Dope

As my readers can plainly see, the contest for renaming the Remora category on this site fell still-born from the press -- not that Limited Inc is greatly surprised, since falling still born from the press does seem to be the fate attaching to every post I've written on this site, from July onwards.

We are not amused; because we are, in our own humble opinion, amusing. Although can we trust our own own humble opinion? because we also firmly believe the great intellects of the past pale in relation to our merest subclause. It has been pointed out to us that we suffer from egomania.

Alas, today we suffer from a physical, rather than metaphysical, ailment. Fever racks my bones. Mysterious aches are playing the boogie woogie on my spinal column. Luckily we were visited a friend of mine, mentioned in previous posts, who plays a role in my life similar to Scheherazade -- not that I am planning on beheading her. No, the deal with this woman is that she can tell me 1001 stories in one night. I was hoping she would come by, and so when she did, I had a Proustian moment, the invalid's feverish hope realized in an entrance. She bore healthful gifts -- chicken soup, grapefruit, and water. This friend sets great store by water, so I even drank it: of course, Limited Inc is always reminded of the great W.C. Fields joke about not drinking water, because fish fuck in it. The problem with modern water is that fish don't fuck in it. Often, instead, they suffocate in it, in great Dead Zones, or are poisoned by run-off, or invaded by parasites suddenly endemic to artificially warmed currents. But that is for another day.

I've always been a hypochondriac. But my hypochondria takes the form of imagining strange and obsolete diseases, like Gout, or Dropsy, that I might have. Today I was thinking I had pellagra. Since I don't know what pellagra is, I decided to check out a helpful site, and get the scoop.

... And what a scoop. Here are the symptoms of pellagra, just in case you were thinking you had it too:

"In the United States, pellagra has often been called the disease of the four D's -- dermatitis, diarrhea, dementia, and death.'

The NIH site celebrates one of those pioneering doctors whose fictional analogues haunt the pages of Balzac and Zola -- medicine was, after all, positivism on the grass-roots level. And science, of course, required a view of the human body at odds with ten thousand years of doctrine. For ten thousand years, the human body was subject to witchcraft. It was subject to analogy. It was subject to the universal idea of eternal life -- a view of the body that is hard for today's average Joe to envision, in spite of the light sprinkling of out of body death experiences that Readers Digest eagerly purveys.

But let's cut to the chase -- the doctor, Joseph Goldberger, has quite a story.

""Bored and intellectually restless in private practice in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, the young, shy physician joined the United States Marine Hospital Service, (later the U.S. Public Health Service or PHS) in 1899 at the beginning rank of Assistant Surgeon earning an annual salary of $1,600. Ironically, the immigrant from central Europe began his public health service career inspecting immigrants in the port of New York. However, it was not long before his epidemiological skills earned Goldberger the reputation of a tenacious and clever epidemic fighter.


Between 1902 and 1906, Goldberger heroically battled epidemic diseases. He fought yellow fever in Mexico, Puerto Rico, Mississippi, and Louisiana, contracting the disease himself His efforts earned him a promotion to the rank of Passed Assistant Surgeon in 1904 and later, an introduction to Mary Farrar, grandniece of Varina Davis, the widow of Confederate President, Jefferson Davis. In 1906, the immigrant Jewish physician from New York's Lower East Side married the daughter of a wealthy and socially prominent Episcopalian attorney from New Orleans over the religious objections of both families."

Wow, Jeff Davis' grandniece. The bones of that old racist must have been rattling in his grave.

Once in the South, Goldberger decided to track down the Pellagra germ. But he soon grew convinced that the germ theory, which was to that time what the genetic theory of disease is to ours, was wrong in this case. He got the governor of Mississippi to give him twelve healthy prisoners. Hey, they were promised freedom, if they only ate a very restricted diet. They soon came down with pellagra. So Goldberger triumphed, right? Oh no, he was attacked as a fraud for years. And in the twenties, his predictions about an epidemic of pellagra in the poor South were greeted as a slander on Southern manhood.
The South, as we know, has a higher percentage of meatheads in it than other parts of the country. And before the peanut gallerys starts lofting shells at me, remember: Limited Inc is from Georgia.

