Carbonate-Clastic Synthems of the Middle Beekmantown Group in the Central and Southern Champlain Valley

Guidebook for field trips in Vermont: New England Intercollegiate Geological Conference, 79th annual meeting, October 16, 17 and 18, 1987: Trips C-4. Irregular pagination

Labor History Symposium: Gerald Friedman, Reigniting the Labor Movement

When trade union growth worldwide came to a halt in the 1980s, a wide body of literature appeared on the causes of trade union decline. Since that time an even more substantial number of books and articles have been penned on the possibility of trade union revitalization: which combination of factors might lead to resurgence; what organizational forms are best suited to the new political and economic landscape; which goals, strategies and tactics are most likely to spark a reversal of trade unionism’s fortunes. Gerald Friedman, Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts and the US editor of this journal, has contributed impressively to these ongoing debates in his Reigniting the Labor Movement. One of the strengths of this important book is its historical and transnational approach. Friedman skilfully weaves together a century’s worth of data from 16 countries to support his principal argument that strikes hold the key to any understanding of the rise, decline and possible resurgence of the labour movement. Trade unions, he argues, must enhance internal democracy in order to facilitate militancy. An indispensible book for all concerned with the present and future prospects of trade unionism, Reigniting the Labor Movement is here examined by four of the leading authorities on that subject

Strike waves, union growth and the rank-and-file/bureaucracy interplay : Britain 1889-1890, 1910-1913 and 1919-1920

Gerald Friedman's Reigniting the Labor Movement was a highly ambitious, unashamedly partisan, historical and transnational comparative analysis of the rise and demise of the labour movement, which identified the way in which rank-and-file workers' spontaneous and innovative strike militancy represents an ‘incipient rebellion against the capitalist system’. In the process, the book made a compelling case for the restoration of past militant worker action as an essential means of ‘reigniting’ the contemporary labour movement. While I find myself in considerable sympathy and agreement with much of the overall analysis, there are distinct but related features of Friedman's thesis that are critically explored in this article. These concern the nature of the relationship between strike movements and union membership growth, and the process by which the unions that emerge from periods of radical labour unrest then seek to dampen down worker militancy in order to bargain with employers/state within the confines of capitalism. My reassessment of Friedman's analysis, framed specifically within the national context of the UK during the historical window of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (specifically 1889–1920), aims to illustrate what I regard as five of the main problematic features of the study

The Quantity Theory of Money is Valid. The New Keynesians are Wrong!

We test the quantity theory of money (QTM) using a novel approach and a large new sample. We do not follow the usual approach of first differentiating the logarithm of the Cambridge equation to obtain an equation relating the growth rate of real GDP, the growth rate of money and inflation. These variables must then again be ‘integrated’ by averaging in order to obtain stable relationships. Instead we suggest a much simpler procedure for testing directly the stability of the coefficient of the Cambridge equation. For 125 countries and post-war data we find the coefficient to be surprisingly stable. We do not select for high inflation episodes as was done in most empirical studies; inflation rates do not even appear in our data set. Much work supporting the QTM has been done by economic historians and at the University of Chicago by Milton Friedman and his associates. The QTM was a foundation stone of the monetarist revolution. Subsequently belief in it waned. The currently dominant New Keynesian School, implicitly or explicitly denies the validity of the QTM. We survey this history and argue that the QTM is valid and New Keynesians are wrong