a risk to growth and stability. Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From mstainsby at tao.ca Tue May 7 00:58:02 2002 From: mstainsby at tao.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:45 2006 Subject: [A-List] Anti-war/anti-guerre conference in Montreal Message-ID: <003b01c1f51e$12bbb500$291f5318@vc.shawcable.net> This is both a last announcement and a call out for any who are already going to the Montreal conference of May 9-12 in Concordia and McGill Universities. The website and schedule for the conference are available on the internet at: http://www.awag2002.com http://www.awag2002.com/schedule_e.html Names that may be familiar to people include Michel Chussodovsky and Jaggi Singh among many different panels and discussions. The final note is that as I will be heading out on Wed, any who might like to meet up in Montreal to shake hands or something of the sort please drop a mail immediately! Hope to see you all in Quebec. ------------------------------------------- Macdonald Stainsby http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international "Simply BEING a Palestinian in what used to be Palestine is a form of suicide...slower and more painful than using a bomb to blow up yourself [...]." - American Jew writing to others, email correspondence. ---- In the contradiction lies the hope. --Bertholt Brecht From mstainsby at tao.ca Tue May 7 00:58:06 2002 From: mstainsby at tao.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:45 2006 Subject: [A-List] Let Us Bury the Notion of a Shallow Movement Once and For All Message-ID: <00d501c1f577$6e04b480$291f5318@vc.shawcable.net> Let Us Bury the Notion of a Shallow Movement Once and For All Macdonald Stainsby, May 6, 2002. For much of the last nine months, a subliminal surrender had been nagging at me. Perhaps "surrender" is a strong word, but the world situation had clearly advanced to a new level that had not been seen before for this generation of activists. The rapidity with which "the movement" called so often "anti-globalisation" had advanced in terms of both an analysis and creating alternatives had been very exciting- but the entire political spectrum got moved ahead 5 or 10 years by the events of September 11 in New York. Like many other people, when events in October and November indicated that the anti-globalisation movement was going to "push on through"- sticking to the events where our supra-state global dictators met to denounce them in very contemporary terms-- I considered this great, fertile ground, but that the setback was still immense. However, the great lesson of 9-11 is perhaps just how quickly things do indeed change. Let us look at our new crop of activists now. The movement had been beset by several very basic criticisms for several months prior to the WTC attack. The most common, even when extended with the best of intentions, would be that the demonstrators lived in what Billy Bragg called the "North Sea Bubble". The activists were overwhelmingly from the privileged part of the world, they spoke of how the state itself was vanishing, the analysis was far superior to none- yet was still bound up in reformism and saw different policies of "their" governments as the issue- rather than the system itself that spawned these policies. There was a very superficial understanding of an ultimately systemic crisis. The movement was filled with thousands of people at a demonstration- overwhelmingly pushing "their" issues- to the other demonstrators who then handed them a different flyer in return. A flea market of slogans against a smorgasbord of problems- pinned on the "New World Order". While intoxicatingly exciting and new, the feel was still that of a carnival. When the innocence of the movement was lost in the smoldering of the WTC, the bubble was burst. Something wonderful happened. The events in Argentina showed us the way forward, and the collapse of Enron told us why to do it. The anti-globalisation movement (outside of the Trade Union Bureaucracies and the meeker NGO's) produced 20 000 people in the streets of New York against the World Economic Forum at the beginning of February- and produced a slogan: "They are all Enron, we are all Argentina". Okay, so the movement wrote a catchy slogan, but that hardly indicates a watershed change in world view. Or was it simply a beginning? The Argentine masses produced the first Ten Days of World Shaking in the new Millenium- and were doing so to stop the IMF. As opposed to before the 9-11 attacks when our Papa New Guinean brothers and sisters were mowed down by gunfire opposing the IMF dictates with only marginal attention paid to it by First World activists, Argentina became an instant focal point. Even in America- only blocks from Ground Zero-- the global connections were being made. Yet it was still rhetoric, and the bombs dropping on Kabul and Kandahar- ultimately to install a McDonalds next to every Mosque and to take women out from under the veil and throw them under the roofs of sweatshops-- didn't produce a massive anti-war movement drawn from the ranks of the new movement. However, time is now going through Great Leap Forwards of 20 years in a single day. So is a crystallizing of analysis. This has to be the most dangerous era for humanity since the 30's- in fact, with the impossibility of mounting a military defence against the Empire in the fashion that was done against the Third Reich, it is quite possibly the most dangerous era the planet has known. The reason the threat is so stark is the complete global reach of the Empire- a first for humanity-- as it has launched a declaredly permanent war against the aspirations of people everywhere. There are new laws that are being used to try and squash the anti-globalisation movement throughout the First World-- "security" measures all. The media has what is now obviously a clear policy of omission so far as any new manifestations are concerned. The "carnival like settings" -including the "Black Bloc" and similar tactics-- have been all but eliminated and the dreamers have been forced onto the defensive in a fashion not particularly suited to the movement. Or is it? The single greatest demonstration in size "so far" against one of the acronyms of death- in this case, it was the EU-- happened on March 16, 2002 in Barcelona. Several things already are observable by this fact. First off, the corporate media are trying to ignore and belittle the movement into insignificance now that it is clear that neither the mocking and ridicule before 9-11 nor the McCarthyism post is destroying what is a very sincere, deep consciousness swing. That not even mass arrests and black-masked brick-tossing amid tear gas could receive any real press coverage is a declaration of intent to obfuscate the existence of alternative visions of how the world ought to be run. Because TINA is dead now in the real world, TINA is promulgated through distortion far more than ever before. The other news is really two points in one- that some NGO's, TUB's and other social-democratic oriented groups have re-emerged from their shells- and that this re-emergence is a direct reflection of the clear depth, pragmatism, flexibility and sincerity of the young movement. Groups and individuals that wilted under the pressures of the McCarthyist scares of the post 9-11 days have returned thanks to the perpetual motion of the movements' more dedicated and confrontational wing. We are witnessing the continued growth of a movement that wants to target the institutions of the late imperialist era -- institutions that can no more be reformed than Jean-Marie Le Pen's National Front can be multicultural and pluralistic. This growth is not only cause for great hope- it is unprecedented in implication. There has not been a movement that emerged from the heartland of imperialism in such unity of action. The police in Barcelona put the number of demonstrators in Barcelona at 250 000. Other figures doubled that. On every level, the needs of the day are being met. But this isn't the half of it. There IS an alternative, and it is us. The IMF, the World Bank, the WTO- even the EU and the G8 are all institutions that are created to help better manage late imperialism and to try and put a logo on the world so that they might