Ironically, Goldberger never isolated the vitamin that was deficient in pellagra cases. It was niacin, Vitamin B.
So I don't think I have pellagra -- I ate my cornflakes this morning.
A question hangs here, though -- what about those prisoners? Did the good guv'nah of Mississippi give them their freedom, as the guys in O brother where art thou, or did he renege. Or did they even survive that last D -- it's a killer.

Remora

Readers should note Le Monde's beautiful, and somewhat fallacious, essay by Albert Manguel about the end of Argentina. All countries, he claim, rest on the shared fiction that they exist. A philosopher might call them intensional objects, meaning those entities which presuppose the agreement of subjects that they are as long as the subjects agree they are. This is a little different than what we mean by saying that mountains, or rivers, or trees are. Intensional things are as long as there are subjects for whom they are. These things are like dreams are. So nations, as fictions, extrude themselves crudely in anthems and slogans, in ads and editorials, in law courts and prisons. The nation is the Song of itself, the supreme act of subjectivity; it negotiates the distance between Descartes cogito ergo sum and Louis XIV's l'etat, c'est moi -- the state thinks itself into being in the heads of its citizens.

The question is, can this daydream of reason exist after the daydreamers have committed every vicious act in its name? We know that in one sense it can, and in one sense it can't. Germany survived Hitler -- but only because the Germans convinced themselves, at first, that Hitler never existed. That is, he existed in spite of the Germans. Generations have passed, and this fiction has been discarded, but only because it can be, in the same way that Hollywood can now show Indians as the noble warriors from whom a continent was wrested. Hollywood isn't crazy -- nobody is planning on giving the continent back. That nation, in those heads, ceased. From this point of view, history is a game of deniability. Those who are ostensibly proudest of the actions of our forefathers have no intention of indemnifying the sons and daughters of the slaves of our forefathers -- this is to take the daydream a little too far.

Here's what Manguel says about Argentina:

Il existe une tournure d'esprit que nous avons (� tort) qualifi�e de machiav�lique, celle qui porte � croire que l'on peut tout se permettre dans le but de s'agrandir, y compris d'enfreindre la loi. Les tyrans grecs, les c�sars romains, les papes et empereurs la poss�daient ; elle a d�clench� des guerres, justifi� des atrocit�s, caus� des souffrances indicibles ; en fin de compte, elle a toujours provoqu� l'effondrement des soci�t�s dans lesquelles elle s'�tait enracin�e. En Argentine, elle s'est manifest�e d�s l'aube de la R�publique, avec le meurtre du jeune r�volutionnaire Mariano Moreno. Elle est devenue officielle au XIXe si�cle sous la tyrannie de Juan Manuel de Rosas, acceptable au temps des oligarques et des propri�taires terriens au d�but du XXe, populaire sous Per�n. Enfin, sous la dictature militaire, elle a min� la soci�t� sous tous ses angles, ignor� toute l�galit�, fait de la torture et du meurtre les instruments quotidiens du gouvernement, infect� le langage et la pens�e.

Limited Inc.'s translation: "There exists a humor that we have (falsely) qualified as machievellian, which tends to assure us that we can permit ourselves anything in the process of growing great, including violating the law. The greek tyrants, the roman cesaers, the popes and emperors possessed this turn of mind; it started wars, justified atrocities, caused unspeakable suffering; and in the end, it has always provoked the collapse of those societies in which it has rooted. In Argentina, at the very dawn of the Republic it manifested itself in the murder of the young revolutionary, Mariano Moreno. It became official in the 19th century, under the tyranny of Juan Manuel de Rosas, acceptable in the time of the oligarchs and the landholders of the beginning of the 20th centruy, popular under Peron. In the end, under the military dictatorship, it totally undermined society, ignoring all equality, making of torutre and murder the quotidien instruments of government, infecting the language and the thought."

