he economy is like gravity: what goes up must come down. “Downturn,” “slowdown,” “slump”: these are all common catchwords in the economist’s vernacular. It seems to be widely accepted by economists that the economy undergoes frequent fluctuations.

The fact that these fluctuations take place is underscored by the importance of the Federal Reserve in the American economy. When the Federal Reserve cuts or raises interest rates it often has a huge impact on how people choose to spend and invest their money, and it makes headlines in most of the papers. Cutting interest rates is a mechanism to try to prevent the economy from slowing, while raising interests rates when the economy is strong is a mechanism to prevent risky and unwise economic activity that may induce a future downturn.

The economy was supposedly booming in the late ’90s, and according to the experts, it is now in one of its typical downward plunges. Accordingly, the Federal Reserve has begun its practice of cutting interest rates and George W. Bush is campaigning to further help business with a tax cut. Lost in Bush’s campaigning and the business section of the newspaper, however, is any talk of real solutions to help working families and the working class when the recession finally hits. More pro-business solutions are not the answer.

Recessions are nothing new. There were recent recessions in ’90-1991, ’81, ’79, and ’74-1975. According to The New York Times, the chief economist for Morgan Stanley Dean Witter believes that a recession may be a “necessary evil” that helps the long-term prosperity of an economy.

Of course, while the working class benefits least in times of economic prosperity, it always suffers most in times of economic despair when unemployment goes up, wages fall, and the bargaining power of workers (which is already dismal in America) is diminished. Worse, the working class does not have nearly the same amount of wealth and savings to fall back on during difficult economic times as the wealthy, so unemployment may very well mean going hungry or forfeiting payment on a home. In fact, according to The Nation’s Wealth Report, the bottom 40 percent of American families could not maintain their standard of living for even one week if they had to rely solely on their savings. Furthermore, in the United States, many citizens lack health insurance, dental insurance, affordable housing, long-term unemployment benefits and other safety nets that citizens in other countries enjoy in order to help relieve some of the hurt caused by downward economic fluctuations. In light of the fact that recessions are inevitable, the government should put more effort into providing safety nets for American citizens.

Unfortunately, the dialogue on the economy is always pro-business. When productivity is high and the economy is growing, arguments are made that any extra resources going to wage increases or employee benefits will halt growth by hurting the potential for a company to invest. Similarly, politicians argue that increasing welfare spending during times of prosperity will cause tax increases that hurt business and may cause a downturn. When the economy is bad, these same arguments against the creation of safety nets are magnified and additional arguments for tax cuts for the wealthy are added to help spur investment and the potential for growth.

No matter how the economy is doing, economic arguments are always framed in terms of what will best suit business and the wealthy. At no time is the plight of the American worker ever high on the priority list. Unemployment is used as the sole indicator of how workers are affected. Sadly, while it is true that more productivity generally means that more workers will have jobs, it does not mean workers will have their basic needs fulfilled. And when the next slump arrives, these basic needs will still go unfulfilled as unemployment again increases and wages suffer. Workers need more security than knowing that they will most likely be employed when the economy is doing well and may be let go the minute it turns south again. The fact that economic downturns take place so frequently only shows how necessary safety nets are for the working class.

Despite economic fluctuations that frequently place extra hardships on the already suffering working class, few efforts are ever made in America to provide workers with the job security and safety nets they need to ensure an adequate living. Economic fluctuations are to be expected in any economy, whether laissez-faire or socialist, but a socialist economy would ensure that the basic needs of its citizens, including health care, dental care, and job security, were taken care of in both good times and in bad. The suffering of the working class, which is magnified in times of economic downturn, should not be used as an excuse to aid the wealthy, but as a reason to create safety nets that will ensure the welfare of the working class.