obscure the flags. Of course then, the criticism of the movement that has had the most veracity would clearly be that the analysis was incomplete, shallow; that when people talked about a corporate takeover it was often imagined that this system could be saved and "fixed". If there was not seen to be a systemic problem but rather one of policy, then it was equally impossible for the new movement to make the clear connections between the worsening condition of the First World with the continued immiseration and indeed the military suppression of the so-called Third World. This does not mean that the activists and the voice of the movement were in favor of war, but that the direct (and inter-woven) links between the existence of the imperialist superstructure, colonial wars and the worst aspects of the so-called globalisation era were not understood clearly. While there is much progress still to be made (indeed, the anti-war movement, particularly around the question of the war on the people of Afghanistan, has all-but wilted away in the last few months) there is recently the development of understanding the need to make a front and centre issue of the plight of the Palestinian people and their struggle against Apartheid. Approximately 100 000 protesters converged on Washington DC April 20th combining a message of anti-imperialism in the economic form: anti-IMF and World Bank with imperialism in the colonial-settler form: The Israeli military occupation and national suppression of Palestine. The links being made between the larger issues is an inroad for this movement which single-handedly strengthens the movement in a very clear fashion. It is a major hope, as it is the most important step to be taken in a major analysis. Yet there has been an even more startling and inspirational action taken by the people who associate themselves with the "anti-globalisation" movement in general terms- the putting of their own bodies in between the Israeli Defence Forces and Palestinian civilians in places such as Ramallah and Beit Jala (see "further reading" at the end). The IDF has opened fire on our movement, which has moved the analysis from "the whole world is watching" tear-gas-float-through-the-air in Seattle, to the great maxim of Che Guevara: "Solidarity means sharing the same risks". That people from relatively peaceful (though not just) locales in the First World would converge to stop the Israeli genocide of the Palestinians in a dedication reminiscent of the Spanish Civil War volunteers, but with the tactics and spirit of the modern day activists and their Ruckus Society training, that all this happens right now gives me a personal feeling of deep pride to be associated with these colleagues of my generation that I have a very difficult time expressing. In actions like these, one can see the true growth of this political consciousness and a maturing of world view that can only bring further results. It also allows the inactive first world left to redeem itself and start- although it is more than a long way yet to finish-- to truly take their proper place on the stage of world history. As the War on Terror continues through the Axis of Evil of 1) the Israeli occupation, 2) the War on Terror and 3) the IMF (et al), the newer Axis of Hope builds around three basics: Analysis + Action = Internationalism. That the only solution ultimately is the undoing of the entire imperialist system should give an indication of just how important it remains for the current movement to nurture and promote this internationalist understanding and this supra-national level of solidarity. We have much to address as the Empire continues to work towards yet another war on the people of Iraq, while plodding on dismantling all the global institutions which might hinder their progress, be it economically, politically or judicially. The war on Iraq is planned for the temporary health of their sick and dying imperialist addiction to oil- and the defence of the people of Iraq is coming from the brave resistance of Palestine- who make it impossible for the Empire to shore up support for another war on Iraq, while Israel constantly flouts the United Nations. The coming environmental catastrophe is also going to move along the train of history as it draws ever nearer under an irreformably anti-green economic system- but we can start to really believe to ourselves that the train will not run us down, but indeed be met at every junction, stop and station along the way. The time is now to start to build an anti-war movement, but one of the main reasons for the lack of success in sustaining an anti-war movement in the same fashion that "anti-globalisation" has sustained itself has been our willingness to hedge on what we truly want: Not an end to this war, but an end to war. Not only an end to racist attacks on Muslims, but an end to a global order that thrives on racism and patriarchy. In short, the anti-war movement was a reaction to the threat to obliterate the planet, but didn't create an alternate vision- but creativity and a real vision have been among the greatest single tactics and strategies employed by the anti-globalisation movement, in all countries of the world that have seen the demonstrations and the advent of "People's Summits". As of writing this, a four day conference in Montreal, Canada will take place to give a platform for a possible launch of a North American anti-war movement. We must be honest: We want nothing less than that the imperialist world system step off the stage of history. Why? Because we simply must be reasonable. We have recently seen the defeat of the advances of the Empire in Venezuela and we have ourselves made massive advances in the streets of Barcelona. Some day soon we shall win in Palestine as well. An unanswered question remains in North America, more specifically in Kananaskis Alberta, Canada at the upcoming G8 summit, June 26th and 27th this summer. What will be the reaction of the North American people and supporters in Alberta? What co-operation among groups ("official" and otherwise) will reign? Will there be the same division into "good" and "bad" protesters, promoted as such by the "repectable" labour lieutenants of capital in the Trade Union Bureaucracies? If so, how will the more radical organizers respond? Will the movement continue to mature its understanding in the Rockies? Everyone who wants to hope for the future and fight for a better world should try to organize around this issue, all the while deepening the consciousness of the links- avoiding tokenism and making the real links, on the international level- the only place it will ultimately have an impact. Then, we must take that back home where we are fighting the local battles with a richer understanding. In taking the experience of the "big" demonstrations back to the "small" organizing, we take the world home. Ultimately, that must be the goal. You don't "make" a revolution, you build it. As brilliant young songwriter David Rovics wrote: "we don't want your big machines, we just want the world". It is ours to win, most assuredly. Save the earth? Take it. Further reading: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jun2001/png-j29.shtml http://www.monbiot.com/dsp_article.cfm?article_id=503 http://www.palsolidarity.org/ http://g8.activist.ca http://awag2002.com http://www.iacenter.org/usplan.htm http://members.aol.com/drovics/home.htm ------------------------------------------- Macdonald Stainsby http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international ---- In the contradiction lies the hope. --Bertholt Brecht From soncu at pacbell.net Tue May 7 01:46:02 2002 From: soncu at pacbell.net (Sabri Oncu) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:45 2006 Subject: [A-List] Reduced volatility is not good for all Message-ID: I wonder if this has any implications for the recently growing "hedge fund" industry? High wealth individuals seem not to have many alternatives left so they started pouring their money into hedge funds. By the way, a large number of US hedge funds established strategies based on going long (buying) convertible bonds and going short (borrowing and then selling) the stocks into which these bonds are convertible, and I heard some troubles there