Well, Limited Inc is inevitably reminded of our own condemn�s. We received a letter from one of our far flung correspondants today. She enclosed a Salon article about a scholar at a Florida University in Tampa who has been fired for having spoken out against Israel on the Bill O'Reilly show. Fla.'s guv, the ludicrous Bush brother, Jeb, applauded. The man in question, Sami Al-Arian, turns out to hav had the rich, rancid experience of Uncle Sam's hot breath on his neck before: the FBI arrested his brother-in-law,
"a soft-spoken scholar named Mazen Al-Najjar, for unspecified terrorist associations. Al-Najjar -- the brother of Al-Arian's wife, Nahla -- had arrived at Tampa in 1981 and earned a doctorate at USF. Al-Najjar was arrested under then new antiterrorism laws allowing suspects to be held on the basis of secret evidence, without the precise charge being revealed in court. For the next three and a half years, Al-Najjar would remain in Bradenton prison without anyone -- not his lawyers, not even the judge --
ever seeing the purported evidence against him."

Can such things be? Limited Inc understands that mix of fear and smugness that reduces the canned suburban masses to silence, or to short term self-interest, or to right-wing myth. Still, Limited Inc would urge some effort, some strength of will here. The military in Argentina took hold in conditions of similar black magic. You think it can't happen here? Wake up, honey. It's all happening..

Dope

Limited Inc is thinking of changing the name for the Remora category. And let's be interactive about it, shall we? A little contest, my many many eager readers? Or at least my one or two. We need a label that is as au courant as an Enron exec's Swiss bank account , but as ironic as one of David Foster Wallace's footnotes. Please, use the little comment machinery thingy.

On another note, we should keep you up to date on our impoverishment -- always a big theme here at Limited Inc. Yes, December has passed, and our workload has seemingly gone down the old toilet -- we query, we query, and we receive the rare word back that this year, media is re-engineering, renewing its faith in the automatic 20% per year profit margin by getting rid of its deadwood -- the book sections, the freelancers, etc. That means, no eatin' in February for us! It is, of course, hard to get through a month without eating, but Limited Inc is stocking up on the vodka now, in order to weather the storm. An old trick from the de-kulakization days.

Now, down to serious business. And for that, what better place than the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal? Having an asset they have no intention of distributing for free, the WSJ isn't linkable. But we read Mark Falcoff's op-ed piece, Argentina has a choice: Peronism or Modernity, and we couldn't think of a better example of the iron logic of globalisation in its Post-Keynsian guise.

Key graf for us is near the end:
" ... let no one assume that Argentina can solve its problems by moving backwards. In recent weeks there has been much talk about the "good old days" of classic Peronism, with boom and psen populism delivering effortless wealth to every Argentine family. Presumably, experiments with a new, floating currency,a default on foreign debts, or subsidies for unproductive (and uncompetitive) industries could put people back to work, but not for long. In the past, such policies could only be financed through heavy foreign borrowing. With the country in virtual default on $132 billion dollars in obligations, that expedient is simply not a prospect."

Ah, the wonders of globalisation. Nations, like kine being lead down the corridor to the slaugher chamber, are continually being told they can't "move backwards." Why? Because the butchers aren't going to let them. Butchers usually tranquilize the ungulates to make them more pliable. Falcoff spots the butcher's drug in his last sentence, but because he is wearing ideological blinders, he doesn't ponder its essential wonder. If he were more, let us say, Marxist, he might be curious about the historical provenance of that debt. He might even do a little research, and that research would tell him that the majority of the first 60 billion dollars was accumulated under the military junta, with the strong support, until that unfortunate Falklands business, of the US government. He might even wonder why else they would be lending to Argentina at that time -- was Citycorp so tenderhearted under Walter 'Santa Claus' Wriston that they lent to make sure the Argentine family had a guaranteed, inefficient job? And Falcoff might even, in this Marxist moment, ask about the accumulation of the other 60 billion dollars worth of debt. Guess what? It was taken on under Menem and Cavallo's shock treatment regime, when the enterprises were freed, the peso was matched to the dollar, and according to the WSJ, Argentina was proving that Reaganism on the international level was the only way to go (a self fulfilling prophecy -- you can't go backwards when you've sold off your assets to the most corrupt bidder. You especially can't go home again when you torched it and don't even have enough in your budget to pay the firemen).

