[PEN-L:1920] Happy Euro!
I was planning to send the above greeting to Greenspan and Rubin, but I decided to toss the list a test message first. If my computer explodes someone will know who to tell about it. While America is busy contaminating the Iraqi gene pool Germany has conquered Europe without firing a shot; there's a story here that Toynbee would have relished, don't you think? valis
[PEN-L:1921] a question
If anyone out there has is awake and has shaken off their hangover, I woner if you could answer the following question for me. Was it Nixon who said "We are all Keynsians now"? Thank you and best wishes for a healthy 1999. Frank
[PEN-L:1922] Re: a question
I always thought it was Nixon, but a few weeks ago I came across the quote in a published collection and it was attributed to Milton Friedman! If anyone out there has is awake and has shaken off their hangover, I woner if you could answer the following question for me. Was it Nixon who said "We are all Keynsians now"? Thank you and best wishes for a healthy 1999. Frank Tom Walker http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
[PEN-L:1923] Re: a question
Copyright 1984 The New York Times Company The New York Times July 8, 1984, Sunday, Late City Final Edition KEYNES IS BACK, THANKS TO REAGAN By Samuel Bowles Samuel Bowles is professor of economics at the University of Massaschusetts, Amherst, and author, with David Gordon and Thomas Weisskopf, of ''Beyond the Waste Land: A Democratic Alternative to Economic Decline.'' AMHERST, Mass. Outside of a handful of economists, hardly anyone took note back in 1972, when Richard M. Nixon told the American public, ''We are all Keynesians now.'' Some may have wondered what that meant. But most people who knew what the economist John Maynard Keynes had come to stand for - an expanded economic role for Government deficits to moderate recessions - probably agreed that his Depression-born view of economics had become part of the conventional wisdom. Among economists, however, the counterrevolution was already well under way. Under the banner of monetarism and supply-side economics, business groups, right-wing ''think tanks'' and economists were mounting a highly successful attack on Keynesian economics. They blamed the expanding role of Government for the slowdown in productivity growth and claimed that deficit spending had done America more harm than good. By the end of the 1970's, Keynes was all but dead. Then, a miracle happened. Cleverly garbed in a patchwork cloak of monetarist and supply-side colors, Ronald Reagan brought Keynes back to life. The most recent Economic Report of the President makes this clear: * Under no Democratic President since Franklin Delano Roosevelt during World War II has the ratio of Federal Government expenditures to gross national product risen as fast as it has under Mr. Reagan. * The 1983 Federal deficit set another post-World War II record. Having put his un-Keynesian former chief economic adviser Martin S. Feldstein at arm's length, the President now patiently explains that when the economy operates below capacity, deficits are not all that bad. Ronald Reagan did not expect to find himself in this curious situation. His 1981 supply-side tax cuts were supposed to raise after-tax profit rates and thus spark an investment boom. Instead, profit rates remained low for two years after the tax cut. The reason: Profits are not made from idle factories, and a substantial portion of the capital stock of the nation still remains unused because of slack demand for output. Keynes would not have been surprised. Despite an investment upturn during the second half of 1983, the President's Economic Report reveals that last year net private nonresidential fixed investment - a common measure of productive investment favored by economists and Administration spokesmen alike - fell to 1.5 percent of net national product, a post-World War II low. Even if the rosy investment projections recently released by the Commerce Department prove true, 1984 will still rival 1983 in this dismal contest, ranking second worst in the post- World War II era, with an investment level less than half what it was the year the tax cuts were passed. What, then, is fueling the recovery? Where is the expanding demand coming from? In part, it is the result of consumer spending made possible by the virtual elimination of savings and through buying on credit. But the big boost is from expanded Government spending and from the fact that while spending more, the Federal Government is taxing less, thereby adding to the total demand for goods and services without reducing the levels of private demand. The big ticket item in Government expansion is, of course, military spending. Thus, today's recovery is a classic example of what has come to be called ''military Keynesianism.'' But military Keynesianism seems unlikely to reverse our accumulating economic difficulties. For one thing, the arrows aimed at Keynesian economics from the right were not entirely misplaced. Keynes had taught that the