too. Does anyone know how our lovely hedge funds, especially the ones using convertible bond strategies, are doing in these days? If you try to read the article below and don't understand the heavy jargon, don't worry. I happen to know a few "experts" who don't have any clue about any of these although there are quite good at using the jargon. It is all part of the theatre to impress outsiders (as well as insiders, of course). Why do you think almost everybody in Wall Street is a Vice President? Best, Sabri +++++++++++++++++ Options Traders Facing Tough Times As Volatility Wanes Location: Chicago Author: Tim Jones, RiskCenter Correspondent Date: Tuesday, May 7, 2002 A passion for risk, a partner with deep pockets and the entrepreneurial spirit were once enough in the equity options business for a small independent trader to make quite a decent living. But those days may be over for options traders, who thrive on high volatility from stormy stock markets. Volatility has waned over the past year as the stock market has remained depressed. Along with that, the prices of options -- which give investors the right to buy or sell stocks at specified prices within a limited time period -- have come down. Increased competition from the multiple listings of options on different exchanges, the growth of electronic trade and the high costs of floor trading have driven a growing number of options specialist firms to band together or merge with bigger, more capitalized houses to stay afloat. While consolidation has been underway for two years, it is still very much on the front burner. The issue is expected to be one of the main issues at the two-day annual Options Industry Conference in Palm Springs, California, starting Friday, May 3. "This consolidation is driven by economies of scale," Alex Jacobson, vice president of business development at the all-electronic International Securities Exchange said, adding it was now limited by the small number of remaining firms. Huge financial institutions like Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Toronto-Dominion Bank and Knight Trading Group Inc., the top dealer of Nasdaq stocks, have snapped up a number of options trading firms. The trend has expanded the trading arms of these firms, which had previously provided orders to brokers, but now offer full service in the options business. "At one time, some of these firms wore one hat," said Jack Kennedy, executive director of the DPM Association of Chicago, which represents 75 percent of the designated primary market makers on the Chicago Board Options Exchange. "They predominantly were either a bank, an order flow provider or a liquidity provider. Now they may be wearing all three hats." In March, Goldman Sachs acquired the options firm TFM Investment Group, boosting the trading operations it already acquired in its earlier acquisitions of Spear, Leeds and Kellogg and electronic market maker Hull Group. Toronto-Dominion Bank made a strong push last year when it bought two U.S. options businesses, Stafford Trading Inc. and LETCO, in a deal worth about $430 million. These firms have a major presence on the U.S. options exchanges and make markets in high-profile technology companies like Cisco Systems Inc., International Business Machines Corp. and Dell Computer Corp. . . . Fueled by these deals, buyout speculation surrounds options specialist firm Botta Capital Management LLC, which recently sold to larger firm?s parts of its business on the CBOE, the Pacific Exchange and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange. "There are people who have talked to us about all sorts of business combinations," Botta Vice President John Power said when asked to comment on talk that the firm was up for sale. Privately held Susquehanna International Group LLP has agreed to buy 67 "books," or stock options classes, from Botta on the CBOE, pending approval by the exchange, Power said. The landscape of the options business changed in 1999 when U.S. exchanges abandoned the informal practice of listing certain options exclusively on one exchange. That shift opened the doors for the multiple listing of options among all the exchanges and increased competition. But the change also led to the practice of payment for order flow, whereby some specialist firms in stock and options markets pay retail brokerages to send order flow to them. "The rapid expansion of multiple listing of equity options meant lower costs for the customer, but more competitive options pricing among specialists and market makers," the DPM Association's Kennedy said. Since it was launched two years ago, the all-electronic ISE has captured a significant slice of equity options volume as other exchanges lost share. The ISE has grabbed 17.8 percent of the market so far this year. CBOE's market share has declined to 31.3 percent this year from 35.2 percent in 2001 and 41.5 percent in 2000, according to the Options Clearing Corp., which clears all trades for the five U.S. options exchanges. Volatility, a key component of options pricing, has languished in recent months. The CBOE's Market Volatility Index, a yardstick of investor fear, has been trading in a narrow range since last November, said Michael Schwartz, chief options strategist at CIBC Oppenheimer. "The VIX has been languishing most of the time at the 20 to 23 number, implying that the public is not fearful and therefore not buying options," Schwartz said. The reduced volatility is not good for traders. Not only do they have to assume more risk to reap the same profits they enjoyed during the stock market's boom years of the 1990s, but they also face a new profit squeeze. Traders are coping with shrinking profit margins, rising overhead costs and the need to spend more capital in technology to keep and attract order flow. Revenues are hurting because of narrower spreads -- the difference between what a buyer and seller are asking for an option. "We take more risk now to make the same dollar," said Monte Henige, president of O'Connor Specialists LLC, a Chicago-based options specialist firm. "We have to trade in a larger size and put on bigger positions for the same profit. This larger size means more risk for us, the liquidity provider." O'Connor Specialists LLC was formed two years ago when a group of independent options specialists and their clearing firm, O'Connor & Co., teamed up to boost their order flow to the CBOE, the world's largest options exchange. "Our revenues have decreased because the spreads have tightened," Henige said. "Our costs have increased because of the big money we have had to put in technology and the money that we have had to pay for order flow. So we have had pressure both on our top line and our expenses. That has prompted many firms to find strategic partners or band together." Full at: http://www.riskcenter.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?id=4808 From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Tue May 7 02:05:02 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:45 2006 Subject: [A-List] Limited liability and humanitarian intervention Message-ID: Why Milosevic, but not Kissinger? If Slobodan Milosevic can be put on trial for war crimes, why can't Henry Kissinger, asks human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell Peter Tatchell Guardian Unlimited Thursday April 25, 2002 I lost my bid to have the former US secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, prosecuted on charges of war crimes in Indochina, but there is good reason to hope that a future, better prepared attempt might succeed. Refusing my application for an arrest warrant at Bow Street magistrates' court, Judge Nicholas Evans said he was not "presently" able to draft a "suitably precise charge" based on the evidence "of generalised allegations" that I had submitted. Judge Evans doubted whether I could produce more specific, admissible evidence. But his comments leave open the possibility that he might issue a warrant in the future - if I can produce stronger evidence of Kissinger's culpability in the killing, maiming, torture and forced relocation of civilian populations in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the late 60s and early 70s. It is now my intention to liaise with human rights lawyers and