Dartmouth is considered one of the finest educational institutions on the planet. But the education it offers is clearly biased and one-sided towards supporting capitalist hegemony and exploitation. Despite its rhetoric about helping working-class students attend the College, its financial aid policy clearly discriminates against poor and working-class students, serving the interests of the institution not financially needy students. More, the academic atmosphere at Dartmouth indoctrinates its students with bourgeois ideology and prepares them for lives as servants to and protectors of the capitalist system.

Case One: Financial Aid

Despite having one of the largest endowments of any college or university in the country and despite embarking on a new capital campaign to invest in new academic, residence and research buildings, Dartmouth refuses to rectify its unjust and discriminatory financial aid system. While Dartmouth preaches providing equal opportunity to all students, it does not do so itself. Despite having adequate finances to do so, Dartmouth refuses to fulfill the needs of its financial aid applicants outright through grants and scholarships. Instead, the institution insists on strapping many students with huge loans to repay upon graduation. This often discourages graduates from taking low-paying public interest jobs, encouraging them to enter high-paying jobs in the corporate sector.

Similarly, the college maintains a $2,000 leave-term earnings requirement for financial aid students. This policy makes accepting low-paying or unpaid internships, or internships outside of a studentís hometown practically impossible. The current leave-term funding from sources other than college financial aid frequently does not cover any of a studentís expected basic living expenses. Thus, a student must either take a high-paying corporate job, stay at home to work at a decent paying job in the private sector, or dig into his or her savings account to fund leave term opportunities.

But the most egregious type of financial aid Dartmouth chooses to use is the federal work-study program. This program should really be called the federal slave-labor program. Instead of giving a financially needy student the money that the College knows he or she does not have, the policy is to have students work for Dartmouth instead. So, a work-study student spends 10 or more hours per week working for Dartmouth, while receiving no pay for it, and leaving him or her less time for studying and other activities. The work-study program is a convenient way for Dartmouth to maintain a constant supply of cheap labor to fulfill its campus job needs. On the other hand, Dartmouth does now require its wealthy students to work 10 hours a week or more for no pay.

The worst part about the system is that many financial aid students end up donating thousands and thousands of dollars to the College after graduation. In this way, the College can easily win back its investment in the student. I am asking all financial aid students right now, out of respect for yourself and understanding of how you are being exploited, to pledge never to donate a dime to Dartmouth after graduation.

If Dartmouth were serious about providing educational opportunities for poor and working-class students equal to the opportunities it provides to wealthier students, it would cover all financial need with grants and scholarships, get rid of leave-term earning requirements, and stop engaging in the slave-labor program known as federal work-study.

Case Two: Academics

Dartmouth provides an education that is grounded in status quo, neo-liberal ideology, largely avoiding discussion of any ideologies or major academic works that challenge the neo-liberal paradigm. It is not just the Tuck Business School; it is the supposed "liberal" undergraduate education that is equally to blame. Academic departments most grounded in neo-liberal thought (i.e. Economics and Government) are often the largest and best funded on this campus. These departments teach neo-liberal doctrine as though it is the only theoretical paradigm that exists.

The Government Department rarely mentions the activities or arguments of politicians or political parties other than Democrats or Republicans, and the Economics Department dismisses the work of Marx and Marxists without analyzing them or presenting them to students. Other social science disciplines, such as Sociology, African American Studies, Womenís Studies, and Anthropology, that often challenge traditional neo-liberal and pro-capitalist views are tiny in comparison.

In a college supposedly grounded in a liberal tradition, Leftist scholarship is ignored by most professors and many departments. At Dartmouth, students are taught everything they need to know to enter society as leaders of the capitalist world, except for what is most important: the flaws of and alternatives to the capitalist system.

Dartmouthís rhetoric does not match its practice. Dartmouth continues to serve bourgeois society and the capitalist system by maintaining class boundaries at the college through an unfair financial aid system and by maintaining an academic program that discourages the teaching of Marxist and other Leftist thought. In reality, it provides neither equal opportunity nor a true liberal education. While Dartmouth has the potential to be so much more, for now it remains a tool of bourgeois society.

ax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts: politicians have been beating on this old horse so long I am surprised it did not die a hundred years ago. Yet, there seems to be a common theme in politics these days that crosses most party lines and is important to many voters, one that suggests that the government is stealing the American people's money through

taxes, taxes that need to be cut. The politicians and the voters are right that the American people are being robbed of their money, but they have accused the wrong villain.

