Marx: Institutionalist and Pure Theorist
[Was: Time for Economics] Re this exchange: Rob writes:it's Marx who is the institutionalist par excellence. absolutely! I wish the folks who try to reduce Marx to neoclassical economics would see this. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevinehttp://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine Obviously Marx closely studied the historical development of capitalist and pre-capitalist institutions. But in his theoretical treatment of surplus value and its surface appearances as profit and interest, he intended his analysis to be as stringently institution-free as any (neo)classicist might desire, taking as given only the defining elements of the capitalist mode of production--and those, only in their purest, hypothetically most fully developed form. Thus he writes in the _Resultate_: Classical economics regards the versatility of labour-power and the fluidity of capital as axiomatic, and it is right to do so, since this is the tendency of capitalist production which ruthlessly enforces its will despite obstacles which are in any case largely of its own making. At all events, in order to portray the laws of political economy in their purity we are ignoring these sources of friction... [K.I, Appendix, Penguin ed., p.1014] Correspondingly, in the final footnote of Ch. 5, Marx indicates his intent to observe the phenomenon of the formation of capital on the basis of the exchange of commodities in its purity... [K.I. p269] And similarly in K.III he says Important as the study of frictions of this kind [i.e., those which inhibit the equalization of wages and working hours across production sectors] is for any specialist work on wages, they are still accidental and inessential as far as the general investigation of capitalist production is concerned and can therefore be ignored. In a general analysis of the present kind, it is assumed throughout that actual conditions correspond to their concept, or, and this amounts to the same thing, actual conditions are depicted only in so far as they express their own general type. So far as I know, only this self-consciously and stringently *non*-institutionalist aspect of Marx's analysis has ever been investigated in neoclassical terms. making.
The leisure life of a lump of labor lie
Editor, the Wall Street Journal, In a bold effort to vaccinate Americans against the insidious lump-of-labor virus, the Wall Street Journal today carries an article by one Christopher Rhoads headlined, Europe's Prized Leisure Life Becomes Economic Obstacle. The analytical nub appears in a paragraph located almost midway through the piece: Enter the shorter working week. Unions argued that reduced hours would spur job growth by spreading the same amount of work among more people. Most economists dismissed the theory, but some argued it could force Europeans to become more efficient, squeezing more work into less time. Neither turned out to be true. What Mr. Rhoads neglects to inform his readers is that the preceding is a formulaic set piece, the prototype of which first appeared in an 1871 Quarterly Review article by Mr. J. Wilson entitled Economic Fallacies and Labour Utopias. The formula was perfected in a 1901 screed featured in the London Times under the headline, The Crisis in British Industry. From 1903 to 1913 -- when a congressional investigation brought their activities to light -- the National Association of Manufacturers spared no expense of political bribery, financial extortion and physical intimidation to inscribe the same message as the common sense consensus of all sane, sober, self-respecting economists everywhere. In short, Mr. Rhoads' paragraph is a hoary slander. What is more, if there can be such a thing as plagiarizing slander, the paragraph -- fraudulently represented as Mr. Rhoads' own observation of some recent argument about spreading the same amount of work and the subsequent dismissal of the theory by most economists -- is a plagiary. Although Rhoads discretely omits the tell-tale term, the drill often passes under the sobriquet of the lump-of-labor fallacy. It was a mainstay in Paul Samuelson's Economics through the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s even though the Nobel Prize winning textbook author has subsequently been unable to account for its source or validity. Speaking of fraud, why doesn't Mr. Rhoads write an article advocating accounting fraud as a boost to global competitiveness? Perhaps he could even crib a few passages in support of his case (sans acknowledgement, naturally) from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Tom Walker 604 254 0470
catty info on public officials
http://www.parida.com/people.html#anchor87242 Pierre Rinfret was an old Nixon-Eisenhower econ. policy hack, but at least he dislikes people like Milton Friedman and others. Nothing great or deep but an interesting view from the right. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The leisure life of a lump of labor lie