organisations in the United States, in order to obtain further evidence and witnesses. If I can get these, I hope to come back to court in a few months time and make a new application for Kissinger's arrest. I brought this case because the director of public prosecutions, David Calvert-Smith, has refused to prosecute Kissinger. If I went out and murdered my neighbour, the DPP would use all his resources to bring me to trial. Yet Henry Kissinger organised indiscriminate B-52 bombing raids that killed hundreds of thousands of people and Mr Calvert-Smith does nothing. I believe that these are comparable crimes. As national security advisor to President Nixon from 1969-73, and later as US secretary of state from 1973-77, Henry Kissinger was the chief architect of US war policy in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. In his own memoirs, White House Years, he boasts of his huge power and influence over the President, claiming that nothing happened in Indochina that he did not know about and authorise. According to the US Senate sub-committee on refugees, from March 1968 to March 1972, in excess of three million civilians were killed, wounded or made homeless. During this same period, most of which coincides with Kissinger's role as NSA to the President, the US dropped nearly 4.5m tonnes of high explosive on Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia - more than double the tonnage dropped during the whole of the second world war. What the US did in Indochina involved the mass killing of civilians and the premeditated, wholesale destruction of the environment using chemical defoliants such as Agent Orange. These are war crimes under the 1957 Geneva Conventions Act. I am merely seeking to have the law enforced, without fear or favour. No one should be above the law, not even Henry Kissinger. He may have escaped arrest this time, but my bid to have him prosecuted continues. Three million civilians are crying out for justice. Even Judge Evans, in his verdict, acknowledged the seriousness of my case: "Mr Tatchell has made his application courteously and with obvious sincerity. I do not doubt the strength of feeling in him and many others that justice requires that Mr Kissinger should face the allegations made against him in a court of law", he concluded. Much of the damning evidence against Kissinger is set out in the book, The Trial of Henry Kissinger, by Christopher Hitchens (Verso, London, 2001). Hitchens demonstrates that Kissinger proposed, authorised, supervised and monitored the key elements of US war policy in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, and was involved in day to day war management, including planning and approving major military operations. He also cites sources indicating that Kissinger approved bombing runs that were not limited to military targets and were likely to result in widespread civilian casualties. Kissinger was a senior party - second only to the president - to the secret, illegal invasion and bombing of two neutral countries, Laos and Cambodia, without a declaration war or any warning to the civilian population. In his biographical account, White House Years, Kissinger admits that on Air Force One on February 24 1969, together with HR Halerman, Alexander Haig and Colonel Ray Smitton, he conspired to work out "the guidelines for the [secret and illegal] bombing of the enemy's sanctuaries" in Cambodia and Laos. US General Telford Taylor, the former chief prosecuting counsel at the Nuremberg trials, condemned the Kissinger-Nixon policy of air strikes against hamlets suspected of harbouring Vietnamese guerrillas as "flagrant violations of the Geneva convention on civilian protection". The following examples, documented by Christopher Hitchens, are evidence of indiscriminate US attacks overseen by Kissinger which caused mass civilian casualties: Writing in Newsweek on June 19 1972, Kevin Buckley revealed that one US official admitted that "as many as 5,000" civilians were killed by US firepower in the military operation Speedy Express in Kien Hoa province in 1969: "The enormous discrepancy between the body count (11,000) and the number of captured weapons (748) is hard to explain - except by the conclusion that many victims were unarmed innocent civilians." In one village alone, an elder recalled: "The Americans destroyed every house with artillery, air strikes or by burning them down with cigarette lighters. "About 100 people were killed by bombing, others were wounded and others became refugees." US raids were mostly conducted by B-52 bombers. They flew at such a high altitude that they could not be seen from the ground, and gave no warning to civilians of their approach. Moreover, they were incapable of accuracy or discrimination in their targeting - on account of both their extreme altitude and the sheer volume of their bomb load. Between March 1969 and May 1970, there were 3,630 such US bombing raids on Cambodia alone. A memorandum by the joint chiefs of staff concerning these raids, forwarded to the defence department and the White House, and almost certainly seen by Kissinger, warned that "some Cambodian casualties would be sustained in the operation" and "the surprise effect of the attack could tend to increase casualties". The memo stated that the target areas were populated, albeit sparsely. Mr Kissinger later told the US Senate foreign relations committee that the targeted areas were "unpopulated". >From July to November 1973, there was a 21% increase in the bombing of Cambodia. Air Force maps of the targeted areas list them as being, or having been, densely populated by civilians. In other words, it was known there was a serious risk that non-combatants would be killed. Freelance investigator Fred Branfman secretly taped US pilots on bombing missions over Cambodia in the early 70s. At no point did any pilots check before or during the raids that they were not bombing civilians. His expos? that no precautions were taken to protect civilians was later written up in the New York Times by Sydney Schanberg; offering compelling evidence of the indiscriminate nature of US aerial attacks. US bombing is calculated to have killed 350,000 civilians in Laos and 600,000 in Cambodia. Several times more civilians were wounded and made refugees. During the first 30 months of the Nixon-Kissinger administration, the US counter-insurgency "Phoenix Programme" was responsible for the murder or abduction of 35,708 Vietnamese civilians. Kissinger's role in formulating and implementing US war policy coincided with the systematic use of chemical defoliants and pesticides, including Agent Orange. These caused birth defects and rendered significant areas of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia too toxic for people to live in or farm - creating an environmental disaster that will continue to affect many generations to come. Intimately involved in military decision making, Kissinger chaired a number of hands-on posts, including the Vietnam special studies group, which supervised the daily conduct of the war. Colonel Ray Smitton, the joint chiefs of staff expert on air tactics, noted that by late 1969 Kissinger was overruling his office on target selection: "Not only was Henry carefully screening the raids, he was reading the raw intelligence". Later, he began to intervene to dictate mission patterns and bombing runs. It is implausible to suggest that Kissinger was unaware of US violations of the Geneva conventions. He planned, sanctioned and monitored many of the operations which resulted in these violations. For all these reasons, and many more, I believe a prosecution is justified and necessary. If Slobodan Milosevic can stand trial for war crimes, why not Henry Kissinger? Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Tue May 7 02:39:02 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:45 2006 Subject: [A-List] US imperialism: sheer utter racism Message-ID: Points of note: 1. The US upbraids other regimes for breaching their obligations under international treaties. 2. The US upbraids other regimes for developing weapons of mass destruction. 3. The US upbraids other regimes for threatening to use weapons of mass destruction. 