The best kept secret in America, a secret that the politicians and powerful corporations do not want you to know, is that businesses and corporations are making a killing in the current economy by exploiting their workers and refusing to share their profits.

It is corporations and businesses that are the real thieves, not the government.

Despite the claims that everyone is better off in the "booming" economy, inequalities are increasing in America and workers are not getting their share of the pie. The best thing that American workers could do right now is demand a fair wage, one that gives them the money they deserve in the first place.

Let's look at the facts.

Fact Number 1: Sweatshops continue to function despite the success of the economy. In recent years, there has been a proliferation of anti-sweatshop groups that have exposed many of the sweatshop abuses of US companies in foreign countries, including the use of child labor, the paying of slave wages, and the continuation of dangerous working conditions. What is less known is that sweatshops exist even in the United States.

The Department of Labor (DOL) readily acknowledges that sweatshop abuses are rampant in the US garment industry. A ’96 DOL survey of garment contractors in the Los Angeles area determined that 43 percent did not pay the minimum wage, 55 percent did not pay overtime, and 96 percent did not provide safe or healthy work environments.

Earlier this year, the DOL announced that it was rewarding back pay to workers in a Los Angeles sweatshop that produces clothes for GAP, Eddie Bauer, The North Face, Reebok, and other popular and extremely wealthy companies. If the economy is doing as well as the economists say, then it is hard to understand why a company like GAP, whose Chief Executive Officer makes over $10 million a year, needs to pay sweatshop wages. The use of sweatshops both globally and nationally, often by some of the wealthiest corporations, suggests that there are many workers who are not getting what they deserve from their employers.

Fact Number 2: CEO pay is skyrocketing. According to the AFL-CIO and Business Week, CEO pay is now 475 times the pay of the average worker, while it was only

42 times as large in ’80. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' own economists acknowledge that CEO pay and benefits in the United States are much higher than in any other country and that CEO wealth and pay has risen sharply since ’80. If CEOs, particularly CEOs of U.S. corporations, deserve such huge increases in pay and benefits, then why don't the workers who make their products deserve them as well?

Fact Number 3: Despite the booming economy and increases in productivity, workers are not being rewarded. There has not been a minimum wage increase in 3 years despite the fact that, when adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage is lower than it was in the ’60s and ’70s. In ’98 dollars, the minimum wage in ’78 would be worth $6.63, but the current minimum wage in the year 2000 is only $5.15.

In fact, all wages, not just the minimum wage, have failed to increase when adjusted for inflation. Wages were higher in the ’70s and the ’80s then they are now. Furthermore, the poverty rate in ’99, which was the lowest in the entire decade, is still higher than poverty rates from the ’70s, a period of relative economic hardship. In ’95, the Census Bureau reported that 49 million people, or almost 20 percent of the population, lived in a household whose members had difficulty satisfying basic needs. It is hard to justify stagnant wages, a low minimum wage, and economic hardship in a booming economy where productivity is up and CEO benefits and wages are skyrocketing.

It is not hard to understand why so many citizens still feel like they are falling behind. The truth is that the rising tide of the economy has not lifted all boats and inequalities are growing, not subsiding. Instead of getting another job, working longer hours, or accruing more debt in order to try and get ahead, Americans need to realize that relief from their financial problems will only come when they receive fair pay.

Workers need to realize their vital role in helping create the productive economy we are now experiencing and demand a fair piece of the pie they helped create. Anything less, including tax cuts, will not only fail to provide the economic help that is needed, but will continue to rob the working class of their rightful rewards for their hard work, rewards that has been stolen by corporate CEOs, company executives, and corporate shareholders.