management of total demand for goods and services was the main objective of Government economic policy. The supply-siders, by contrast, pointed to problems not of demand, but of supply, whence their name. By the early 1970's, the Keynesian preoccupation with demand seemed outdated. Demand had been booming throughout the 1960's, but the profit rate and the rate of productivity increase had plummeted nonetheless. According to supply-siders, the culprit was Government: Taxes and regulation of the environment and workplace safety had wrecked the work ethic and tied business up in red tape. However, even economists sympathetic to the supply-side conclusions have not had an easy time demonstrating the concrete importance of their favored culprit in accounting for the productivity slowdown, the decline in profits or the investment slump. And the significant cuts in both regulation and business taxes since the late 1970's appear to have done little to deal with either problem. But the supply-siders are dead right that
[PEN-L:1924] RE: Re: a question
Impressive file system, Louis!! Thanks for your answer to the question. Nancy Breen, PhD, Economist Applied Research Branch Cancer Surveillance Research Program Division of Cancer Control and Population Studies National Cancer Institute 301 496 4675 -Original Message- Sent: Friday, January 01, 1999 2:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[PEN-L:1923] Re: a question Copyright 1984 The New York Times Company The New York Times July 8, 1984, Sunday, Late City Final Edition KEYNES IS BACK, THANKS TO REAGAN By Samuel Bowles Samuel Bowles is professor of economics at the University of Massaschusetts, Amherst, and author, with David Gordon and Thomas Weisskopf, of ''Beyond the Waste Land: A Democratic Alternative to Economic Decline.'' AMHERST, Mass. Outside of a handful of economists, hardly anyone took note back in 1972, when Richard M. Nixon told the American public, ''We are all Keynesians now.'' Some may have wondered what that meant. But most people who knew what the economist John Maynard Keynes had come to stand for - an expanded economic role for Government deficits to moderate recessions - probably agreed that his Depression-born view of economics had become part of the conventional wisdom. Among economists, however, the counterrevolution was already well under way. Under the banner of monetarism and supply-side economics, business groups, right-wing ''think tanks'' and economists were mounting a highly successful attack on Keynesian economics. They blamed the expanding role of Government for the slowdown in productivity growth and claimed that deficit spending had done America more harm than good. By the end of the 1970's, Keynes was all but dead. Then, a miracle happened. Cleverly garbed in a patchwork cloak of monetarist and supply-side colors, Ronald Reagan brought Keynes back to life. The most recent Economic Report of the President makes this clear: * Under no Democratic President since Franklin Delano Roosevelt during World War II has the ratio of Federal Government expenditures to gross national product risen as fast as it has under Mr. Reagan. * The 1983 Federal deficit set another post-World War II record. Having put his un-Keynesian former chief economic adviser Martin S. Feldstein at arm's length, the President now patiently explains that when the economy operates below capacity, deficits are not all that bad. Ronald Reagan did not expect to find himself in this curious situation. His 1981 supply-side tax cuts were supposed to raise after-tax profit rates and thus spark an investment boom. Instead, profit rates remained low for two years after the tax cut. The reason: Profits are not made from idle factories, and a substantial portion of the capital stock of the nation still remains unused because of slack demand for output. Keynes would not have been surprised. Despite an investment upturn during the second half of 1983, the President's Economic Report reveals that last year net private nonresidential fixed investment - a common measure of productive investment favored by economists and Administration spokesmen alike - fell to 1.5 percent of net national product, a post-World War II low. Even if the rosy investment projections recently released by the Commerce Department prove true, 1984 will still rival 1983 in this dismal contest, ranking second worst in the post- World War II era, with an investment level less than half what it was the year the tax cuts were passed. What, then, is fueling the recovery? Where is the expanding demand coming from? In part, it is the result of consumer spending made possible by the virtual elimination of savings and through buying on credit. But the big boost is from expanded Government spending and from the fact that while spending more, the Federal Government is taxing less, thereby adding to the total demand for goods and services without reducing the levels of private demand. The big ticket item in Government expansion is, of course, military spending. Thus, today's recovery is a classic example of what has come to be called ''military Keynesianism.'' But military Keynesianism seems unlikely to reverse our accumulating economic difficulties. For one thing, the arrows aimed at Keynesian economics from the right were not entirely misplaced. Keynes had taught that the management of total demand for goods and services was the main objective of