4. The US upbraids other regimes for "sponsoring" terrorism. US adds Libya, Syria and Cuba to terror list By Richard Wolffe in Washington Financial Times: May 7 2002 The Bush administration on Monday accused Libya, Syria and Cuba of developing chemical and biological weapons and sponsoring international terrorism. The three states form a second series of nations under heightened US scrutiny following President George W. Bush's condemnation of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as "an axis of evil" earlier this year. The accusations against Libya represent a hardening of US policy towards the regime of Muammer Gaddafi, as negotiations continue with Libyan officials over compensation for the families of the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jet over Lockerbie, Scotland. John Bolton, under-secretary of state for arms control, said the three states were breaching their obligations under international treaties by pursuing weapons of mass destruction. In a speech to The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank in Washington, entitled "Beyond the Axis of Evil", Mr Bolton said Libya had improved its access to nuclear technologies since United Nations sanctions were suspended in 1999. He also suggested that Libya was continuing to develop chemical weapons at its Rabta facility, which has already produced at least 100 tonnes of such weapons. "Following the suspension of UN sanctions in April 1999, Libya has re-established contacts with illicit foreign sources of expertise, parts and precursor chemicals in the Middle East, Asia and western Europe," he said. While crediting the Libyan government for voicing interest in joining the chemical weapons convention, Mr Bolton expressed deep scepticism about its commitment to arms control. He said Libya had joined the biological weapons convention in 1982 but continued to seek biological weapons. "Although its programme is in the research and development stage, Libya may be capable of producing small quantities of biological agent," he said. The administration's condemnation of Syria's chemical and biological weapons programmes also comes at a sensitive moment in the Middle East. As the US seeks to broker a ceasefire and long-term political settlement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it has also warned Syria to end its support for anti-Israeli attacks from Lebanon. Syria had a stockpile of the nerve agent sarin and was developing the more deadly agent VX, Mr Bolton said. Syria also had "at least small amounts of biological warfare agents", he said. Mr Bolton accused Cuba of having "at least a limited offensive biological warfare research and development effort" and of aiding other rogue states in pursuing such weapons themselves. His condemnation of Cuba came on the same day as Otto Reich, assistant secretary of state for the western hemisphere, insisted there would be no softening of the US embargo against Fidel Castro's regime. ===== August 3, 2001 BIOLOGICAL WARFARE AGAINST CUBA Bee-eating insect causes losses of two million dollars * Varroasis destroys 16,000 beehives * Cuba seeks to offset damage by producing monofloral and organic honeys which fetch a better price BY RAISA PAGES (Granma International Staff Writer) SINCE 1996, when Varroasis-the name given to the disease caused by an insect which destroys beehives-was detected in western Cuba, Cuban apiculture has recorded losses of $2 million USD between purchasing products to combat the disease and the destruction of 16,000 beehives with the resultant production consequences. The insect is a mite that feeds on the hive breeding areas. It appeared in the western part of the country, leading to the inference that it could well be a result of biological warfare against the island. Experts involved in researching the disease's antecedents in the Americas have explained that if it had spread naturally, its initial attacks would have been reported in the eastern part of the island. Eugenio Omar Ruf?n, the director of national apiculture, noted that varroasis is now prevalent throughout the island. Techniques for combating the problem involve applying Baibarol (a German product which can be used in organic production) and Italian Apilifbar (plant extracts). Another anti-varroasis method is to select those beehives most resistant to the disease in an apiary and destroy the weakest; in genetics this is known as negative selection. The predominating bee in the island's hives is the apimelifera-an Italian/Caucasian hybrid. The native bee-melipona, known as the earth bee-does not produce much honey. With the falling prices of honey on the international market due to overproduction in China, a giant that produces 1.2 billion tons annually, Cuba is seeking higher prices based on quality. Organic and monofloral honies fetch 30% more than the average prices. The Experimental Apiculture Station, located on the capital's outskirts, designed a highly precise flower map indicating the season when honey-bearing plants are in full bloom. Using this map, the so-called beehive migration method, where hives are taken to where specific plants are in maximum bloom, can be successfully applied. In this way monofloral honeys-in worldwide demand for their quality-can be collected. Backyard beekeepers take their hives to large citrus fruit plantations such as the one in Matanzas near Playa Gir?n, where thousands of hectares of orange trees guarantee monofloral honeys. They also move hives to the extensive coastal mangrove area of Ci?naga de Zapata, whose honey is much sought after by Japanese traders. Cuban honeys are highly popular in Canada, and are considered exceptional due to the island's position in the Caribbean and the low toxicity of its products. Anti-varroasis products are not vetoed by organic agricultural experts, given that Baibarol is not harmful. Many European nations-Germany in particular-are interested in Cuban honeys and are blending them with their own products to improve their quality. This year's honey production plan of 8,500 tons will be difficult to reach due to varroasis' harmful impact, but experts estimate that results should come close. For Ruf?n, the only way to compensate for low prices on the international market is to increase the volume of organic and monfloral honeys and promote these valuable products. The Apisun brand markets blends with other by-products such as propolis (a highly powerful bacterial resin with many curative qualities), royal jelly, and pollen. Monthly hard-currency sales of Apisun products reach some $7,000 USD. However, the entry of those products in the international market is very difficult due to competition among well-known companies. Full article at: http://www.granma.cu/ingles/julio5/32api-i.html From soncu at pacbell.net Tue May 7 17:21:02 2002 From: soncu at pacbell.net (Sabri Oncu) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:45 2006 Subject: [A-List] US : irrational exuberance continues Message-ID: >From the article below: "Investors are faithfully following the urgings of financial planners, retirement- savings models and, heck, even journalists: buy solid funds, hold for the long term, be patient, avoid fads." These Romans are crazy. Sabri ++++++++++ Mutual Fund News Tue, 07 May 2002, 7:07am EDT Street Scandals Become Boon, Not Bane, to Mutuals: Chet Currier By Chet Currier New York, May 3 (Bloomberg) -- Chalk up mutual funds as a surprise beneficiary of the Enron-investment banking scandals on Wall Street. You might have expected investors to be dumping stock funds about now, what with the supposed crisis of confidence resulting from the downfall of Enron Corp. and investigations into brokerage firms' stock recommendations. Just the opposite is happening. In the first quarter of 2002, according to the Investment Company Institute, $91 billion poured into long-term stock and bond funds -- $55 billion of it into funds that specialize in stocks alone. That helped push total fund assets above $7 trillion, near record highs despite a two-years- and-counting bear market. March was the best month for stock-fund inflows in almost two years. At money-market funds, which had been flooded with "safe haven" money all last year, the tide turned to a first-quarter outflow of $45 billion. Though stock-fund buying may have cooled in April at