And say Falcoff decided to throw caution to the wind and even become Leninist. Then he might ask about the motives international lenders have for loaning 130 billion dollars to a country that now "makes up around 20 per cent of JP Morgan's Emerging Market Bond Index Global," according to the Financial Times. Emerging Market hucksters have said, aw shucks, the ratio between debt and GDP will be just fine if Argentina grows at 4.3%. That it has experience negative growth for the last three years, a pretty spectacular correction of -3.5% in 99, doesn't bother the Emerging Marketeer for good reason -- they are in the unique situation of having their risks cared for by such international organizations as the IMF and the World Bank. If Argentina defaults, and Limited Inc sees reason to think it will, the Emerging Marketeers will finally have to face up to the real world -- if you give excessive credit to an excessive debtor because the interest rate and the options on the interest rate are way cool, and you get your kneecaps blown off -- well, a version of caveat emptor, as the crack dealers say, kicks in.

Remora

What did you do in the Great Recession, Daddy?

Well, as analysts on Wall Street bubble with bull opportunities afforded by the rest of this year -- that good old V bounce to the recession -- reality out there isn't so happy. With the Federal Reserve becoming, basically, the Office of Moral Hazard, always willing to cut rates in order to keep equities from finding traditional p/e levels that would bring the Dow Jones Average crashing 2000 some points, the market in housing and autos was banner last year. But banner at what cost? Enron shows what happens when a company is taken apart by the whitewater currents of the futures market -- small bets can become big losses, as was the experience of Barings, of Long Term Capital Management, of the Orange County Teachers retirement fund, of... well, the list goes on.

In order to prevent sales from slumping, Detroit used the Fed's party-time philosophy to finance an incredible issue of credit. This is a balancing act that is reminiscent of the situation the S&Ls faced in 1979 -- in that year, they had to balance the sharp, short term spike on interest with long term housing loans that were pegged to yesteryear's lesser interest rate. Inflationary discounted inflow did not make up for inflationary magnified outflow. Result: changes in the usury and loaning laws that eventually wrecked the industry. Here, we have the inverse situation, with short term interest unnaturally low. If the Fed ratchets up the rate this year, as any good and prudent monetarist would advice, it is going to squeeze Detroit like a sucked lemon. The game plan seems to have been, avoid a sales downturn by any means necessary. But if you hold the firesale, you better have had a fire. Well, this year the story is going to be about a fire foretold. This means legislation will soon be trucking through congress to give the Big Three some special and stupid breaks. We won't hear from any congressmen about how stupidly these companies have used their credit -- unlike the preaching we heard from the high and mighty Senate when they were crafting bankruptcy laws to penalize the poor individual debtor.

If that doesn't happen -- well, take away Limited Inc's prophecy licence and throw our body to the street, where the dogs can lick up our blood. What was good enough for Jezebel is good enough for us.


Here's the NYT:

"In 2001, total auto sales stayed at a near- record level, especially after Sept. 11, largely because G.M. and Ford leaned heavily on their financing businesses to pump up sales. But that burst of interest-free financing deals was just the latest in a string of deal making that led to swelled portfolios of leases and car loans taken on by Ford Motor Credit and the General Motors Acceptance Corporation (news/quote), known as G.M.A.C., in the last five years.

Unlike their foreign rivals, which have developed stables of models that buyers actually will pay more for, Ford and G.M. have relied more on incentives like low- interest loans and cheap leases to attract customers. The automakers have ponied up billions of dollars to their financing units to make up the difference on the below-market financing."

Fun facts to know and tell:

Ford Motor Credit financed more than half of the vehicles Ford Motor sold last year. G.M.A.C. financed more than 40 percent of G.M. sales. At G.M.A.C., 85 percent of loans made in 2000 had some subsidy.

This is a huge shift in loaning practice, to corporate subsidiaries who have every interest in making unsafe loans. If there's a large fall out in those loans, watch the Federal Gov come up with some cozy loan insurance plan.

Remora
Tom Paine got Colin Woodard, whose book, Ocean's End, was one of our favorite books last year, to put the heat on The Skeptical Environmentalist
.