[PEN-L:1927] RE: Re: Re: a question
My recollection is that Nixon said "We are all Keynesians now." but that Friedman amended it with "but in a sense none of us are Keynesians." It's a quote I love to mangle with any convenient theorist's name. Roger PS - I hope to see some of you at the URPE sessions in NY. PPS - Did any of you know Tom Richards, who passed away last week to my great sorrow? -- From: owner-pen-l To: pen-l Subject: [PEN-L:1925] Re: Re: a question Date: Friday, January 01, 1999 3:08PM Without an old newspaper to authenticate it, I recall that it was Nixon in August 1971 after imposing wage price controls and an expansive fiscal policy. Gerald Friedman Associate Professor of Economics University of Massachusetts at Amherst Amherst, MA. 01003 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel.: (413) 545-6357 On Fri, 1 Jan 1999, Tom Walker wrote: I always thought it was Nixon, but a few weeks ago I came across the quote in a published collection and it was attributed to Milton Friedman! If anyone out there has is awake and has shaken off their hangover, I woner if you could answer the following question for me. Was it Nixon who said "We are all Keynsians now"? Thank you and best wishes for a healthy 1999. Frank Tom Walker http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
[PEN-L:1930] Re: a question
and Herb Stein said "We're all functional financers now." mat
[PEN-L:1931] Keynes on Nixon as Keynesian
"Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back." Tom Walker http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
[PEN-L:1932] Fwd: Re: Stampeding bison?boundary=part0_915245220_boundary
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --part0_915245220_boundary According to John Chief Moon, Spiritual Leader and Elder of the Kainai Piikani (Blackfoot) and Long Standing Bear Chief of the Peigan Blackfoot, both of whom are extremely knowledgeable on these matters, these accounts are essentially correct. When one goes to the "buffalo jumps" near Browning, it is clear that there were corridors to ensure that there would not be mass or wasteful killing of bison over the jumps. There was indeed a careful plan of "sustainability" in terms of the numbers and times of bison killing. There is a common Piikani prayer to the Bison for sacrificing their lives for the people and absolutely nothing is wasted. On a parenthetical note, of the various Trbies and Nations with whom Lewis and Clark had contact, only one did armed battle with them--Blackfoot. And it is celebrated even today at Browning with a memorial suggesting Lewis and Clark as front-men for eventual genocide. Jim Craven In a message dated 12/31/98 2:09:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Subj: [PEN-L:1919] Re: Stampeding bison? Date: 12/31/98 2:09:11 PM Pacific Standard Time From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Perelman) Sender:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The source for the stampeding bison is Lewis and Clark's Journals. I found the exerpt in Lewis, Meriwether (1971) 'An Indian Method of Hunting Buffalo', extracted from Journals of Lewis and Clark; in Wes Jackson (ed.) Man and the Environment (Dubuque, Ia: William. C. Brown Co). How trustworthy was there information? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901 --part0_915245220_boundary Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] by relay31.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) Thu, 31 Dec 1998 17:09:10 -0500 (EST) Thu, 31 Dec 1998 14:11:40 -0800 (PST) [207.115.59.137]) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 14:07:31 -0800 From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:1919] Re: Stampeding bison? [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The source for the stampeding bison is Lewis and Clark's Journals. I found the exerpt in Lewis, Meriwether (1971) 'An Indian Method of Hunting Buffalo', extracted from Journals of Lewis and Clark; in Wes Jackson (ed.) Man and the Environment (Dubuque, Ia: William. C. Brown Co). How trustworthy was there information? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901 --part0_915245220_boundary--
[PEN-L:1933] lump stint
"Apart from the question of the number of hours that the Jew -- when under
the stern compulsion of hunger -- can work without killing himself, does the
Jew, when under no such compulsion, seek to grab more than his just share of
'the lump of labour'? Does he, in fact, voluntarily choose to do a great
deal more than a fair day's work? This is, obviously, a question partly of
pace, partly of hours. That the Jewish workman very strongly objects to
being hustled over his work is certain."