some fund groups, others say the money kept coming. "It looks like April is going to be our best equity cash-flow month since 1997," said Steve Norwitz, a spokesman for T. Rowe Price Group Inc., the seventh-largest fund firm with $94 billion in assets according to Financial Research Corp. Flight to Funds The behavior of stock prices doesn't begin to explain this. From New Year's through the end of March, the Standard & Poor's 500 Index eked out a 1.1 percent gain and the Nasdaq Composite Index, still groping for a bottom after a long decline, fell 20 percent. April was a downer for the indexes all around. By all accounts, Enron's collapse and blots on the sincerity of "sell-side" analyst stock ratings are scaring many of us ordinary citizens away from investing in individual stocks. Understandably so. This flight seems not to have sent us out of the market altogether. Instead, it has driven us straight into the arms of funds, with our appreciation newly enhanced for the tender mercies of diversification. If a fund owns a clunker like Enron among 60 or 70 stocks, we reason, that's just 1 percent to 2 percent of our exposure. Plus, funds help screen us from the vagaries of Street research -- most managers always told us they use sell-side research for background at most, not buy or sell recommendations. "People are not only opting for more diversification, they are rediscovering the more conservative types of funds," Norwitz volunteered. Value-Conscious Financial Research Corp.'s numbers back him up. The five best- selling categories of long-term funds during the first quarter were all conservative (that is, NOT growth or aggressive growth) species -- large value, small value, large blend, mid-cap value and domestic "hybrid," or stock-bond mixture. It's hard to find fault with any of this. Investors are faithfully following the urgings of financial planners, retirement- savings models and, heck, even journalists: buy solid funds, hold for the long term, be patient, avoid fads. So why do I feel just a little edgy looking at the fund-flow numbers? Most fund investors are savvy adults, I reminder myself. They have proved time and again to be wiser and more tenacious than usually portrayed by the intelligentsia. I guess what bugs me is the suspicion that because investors' confidence is so steadfast, we may not yet have seen the last of the bear market. In my formative years following the markets in the 1970s, the idea was etched on my brain that market bottoms are periods of near-total demoralization. That's not what we see today. Overconfidence? Similar misgivings apparently are nagging at Randy Merk, president and chief investment officer at American Century Investment Management, whose $72 billion fund group is the 12th largest as ranked by FRC. "There seems to have been a sudden surge of optimism on the outlook for economic growth," Merk says in a commentary on the firm's Web site at http://www.americancentury.com/news. "My biggest concern is overconfidence among equity investors." Merk isn't touting anybody off stock funds, and neither have I any wish to do so. The long-term bulls, I believe, have wisdom on their side. But the journey from here to renewed prosperity may take us through more experiences that test our optimism. From soncu at pacbell.net Tue May 7 18:41:02 2002 From: soncu at pacbell.net (Sabri Oncu) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:45 2006 Subject: [A-List] Convertible Bonds: Specter Of Meltdown Message-ID: Derivatives Week http://www.derivativesweek.com Top Stories April 7, 2002 Widening Vol Spread Casts Specter Of Meltdown Over Converts Mart Victor Kremer The ballooning spread between implied volatility and historical vol on some convertible issues could presage a meltdown in the convertible bond market or break the back of a number of convertible arb hedge funds, according to two European fund managers. Paul Besson, fund manager of the EUR220 million convertible arb fund at CCR Gestion in Paris, attributes the widening vol spread to the sharp rise in the number of convertible arb funds. These funds, he said, have bid up convertible prices to vertiginous levels. "It's like walking on thin ice," he said. Convertible arb funds usually purchase convertibles in order to strip out the cheap embedded equity option, which they can then sell into the over-the-counter equity market. The problem many of these funds now face is the market has been so over bid that they have ended up purchasing the embedded options at a premium over the underlying market, making them difficult to sell. In addition, Besson said, stiff competition between banks for underwriting mandates in the primary market has driven issuers to price convertibles ever closer to par, rather than the traditional discount. "There's no free lunch anymore," he added. For example, implied vol on chip manufacturer STMicroelectronics's USD650 million zero-coupon convertible of '09 was at 47% on Friday, versus historical vol around 30%. "If you hold this bond you're losing money every day on the time decay," Besson continued. CCR Gestion started shorting convertibles in February to position for the expected sell off, he added, declining to explain how the fund achieves this. Christopher Davenport, director of convertible bond research at Schroder Salomon Smith Barney in London, believes the concerns are overdone, not least because longer measures of historical vol, which include the period around Sept. 11, may be distorting data for realized vol. In addition, some funds may be erroneously estimating market volatilities for notional options of similar specifications to those enbedded in convertibles. These are often so far out of the money that adjustments made for the skew can be overstated. Investors may also be overstating the implied volatility of the convertible--to one indifferent between buying and selling--by including stock borrowing costs in their calculations. "There is a possibility of a large collapse," said Olivier De Lamotte, head of convertibles at the structured and alternative investment management group at AXA Investment Managers in Paris. AXA pared its risk exposure on the EUR200 million fund to around 15% last month--versus typical exposure of 25%--because of fears of a slump in vol. However, De Lamotte is not convinced that a collapse is inevitable. What is more likely, he reasoned, is that fund of funds and direct investors pulling monies out of convertible arb funds--a trend that is already underway--will push these managers to sell bonds at unattractive levels, forcing them to realize losses. This, argued De Lamotte, will lead to consolidation among convertible arb funds. "In these troubled times the bigger you are the better you are," he said. "After a collapse people will come back to you because the small [funds] are dead." From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Tue May 7 23:31:02 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:45 2006 Subject: [A-List] UK news media: deregulation Message-ID: TV stations up for grabs Murdoch now free to bid for Channel 5 Matt Wells and John Cassy Wednesday May 8, 2002 The Guardian Rupert Murdoch's long-held ambition of buying into Britain's lucrative terrestrial television market was a step closer last night as the government announced plans to lift the rule that bars him from owning Channel 5. But the media mogul was frustrated at the same turn: ministers also revealed their intention to allow foreign broadcasters such as Disney or Viacom to take a controlling stake in ITV, a prize he is still denied. In a draft communications bill, the biggest overhaul of media and telecommunications regulation since Margaret Thatcher permitted the auction of ITV franchises in 1990, new rules will allow a single company to control ITV and bring the BBC under external regulation for the first time. "For too long the UK's media have been over-regulated and over-protected from competition," Ms Jowell told the Commons yesterday. "The draft bill we have published today will liberalise the market, so removing unnecessary regulatory burdens and cutting red tape, but at the same time retain some key safeguards that will protect the diversity and plurality of our media." Under the proposals, global media giants would