But Tom Paine is a little late to the game, compared to Limited Inc., as our lucky readers (the few, the bold, the brave, the ones looking for girles+Arabia+sex) know. For those of you who missed it, this is a reprint of our post in August about Lomborg's miserable tract:

8/8/2001 10:40:02 AM
Bjorn Lomborg seems set to be the most quoted environmentalist of the season. The reason? He has a conversion story. There he was, according to himself, your average know nothing Greenpeace schmoe, kvetching about mass extinction and Global Warming on Planet Gaia, when he got knocked down (spiritually, that is) by libertarian skeptics of the environmental model. No doubt, like Saul, he had his days of reclusion and blindness, the night sweats, the fever - but a vision of Gale Norton apparently visited him, saying, in an unearthly voice, go and tell all mankind about the wonders of cost benefit analysis! So he arose from his bed and now he's come out with a book, and at such a convenient time, too! What with the trashing of the Kyoto accords and all, which looks so terrible in the press. The book plays a theme dear to the corporate mindset - that is, that environmentalists exaggerate, and that such things as climate change, or environmental damage, are myths generated by inaccurate or skewed stats and projections of enviro- Nazis. Of course, modern day converts never convert all the way - they want to bring their cultural capital with them, otherwise they become just another Jack in the Pack. So instead of taking the mantle of libertarian debunker, Lomborg, of course, is still describing himself as an environmentalist. He is of that less dogmatic type, undisturbed when they blacktop those pristine redwood forests in California. Plenty more where that came from! Hell, wonders of biotech nowadays, we'll just fix us up a batch in a laboratory. So come on down, Butterfly!!!

Lomborg summarizes these views in an Economist article. He has developed a handy name - the Litany - for the general complaints about ecological degradation bandied about by environmentalists. He goes through the four major points in the Economist article.
I actually agree with one of his points - I have no sympathy with the population control crowd. In fact, the Litany is very skewed, itself, to the kind of environmentalism represented by Paul Ehrlich and the Club of Rome, which has always been very alarmist about the depletion of natural resources and the danger of over-population.
It is his third and fourth points I find extremely shaky. First, there is the threat of biodiversity loss. Lomburg says this is exaggerated. But his base for that loss is extinction. He doesn't defend this as a standard. He writes, for instance, of predictions of extinction, "...the data simply does not bear out these predictions. In the eastern United States, forests were reduced over two centuries to fragments totalling just 1-2% of their original area, yet this resulted in the extinction of only one forest bird." Presumably he means the Ivory Billed Woodpecker, or perhaps the Carolina Parakeet (that I can name two candidates off the top of my head - and I'm no ornithologist - makes me think that his claim is probably factually dubious). Lomburg simply ignores monoculture, and the destruction of biodiverse habitats. If the loblolly pine takes over the ecological niche of, say, the live oak in Southern Georgia, sure, that doesn't entail the extinction of the live oak - it simply entails its rarity, its being thrusted to the periphery. The whooping crane is not extinct - but the number of the whooping crane is such that its former environmental role is, basically, non-existent. In other words, bio-diversity certainly doesn't mean that species that hang on in severely diminished numbers are some kind of proof that the ecology has remained unimpaired.

As for the claim that "pollution is also exaggerated," this point is much too uniform to hold. Lomburg shows that London air was much more polluted in the 1880s then now. His claim is, presumably, about particulate pollution. But the harm of a pollutant isn't necessarily in its quantity - small quantities of certain pollutants are much more harmful than large quantities of other pollutants. Take Lead. When lead was put into gasoline, it was emitted in quantities that were less than, say, the quantity of carbon dust released by coal energy - but lead is much more toxic. Also, Lomburg simply ignores the complexity of pollution. London is a good example - after the killing fogs of the fifties, a concerted effort was made to clean up the London air. But the clean-up inadvertantly lead to ozone problems, as the sunlight could now interact with car emissions - in other words, smog.

Finally, Lomburg engages in some suspicious cost analysis. For instance, he quotes a chart showing how much it costs to save a persons life in terms of regulation, and enforcing the use of various pollution reduction devices. This is a very common fallacy among the anti-enviro set - that there is only one set of costs. What is never done is to ask - what does pollution cost if it isn't cleaned up? The tacit assumption is that pollution control is some kind of bizarre luxury. If your car emits certain gases, well, that's a moral problem, but surely not an economic one. Right? Wrong. Pollution is not a free lunch. The question is: who pays for the social cost of pollution? This question is evaded by giving us the unilateral costs to businesses of pollution clean-up - which is like being given one side of an accounting ledger. If it costs 800 dollars to install seat belts, for instance, what isn't asked is - how much does it cost to pay for the additional injuries that would result from lack of seat belts? If it costs a million dollars to install filters on a coal burning power plant, how much does it cost, in terms of life and property degradation, when the unfiltered pollution is allowed to spread from the plant? In fact, this is where environmentalists, far from being alarmists, have been sleepwalking - partly because they don't think in terms of, say, property values. The anti-enviro crowd is happy enough with that - they can pass the cost of skewed statistics onto the back of the average citizen, in the shape of using them to justify dirty public policy.