"The Jew as Workman." D. F. Schloss. _19th Century_, January, 1891, p. 101.
lump n. 1. compact shapeless or unshapely mass ('the lump', casual workers
in building and other trades)
". . .the selecting of a man who possesses superior physical strength and
quickness, as the principal of several workmen, and paying him an additional
rate, by the quarter or otherwise, with the understanding that he is to
exert himself to the utmost to induce the others, who are paid the ordinary
wages, to keep up to him . . . without any comment this will go far to
explain many of the complaints of stinting the action, superior skill, and
working-power made by the employers against the men."
_Trade Unions and Strikes_. T.J. Dunning, 1860, p. 22-3. cited by Marx in
_Capital_ vol. I
stint n. 2. limitation of supply or effort 3. a fixed or alloted amount of
work ('do one's daily stint').
Tom Walker
http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
[PEN-L:1926] RE: Happy Euro!
I was planning to send the above greeting to Greenspan and Rubin, but I decided to toss the list a test message first. If my computer explodes someone will know who to tell about it. While America is busy contaminating the Iraqi gene pool Germany has conquered Europe without firing a shot; there's a story here that Toynbee would have relished, don't you think? valis No. Europe has conquered Germany. mbs
[PEN-L:1928] Nixon as Keynesian
I have never been able to locate an exact quote. It is not quite an urban legend. Here is what I did find. Lynn Turgeon pointed out the second reference to me. Buckley, William F., jr. 1971. "Are You a Keynesian?" National Review, Vol. 23 (9 February): pp. 162-3. A couple of weeks ago, President Nixon reportedly told Howard K. Smith after a t.v. interview, "I am now a Keynesian in economics." Also see New York Times January 7, 1971. ## Anon. 1971. "Nixon Reportedly Says He is Now a Keynesian." New York Times (7 January): p. 19. Howard K Smith, one of four journalists who questioned Nixon on TV on January 5th, asked Nixon after the TV debate whether he was a Keynesian. Nixon answered affirmatively. P.S. my mail system at Chico is down. I do not know when they will have it fixed. I am on my way to New York. I can still read mail at this address.
[PEN-L:1934] Re: RE: Re: a question
Former Fed Gov. Lawrence Lindsey, a fervent supply-sider, for arguing for an across-the-board 10% tax cut to "put $70 billion in the hands of consumers," to spur them to keep buying more while saving less ( The Wall Street Journal, December 9), notwithstanding consumer debt and defaults being at all time highs. It sounds like a typical Keynesian idea to me. Are we seeing dialectics at work? Are these traditional labels inoperative in a new conceptual synthesis? Is this postmodern Monetarism or deconstructed Keynesianism? There is a lot of rumbling in the globalized Street that the major reason the Asian, Russia, Brazilian crises did not caused a sustained panic in the stock market was that practically all government economists have turned Keynesian. Is that an accurate assessment? Some even go as far as saying that speculative stock markets completely detached from the realities of the global economy, operating like gambling casinos in Las Vagas, can themselves be economic stimulants that keep the bubble going, that it is good economics to exchange future pain with current euphoria, because theoretically, tomorrow will always be tomorrow in this Goldilock economy. Nixon was definitely Keynesian, but not in the sense that he brought Keynesian economics into government. By 1968, Keynesian economics wa so mainstream that it was the invisible starting point of economic policy discourse. There was a c-span program on the 1968 election moderated by Kevin Phillips on New Years eve, with Pat Buchanan, Nixon's press secretary in the campaign and others. The consensus was the Nixon was a liberal, with Keynesian economics and abandoning the gold standard, opening to China, Detent, arms control, free trade, etc. Interestingly that no one on the program mentioned the influence of the Rockefeller wing of Eastern liberal Republicans into whose lap Nixon had