be allowed to buy British television and radio broadcasters. Ms Jowell said this would eliminate the anomaly that allows the Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi to buy into ITV, but bans AOL Time Warner from making a similar move. However, the rule preventing newspaper tycoons from buying more than 20% of an ITV licence will be kept, meaning Mr Murdoch's ambitions are capped. His empire was quick to pour scorn on the government's claim that its bill was "proprietor neutral". A BSkyB insider said: "They seem to be actively encouraging the world's media magnates to get into ITV apart from one. All this stuff about legislation not being designed to influence one proprietor seems to be rubbish." Yet the lifting of restrictions that barred Mr Murdoch from owning Channel 5 led to speculation of a last-minute deal. The News Corporation chairman is known to have been in London last week. "This goes well beyond what anyone expected, particularly given the signals that government has been making about safeguarding plurality," said Mathew Horsman, media analyst at Investec Securities. "There is huge commercial logic to this but it is surprising it has come from a Labour government." The draft bill, published jointly by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Trade and Industry, will now be scrutinised by a joint committee of both houses of parliament. It will then form part of the Queen's Speech in the autumn, after which it will go through the Commons. It is not expected to reach the statute book much before the start of next year. The bill lifts the two barriers that have prevented one company from owning ITV - the rule that prevents one company from owning the two London franchises and the bar on any one company controlling more than 15% of the advertising market. Merger talks between Carlton and Granada, the two biggest ITV operators, are now expected to begin in earnest. A single ITV could then become a target for predators such as Bertelsmann, which currently controls Channel 5; in another move, the rule that bars the Channel 5 owner from holding an ITV licence is scrapped. The government also lifted the restrictions on joint ownership of TV and radio stations, and the ban on owning more than one national commercial radio licence. The BBC will be brought partially under the umbrella of the new super-regulator, Ofcom. Although ministers claimed the bill would bring a greater level of scrutiny to bear on the BBC, the details of how the corporation will be regulated will not be published for some weeks. Ofcom will regulate broadcasting standards, but the BBC governors are certain to remain the guardians of the corporation's public service remit and its political impartiality. Tim Yeo, the shadow culture secretary, urged the government to go further. "I remain disappointed that Tessa Jowell has not followed her own logic and fully deregulated media ownership. The acid tests for these proposals will clearly be whether they represent a light touch or a heavy hand." The City was last night braced for a flurry of mergers and takeovers off the back of the regulatory changes. One investment banker said: "This is going to be a great couple of years to be a deal maker." Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Tue May 7 23:40:02 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:45 2006 Subject: [A-List] UK state: civil rights Message-ID: Few of political substance bothered when Jack Straw and David Blunkett issued bill after authoritarian bill further expanding state powers. Critics were dismissed as liberal wimps or anarchists or apologists for terrorism. Now, however, we see the Confederation of British Industry enter the fray, as new legislation promising to empower state investigators in the name of enforcing competition comes up for discussion. How long before the state backs down? Spy's charter enrages CBI Terry Macalister Wednesday May 8, 2002 The Guardian Business leaders are appealing to a parliamentary human rights committee to help stop "draconian" measures in the enterprise bill that allow secret surveillance of those suspected of anti-competitive practices. The CBI also says British citizens could be extradited to face competition charges in the US. Sir Anthony Tennant, the former chairman of Christie's auction house who refused to go to the US to answer price-fixing allegations this year, would have been caught under this legislation, the CBI argues. The employer's organisation is angry that the bill is written more broadly than originally indicated, with directors liable to be disqualified for any breach of competition laws rather than "serious" breaches, even when the directors did not know of the breach "but ought to have known". These issues have surfaced as the bill makes its way through the committee stages at Westminster, where the joint committee on human rights yesterday said in a preliminary report that the Bill generally "contains adequate safeguards". The committee of MPs and peers confirmed it was still investigating the bill and had asked the CBI and others to submit their concerns before May 17. A CBI spokesman said: "We think the laws on surveillance are draconian and do not exist anywhere else in the world." Anyone working for a company suspected of anti-competitive behaviour could be followed and have their telephone conversations and internet records monitored under new laws requested by the office of fair trading for "both civil and criminal investigations". Martin Coleman, a competition lawyer at City firm Norton Rose, said this went far beyond what was originally suggested by the government. "There is potential for more extensive use of power than is justified." Mick Howlett, tax specialist at accountant Ernst & Young, said powers for the OFT went beyond those of tax inspectors. The inland revenue could obtain search warrants and ask for documents to be produced only in civil cases. The Department of Trade and Industry said the powers were appropriate to ensure competition thrived. "These powers are tough but they are necessary and proportionate." Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Tue May 7 23:45:02 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:45 2006 Subject: [A-List] UK news media Message-ID: Murdoch must have done a deal Emily Bell Wednesday May 8, 2002 The Guardian The publication of the communications white paper raises one enormous question: where is the deal, Rupert? Contrary to widespread speculation, the government did not seek to use its new media legislation as a way of pulling up a couple of notches on Rupert Murdoch's choke chain. Instead, it set him off after the wide-eyed rabbit of Channel 5. This unexpected act of munificence on the part of the government has stunned the media industry, and, judging by its reception in the Commons, half the Labour benches. Giving Mr Murdoch a terrestrial TV licence has a symbolic significance far beyond Channel 5's reach or revenue. In the huge kite flown by Tessa Jowell which forms the draft legislation this, and allowing non-European companies to buy ITV, will be the main points of contention. The message of freer regulation on ownership while cosmetically tightening the nuts on programming quality potentially makes the white paper the most significant piece of media reform in the last 20 years. Under the proposed rules Mr Murdoch, who already controls four national newspapers and BSkyB, will be allowed to escape the 20% cap on ownership of a terrestrial broadcasting licence with reference to Channel 5. He will be in robust competition with other newspaper proprietors and non-EU nationals who by the same relaxation can dive into the market for the channel. There are two overriding reasons to suppose that the government has done a deal with Mr Murdoch. One, that it has given him access to terrestrial television at all - most of those advising BSkyB have tacitly admitted that they did not really expect to be let into the charmed circle of terrestrial broadcasters. Two, that it has designed the new rules specifically to discount Mr Murdoch as a potential owner for the ITV companies which, under the relaxed regulations, would be allowed to merge. Add to that the utterly preposterous post-justification for allowing Mr Murdoch