Unfortunately, we live in a country that believes in an economic system that concentrates power in the hands of a few people who benefit from mass exploitation. Sadly, since our capitalist system gives the workers no power over their economic lives, the potential for the workers to successfully gain a fair share in the economy is small.

Only in a democratic socialist society will workers have the power and the means to prevent the type of exploitation and robbery we are now seeing; an exploitation rooted in the economy, not the government.

or those of you who think that Dartmouth is a place that always encourages free speech and a diversity of views, think again. At a recent Election 2000 event held at the Rockefeller Center, a student was actually excluded from participating, in part, because the candidate he supports is not considered "prominent." Yes, a censored, undemocratic event took place here at Dartmouth that a host of student organizations supported despite its exclusion of an unwanted voice.

On October 17, an event was held in the Hinman Forum to help inform the campus about the candidates and issues in the 2000 election; at least some of them anyway. The Environmental Studies Division of the Dartmouth Outing Club, led by Oliver Bernstein ‘03, decided to sponsor what was advertised as a "student debate and discussion" to inform interested students about the 2000 Election. The event was organized to promote discussion between the College Republicans, the Young Democrats, and the Greens who were each invited to have a student representative from their organization represent Bush, Gore, or Nader, respectively. No other groups or student representatives of other candidates on the ballot were ever contacted by the event organizers.

However, when I noticed that the candidate I support, Socialist Party Candidate David McReynolds, was not represented on the panel, I blitzed the Rockefeller Center, the College Republicans, and the Young Democrats (the Greens do not have a blitz account) to see if I could be allowed to participate. Despite the fact that I only learned about the poorly advertised event the day before it took place, I felt confident I would be allowed to participate.

To my surprise, when the main organizer, Oliver Bernstein ‘03, contacted me the next day, he told me that I could not represent my candidate at the discussion. Even though he described the event as "an informational-type session so that people can become more familiar with the prominent candidates and their stances on the issues," and even though it was advertised as an opportunity for students to "find out where the candidates stand on the issues, " I was told that there was not a place for me at the forum. Apparently, he and the other organizers of this event felt that it was their job to tell the student body who was a "prominent" candidate instead of letting the students decide for themselves.

Now, perhaps the organizers had made some mistakes, but I hoped the student groups involved in the debates would support me. However, while I was not able to personally contact all members of the College Republicans, Young Democrats, and Greens prior to the debate, I received very little support from anyone. The College Republicans basically ignored me. A few Democrats said they felt bad for me, but even after I asked a student who represented Gore on the panel, Nina Basu ‘02, to boycott the debate unless I was allowed to represent my candidate, she did not.

Unfortunately, not even the Greens would give me their full support in my quest to represent a candidate at the Election 2000 event. A number of Greens had said that they thought I should be allowed to debate and I was expecting solidarity from the "Let Ralph Debate" contingent that had protested the presidential debates so vehemently, but I got very little support at all. At a meeting with Nader representative, Alexios Monopolis ‘03, I was informed that the Greens were willing to offer me a measly three minutes of time in the debate that eventually lasted over an hour-and-a-half. While he and the Greens apparently thought this was a bold and powerful way to stand up to the censored and undemocratic format of the event, the offer was a symbolic gesture at best.

In the end, despite being uninvited, unwanted, unsupported, and initially censored, I was allowed to debate. After sending e-mails to approximately half the campus, and creating flyers and a press release that I was ready to distribute if I was not allowed to participate, I was finally let in at 7pm that night, just minutes before the event officially started.

The fact that I was finally successful, however, does not change the fact that I was originally censored from a student-organized candidate information panel held at the Rockefeller Center and that none of the established campus political groups involved in the event stood up for me and my right to represent my candidate. Personally, I would hope that a rich academic community at an Ivy-League college would foster and support alternative ideas and new voices. In my mind, everyone deserves a chance to be heard.