fallen since the disastrous loss in the California local election. He move to NY and joined Mudge Rose as a partner and was captured and remolded for the Liberal Republican wing whose own candidate would never have gotten the nomination. Mudge Rose was an old white shoe law firm that Rockefeller gave all the legal work on NY state bond. John Mitchell devised the moral obligation bonds concept for NY State that allowed Rockefeller to spend like a liberal without raising taxes, that eventually drove the state to the brink of bankruptcy. Reagan was Kenyesian by default because his strategy was to spent the Soviet Union into bankruptcy by using conventional arms and strategic arms control as a Cold war economic weapon. And the only way to do that was through Keynesian economics. Henry C.K. Liu "Breen, Nancy (NCI)" wrote: Impressive file system, Louis!! Thanks for your answer to the question. Nancy Breen, PhD, Economist Applied Research Branch Cancer Surveillance Research Program Division of Cancer Control and Population Studies National Cancer Institute 301 496 4675 -Original Message- Sent: Friday, January 01, 1999 2:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[PEN-L:1923] Re: a question Copyright 1984 The New York Times Company The New York Times July 8, 1984, Sunday, Late City Final Edition KEYNES IS BACK, THANKS TO REAGAN By Samuel Bowles Samuel Bowles is professor of economics at the University of Massaschusetts, Amherst, and author, with David Gordon and Thomas Weisskopf, of ''Beyond the Waste Land: A Democratic Alternative to Economic Decline.'' AMHERST, Mass. Outside of a handful of economists, hardly anyone took note back in 1972, when Richard M. Nixon told the American public, ''We are all Keynesians now.'' Some may have wondered what that meant. But most people who knew what the economist John Maynard Keynes had come to stand for - an expanded economic role for Government deficits to moderate recessions - probably agreed that his Depression-born view of economics had become part of the conventional wisdom. Among economists, however, the counterrevolution was already well under way. Under the banner of monetarism and supply-side economics, business groups, right-wing ''think tanks'' and economists were mounting a highly successful attack on Keynesian economics. They blamed the expanding role of Government for the slowdown in productivity growth and claimed that deficit spending had done America more harm than good. By the end of the 1970's, Keynes was all but dead. Then, a miracle happened. Cleverly garbed in a patchwork cloak of monetarist and supply-side colors, Ronald Reagan brought Keynes back to life. The most recent Economic Report of the President makes this clear: * Under no Democratic President since Franklin
[PEN-L:1935] Euro-Bureau
Valis opined, there's a story here that Toynbee would have relished, And there's a hot dog here that Mustard would have relished. Tom Walker http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
[PEN-L:1925] Re: Re: a question
Without an old newspaper to authenticate it, I recall that it was Nixon in August 1971 after imposing wage price controls and an expansive fiscal policy. Gerald Friedman Associate Professor of Economics University of Massachusetts at Amherst Amherst, MA. 01003 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel.: (413) 545-6357 On Fri, 1 Jan 1999, Tom Walker wrote: I always thought it was Nixon, but a few weeks ago I came across the quote in a published collection and it was attributed to Milton Friedman! If anyone out there has is awake and has shaken off their hangover, I woner if you could answer the following question for me. Was it Nixon who said "We are all Keynsians now"? Thank you and best wishes for a healthy 1999. Frank Tom Walker http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
[PEN-L:1929] RE: Happy Euro! II
Der rot Max behauptet: While America is busy contaminating the Iraqi gene pool Germany has conquered Europe without firing a shot; there's a story here that Toynbee would have relished, don't you think? valis No. Europe has conquered Germany. Any takers here, class?
[PEN-L:1948] testing!
Just testing