I've written a little essay on the social costs of doing business which I ought to post this week, to continue this discussion.
Anyway, all my caveats aren't going to matter - Lomburg is on his way as the corporate environmentalist du jour. He is handsome, he has a conversion story, and he uses models preferred by the business crowd. What could be better?

Remora

Limited Inc realizes that our fascination with some of the tedious arguments in the dismal science is not winning this site any popularity awards. Actually, according to our site meter, our most popular posts inevitably include the words Lolita, or tits, of sex, or girles -- so we included them in this sentence to trap the unwary, horny surfer. Ha ha.

But Limited Inc has always pricked up its ears at the sound of a trumpet, the old gray battle horse within stirring to scenes of past Agincourts. Today, the trumpet resounds from the Center for Economic Policy, curtesy of a link on the Arts and Letters site. Let us go then, you and I, to the article entitled A Closer Look at the World Bank's Most Recent Defense of Its Policies by Mark Weisbrot, Dean Baker, Robert Naiman, and Gila Neta. You'll notice the date on this paper -- August 2000. We can't explain why the A & L people spotlighted it a year later, but the paper foregrounds some future post we will no doubt be writing concerning the current turmoil in Argentina. The meat, here, is in the comparison of growth figures. The world bank paper that Mssrs. Weisbot, et al are replying to makes the banal point that growth is good for the poor. It extrapolates that point into another point: that the IMF doctrine of "anti-inflationary" fiscal policy, liberalisation of global financial markets, and openness to international trade are good for the poor. The inference being, these are growth oriented policies. The further inference being, past policies were not growth oriented.

Well, this is a sand castle of an argument, and W.B.N.N. knock it down with one swift kick, consisting of a graph comparing growth rates. The gross and oh so out of fashion Keynsian world displays the kind of growth undreeamt of in the sleek IMF model. If we are looking for policies that help the poor (and this is not something the IMF really is set up to do), unsurprisingly, the poor aren't helped by accident. They aren't, in other words, helped by helping the rich, which is what the IMF all neo-liberal political economics would have us believe. The comparison is strikingly in favor of the Keynsian mix of inflationary/ anti-inflationary measures, and national policies that regulate exports and imports.

Here are some important grafs:


In Latin America, for example, GDP per capita grew by 75 percent from 1960-1980, whereas in the latter period it has only risen 6 percent. For sub-Saharan Africa, GDP per capita grew by 36 percent in the first period, while it has since fallen by 15 percent.

These are enormous differences by any standard of comparison, and represent the loss to an entire generation-- of hundreds of millions of people-- of any chance of improving its living standards. Even where growth was significant, as in Southeast Asia, it was still better in the earlier period. The only exception to this trend was East Asia, which grew faster from 1980 to 1998 than in the previous period. But this is due to the quadrupling of GDP, over the last 18 years, in China (which has 83 percent of the population of East Asia).

In short, there is no region of the world that the Bank or Fund can point to as having succeeded through adopting the policies that they promote-- or in many cases, impose-- upon borrowing countries. (They are understandably reluctant to claim credit for China, which maintains a non-convertible currency, state control over its banking system, and other major violations of IMF/Bank prescriptions).[6]

One cannot stress too strongly the failure of these policies on the measure of economic growth, even ignoring income distribution. The debate over Dollar and Kraay's paper, for example, has simply assumed-- as the authors have-- that IMF/Bank policies do promote growth, and the only question is how well the poor have fared under the growth that has resulted from these policies."

