[OPE-L:5720] Warning: could not send message for past 1 day

Mail Delivery Subsystem (MAILER-DAEMON@info.dir.co.jp)
Sat, 15 Nov 1997 18:00:38 +0900 (JST)

[ show plain text ]


The original message was received at Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:58:28 +0900 (JST)
from ikita@mail.st.rim.or.jp []

----- The following addresses had transient non-fatal errors -----
(expanded from: <okano@dir.co.jp>)

----- Transcript of session follows -----
<okano@dir.co.jp>... Deferred: Connection refused by firewall.dir.co.jp.
Warning: message still undelivered after 1 day
Will keep trying until message is 1 week old

----- Original message follows -----

Return-Path: ikita@st.rim.or.jp
Received: from mail.st.rim.or.jp by info.dir.co.jp (8.8.3+2.6Wbeta9/3.3W9-Solaris2.3) with ESMTP id RAA10488 for <okano@dir.co.jp>; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:58:28 +0900 (JST)
Received: (from ikita@localhost) by mail.st.rim.or.jp (8.8.5/3.5Wpl7-rim2.0) id RAA00859; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:58:20 +0900 (JST)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:58:20 +0900 (JST)
From: Iwao Kitamura (SO) <ikita@st.rim.or.jp>
Message-Id: <199711140858.RAA00859@mail.st.rim.or.jp>
To: okano@dir.co.jp

>From owner-ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu Fri Nov 14 17:58:13 1997
Return-Path: owner-ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
Received: from galaxy.csuchico.edu (galaxy.CSUChico.EDU []) by mail.st.rim.or.jp (8.8.5/3.5Wpl7-rim2.0) with ESMTP id RAA00800; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:58:08 +0900 (JST)
Received: from host (localhost [])
by galaxy.csuchico.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA29843;
Fri, 14 Nov 1997 00:54:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fleming.cs.strath.ac.uk (root@fleming.cs.strath.ac.uk [])
by galaxy.csuchico.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA29821
for <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 00:47:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from black.cs.strath.ac.uk (blapc-02.cs.strath.ac.uk [])
by fleming.cs.strath.ac.uk (1.1/1.1CS) with ESMTP id IAA01264
Fri, 14 Nov 1997 08:49:02 GMT
Message-Id: <199711140849.IAA01264@fleming.cs.strath.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 08:47:06 -0000
Sender: owner-ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
From: "Paul Cockshott" <wpc@CS.STRATH.AC.UK>
To: <Asfilho@aol.com>
Cc: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
Subject: [OPE-L:5720] Re: Real under attack
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.1 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN

> >b) reduction in interest rates and faster devaluation of the currency,
> I find this the least compelling suggestion, since it seems to promise a
> renewal of uncontrolled inflation, which I think would be very unpopular,
> and, as a purely monetary effect, to have little impact on the growth
> or the distribution of income.
If the currency is seriously overvalued on the foreign exchanges
the only way to stop devaluation is through increased foreign borrowing.
I think that as a matter of principle socialists should be opposed
to countries running up international debt. Such debts are currently
the main way in which the worlds banking centers exploit whole

> >c) increase in taxation, especially of capital gains and large
> The main problem here would be capital flight, I suppose.
Taxes would have to be imposed on
a) transfers of Real out of the country
b) purchases of Real using foreign exchange, this would bring in
large revenues and impede speculative capital flows.
> >g) suspension of the privatisation programme, at least until a
> >framework has been legislated, in order to prevent the transformation of
> >state-owned monopolies into private ones.
> This policy is closely linked to the previous one in several ways. The
> theory of privatization is that trade liberalization will introduce
> international competitive forces to prevent the exercise of monopoly
> pricing power.
That may be the gloss put on it by the right, the underlying class
motivation is to restore private control of the means of production.

> What's the record on the performance of state monopolies in
> Brazil? Have they acted effectively to prevent the concentration of
> in the past?

To the extent that the profits of state monopolies remain in the hands
of the state their disposition is subject to political pressure.
This allows, given the appropriate political conditions, for them
to be used to subsidised general public expenditure.
When they are privately owned they go straight to the rich.