to buy Channel 5 - that it would help to fund a poor struggling broadcaster whose rather weedy reach and stuttering signal keeps it out of some homes. In fact, backed by RTL, the powerful German media group, and in profit, Channel 5 is performing better than its peers. Allowing Mr Murdoch to buy ITV would clearly go too far, but the logic which allows him to buy Channel 5 but excludes him from a bid for ITV is utterly faulty. So what price a terrestrial broadcaster? The machiavellian might immediately watch Times and Sun leaders for a softening of the line towards the euro. More likely is something buried in the less interesting passages of the white paper itself. In a tedious section on "vertical integration" in the communications industries, the government says that it is still in favour of allowing those offering good programme content to own the means of distribution - except where one company dominates the market, and here the new regulatory superpower, Ofcom, may review the situation. This is a mildly worded clause which, under the right circumstances, could mean the end of BSkyB being a platform owner and content provider and, potentially, an end to the woes of the government in trying to stick its digital terrestrial television house of straw back together. Either this or someone in the Cabinet Office checked the calendar and realised that they had missed Rupert's birthday by six weeks, and they just happened to have a spare channel kicking around in the cupboard. Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Wed May 8 00:03:02 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:45 2006 Subject: [A-List] Afghanistan: the blowback continues Message-ID: DNA search fails to find bin Laden IAN BRUCE The Herald, 8 May 2002 FORENSICS experts have spent four days combing last year's Tora Bora battlefield in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan without finding any evidence that Osama bin Laden or other senior al Qaeda or Taliban fugitives were killed in the first major action of the war. Hundreds of Canadian infantry were sent in to protect the team of US military criminal investigation officers as they unearthed enemy bodies from makeshift graves and took DNA samples before reburying them. They also cleared the debris from a cave complex sealed by US bombing strikes and extracted samples from the remains of fighters trapped inside during December's air assault on the 10,000ft mujahideen stronghold. One cemetery thought to be "a shrine to Islamic martyrdom" yielded 23 DNA samples, although Canadian Captain Philip Nicholson, who witnessed the operation, said yesterday that none of the bodies in it was tall enough to be the 6ft 5in bin Laden. "We searched there because it had become a significant Muslim holy site since al Qaeda fighters were buried there at the end of December," he said. "We hoped bin Laden was the reason for the attention being paid to it." Relatives of the Saudi dissident in Saudi Arabia allowed family DNA to be collected last year to aid identification of the world's most wanted man if his body turned up on the battlefield. Major Bryan Hilferty, the US army spokesman at Bagram airbase, north of Kabul, denied yesterday that the main aim of the Canadian sweep had been to find proof of bin Laden's death to give the White House a propaganda victory. "The primary goal of the operation was to conduct sensitive site exploration and to conduct demolitions to deny al Qaeda the ability to operate in the area. We were not looking specifically for Osama bin Laden or a one-eyed rotund man," he said, referring to Mullah Mohammed Omar, the Taliban's elusive supreme leader. Pentagon sources say the DNA collected during the operation is to be sent to the FBI in Washington for comparative analysis. More than 1000 British Royal Marines supported by US paratroopers and Afghan troops are continuing to search mountain valleys east of March's Shah-e-Kot battleground. A week after the start of Operation Snipe, the marines have still not encountered enemy forces. Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Wed May 8 00:03:07 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:45 2006 Subject: [A-List] US imperialism: Cuba Message-ID: Which thought is more reassuring: George W. Bush controlling weapons of mass destruction, or, Fidel Castro controlling weapons of mass destruction? US says Castro has bio weapon arsenal IAN BRUCE The Herald, 8 May 2002 THE United States has accused Cuba of developing vaccine-resistant biological weapons and of transferring the technical expertise to produce them to "rogue" states such as Iran, Syria and Libya. John Bolton, the US undersecretary of state for arms control, claims Havana has "at least a limited offensive biological warfare capability" as a spin-off from its legitimate bio-research programmes and has supplied "dual-use" technology to other countries hostile to America. Although the Clinton administration expressed concern in 1998 about Cuba's potential for developing biological agents, this is the first time the island has been accused of deliberately manufacturing germs for warfare. Cuba has maintained a thriving biomedical industry for the last 40 years, producing "clot-busting" vaccines for victims of heart attacks and a breakthrough treatment for meningitis as well as pioneering work in genetic engineering. Ken Alibek, the most senior scientist to defect from the former Soviet Union's biowar programme, told a congressional committee last October that he believed Cuba was capable of making designer germ weapons which could defeat American antibiotics and vaccines. Intelligence agencies have long focused on the Communist-controlled island's huge investment in pharmaceuticals and biological research, much of it "dual-use" and able to be used for either genuine health projects or for weapons of mass destruction. Cuban officials yesterday denied the allegation, saying it was merely a ploy to justify the continuing US hardline policies against a Communist regime which has defied the White House for 50 years. Fidel Castro, the Cuban president, visited Iran, Syria and Libya - all branded by the White House as state sponsors of terrorism - last year and boasted in a speech to an audience of students at Teheran University that together, Iran and Cuba "could bring America to its knees". Jose de la Fuente, the former director of research at Havana's centre for genetic engineering and biotechnology, has already stated publicly that he is "profoundly disturbed" about Cuban dual-use sales to Iran. "No one believes that Iran is interested in these technologies for the purpose of protecting all the children in the Middle East from hepatitis," he said. Although Mr Bolton's attack was concentrated on Cuba, he also accused Syria of "flouting treaties banning chemical and biological weapons" and said Damascus had stockpiled the nerve agent sarin and was developing more persistent and deadlier VX gas. Libya's germ warfare programme was believed to be at a far earlier stage than that of Cuba or Syria, but Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's regime was still capable of producing small quantities of lethal agents. Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland michael.keaney@mbs.fi From Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi Wed May 8 04:54:01 2002 From: Michael.Keaney at mbs.fi (Keaney Michael) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:09:45 2006 Subject: [A-List] Destructive creation: waste disposal Message-ID: Man's poisons are meat for 'super bacteria' By Patrick Cockburn The Independent, 08 May 2002 Bacteria living in the depths of the Baltic Sea off Sweden have developed an unlikely taste for what should be the world's most toxic substance. They can consume mustard gas, leaking from old German weapons dumped in the sea by the Soviet Union and Britain in 1945. The new super-strong bacteria have been discovered at the bottom of the Bornholm Deep, one of the sites in the Baltic where some 35,000 tons of chemical weapons, manufactured but never used by the Nazis, were deposited at the end of the Second World War. Nobody quite knows the condition of the old munitions, which include artillery shells filled with mustard gas, bombs, mines and grenades. So far t