The last is the assasin graf -- the look, the Emperor has no clothes graf. But before Limited Inc puts down our money on Keynsian policies, we feel like these statistics have to be fed into, well, reality. The era of spectacular growth spotlighted the Mssrs. et. al might, indeed, be impossible to replicate even with Keynsian economics. The reason for this is simple: a snapshot of the political economy of, say, Brazil in 1900 compared to Brazil in 1980 is going to be incredibly different; but it is hard to imagine the same technological/sociological/economic alteration occuring in the next twenty years under no matter what economic regime.

A further caveat has to do with the environment. The stats for the first half of the century simply ignore environmental degradation. But we are now more keenly aware that there are social costs to dams, irrigation projects, monocultural agriculture, and other featurs of growth. This impinges, of course, on both sides of the argument, but it is too little taken into account by the same groups who, admirably, dissent from the current model of IMF growth.

Dope

Some further comments on Senator Torricelli's Houdini like escape from prosecution seem called for.
The question on the mind of the spectator must be: why would the Repugs go along on this deal? After all, damn Senator T with the black spot and Senator Lott will once more be the majority leader, talked to, even, by tv reporters and such.

Well, let's speculate a little bit, children. When one of D.C.'s pirates is caught with his hand in the till, very often a delicate situation arises. Because so many other pirates on the ship have been quietly amassing as much loot as their natural greed allows them. It is a tradition that goes back to the Roman senate. So if Senator T.'s skin is graciously unflayed, one looks around for who else could be outrageously vulnerable to charges of pilfering. And the eye alights on a certain Texas senator, Phil Gramm. Phil and his wonderful and rich wife, Wendy, have made quite a killing in the past decade from their association with Enron corporation, of blessed memory. There's a Public Citizen release that counts the ways Enron loved the Gramms, and the Gramms loved Enron. Consider that Wendy, high spirited free marketer that she is, was appointed by Bushie the elder to head the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. This is a sad sack commission ostensibly armed to police the derivatives market -- but armed like a boyscout with a peashooter facing down the Nazi Wehrmacht. Even so, you never know when some nasty regulation will actually enforce transparency on futures or options trading, the biz Enron was massively in. So our heroine, Wendy, came to Enron's rescue by exempting trading in futures contracts by Enron, in 1993. It was one of her last acts as a truly altruistic public personality, because she then resigned her chairmanship and, five weeks later, took on an entrepeneurial role on the Enron board of directors. Now, reader, you are thinking that this is merely a coincidence; and besides, boards of directors are notoriously composed of crash test dummies, rubberstamping the decisions of the CEO. But our dear Wendy also served on the Enron Audit committee (this part of her story should be scored to that all time popular hit, "Three blind mice'). So double hitting for that innovator in spot prices in power for you and me, she made off with around a million five. Hey, I'm sure that Phil was uninfluenced by that chunk of change, but you know how a loving, christian couple, in the depth of the night, abed, sometimes talks about the meaning of it all, and our redeemer's beautiful life story, and wouldn't it be nice if some properly motivated senator snuck a provision onto some bill de-regulating the power commodity markets. Probably these sweet whispers were in vain, given Phil adamantine integrity, but maybe something, well, unconscious kicked in, cause golly, Phil did muscle in the bill Enron wanted. For good Laissez Faire reasons, no doubt.

Yes, the money rolls in, but Phil's ambitions no longer play out on the national level, and his mind has turned to contemplating the blank verse of The Prelude or something -- those sweet retirement thoughts. But still, with Enron falling apart this year with a speed and desperation much like that of the East German government in 1989, the Gramms probably also had some heart to hearts about those pesky laws constraining politicians from accepting bribes in too public and outrageous a fashion -- laws which, as we all know, are stronger in the spirit than the letter, but still... Maybe it is time to fold your tent and creep home, with the couple millions of Enron bucks under your belt or in your portfolio to watch over you in the golden years. This will no doubt be used by invidious nabobs of negativism to explain why Phil gave a press conference on September 2 announcing his retirement from the Senate, even though he had amassed a 4 million dollar reelection warchest.

Warms your heart, doesn't it, reader? And so maybe Senator T gets traded for Senator G. in the game. We are not of course suggesting anything so cynical went down in D.C. in reality. In reality, all Senatorial transactions are motivated by the unwavering patriotism of the members of that hallowed chamber. All Limited Inc is doing is, well, muddying the waters. Spewing negativism. Speculating, as is our wont, in an idle and destructive manner.