Please be a little less Zen. What is the lump of labor fallacy? Ok no one actually believed it; but what is it that no one actually believed. Tom Walker wrote: Editor, the Wall Street Journal, In a bold effort to vaccinate Americans against the insidious lump-of-labor virus, the Wall Street Journal today carries an article by one Christopher Rhoads headlined, Europe's Prized Leisure Life Becomes Economic Obstacle. The analytical nub appears in a paragraph located almost midway through the piece: Enter the shorter working week. Unions argued that reduced hours would spur job growth by spreading the same amount of work among more people. Most economists dismissed the theory, but some argued it could force Europeans to become more efficient, squeezing more work into less time. Neither turned out to be true. What Mr. Rhoads neglects to inform his readers is that the preceding is a formulaic set piece, the prototype of which first appeared in an 1871 Quarterly Review article by Mr. J. Wilson entitled Economic Fallacies and Labour Utopias. The formula was perfected in a 1901 screed featured in the London Times under the headline, The Crisis in British Industry. From 1903 to 1913 -- when a congressional investigation brought their activities to light -- the National Association of Manufacturers spared no expense of political bribery, financial extortion and physical intimidation to inscribe the same message as the common sense consensus of all sane, sober, self-respecting economists everywhere. In short, Mr. Rhoads' paragraph is a hoary slander. What is more, if there can be such a thing as plagiarizing slander, the paragraph -- fraudulently represented as Mr. Rhoads' own observation of some recent argument about spreading the same amount of work and the subsequent dismissal of the theory by most economists -- is a plagiary. Although Rhoads discretely omits the tell-tale term, the drill often passes under the sobriquet of the lump-of-labor fallacy. It was a mainstay in Paul Samuelson's Economics through the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s even though the Nobel Prize winning textbook author has subsequently been unable to account for its source or validity. Speaking of fraud, why doesn't Mr. Rhoads write an article advocating accounting fraud as a boost to global competitiveness? Perhaps he could even crib a few passages in support of his case (sans acknowledgement, naturally) from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Tom Walker 604 254 0470
Re: Marx: Institutionalist and Pure Theorist
At 03:43 PM 8/8/2002 -0400, Gil Skillman wrote: Obviously Marx closely studied the historical development of capitalist and pre-capitalist institutions. But in his theoretical treatment of surplus value and its surface appearances as profit and interest, he intended his analysis to be as stringently institution-free as any (neo)classicist might desire, taking as given only the defining elements of the capitalist mode of production--and those, only in their purest, hypothetically most fully developed form. y express their own general type. [...] So far as I know, only this self-consciously and stringently *non*-institutionalist aspect of Marx's analysis has ever been investigated in neoclassical terms. Abstracting market responses, or parametric adjustments - such as how parameters (such as price) respond to data (such as supply of goods), and how economic units (such as people, families, or firms) respond to parametric changes; in short, the whole dynamics of neoclassical flexibilities and elasticities, respectively - is not at all the same as abstracting from institutions. In fact, the opposite is the case. When you strip away parametric adjustments you have institutions left. It seems to me that the claim you are making is that Marx strips away most institutions as well - focusing on only the most basic institutions of capitalist production. The quotes you offer don't support this - they support rather Marx's defense of abstracting from parametric adjustments, which is his - probably mistaken - attempt to abstract from cyclical, short-run economic behavior to focus on long-run changes in equilibrium and institutional organization. You can certainly criticize Marx for the primacy he places on the institutions of production - we'll end up with a base-superstructure debate in this case. But you can hardly claim that Marx is not institutionalist on the basis that he relegates a large range of institutions, both those of the state and of civil society (many of which would become the primary units of analysis for American institutionalists in the 1920s and '30s) to a secondary role. This would be a debate among institutionalists, no? -ben
Re: Re: A Time for abolishing economics?
On 8/9/02 00:50 AM, Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben asked about comparisons of Marx/Keynes. I don't know of anybody who actually intended to make such a comparison, with the exception of Joan Robinson, who favored Keynes. Many Marxists wrote about Keynes, offering implicit comparisons. I am thinking of Paul Mattick -- I know that Rakesh lurks out there. I did a book, Keynes and the Economic Slowdown, that had one of these implict comparisons. Paul Sweezy tried to bridge the two. Marx tried to criticism of political economy. And success on his attempt In Capital. So If we refer to economics, its form appear as criticism of various kinds of economics MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatry Department Komaki mucicipal hospital 1-20.JOHABUSHI KOMAKI CITY AICHI PREF [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Marx: Institutionalist and Pure Theorist
Title: RE: [PEN-L:29280] Marx: Institutionalist and Pure Theorist Rob wrote:it's Marx who is the institutionalist par excellence. I wrote:absolutely! I wish the folks who try to reduce Marx to neoclassical economics would see this. says Gil: Obviously Marx closely studied the historical development of capitalist and pre-capitalist institutions. But in his theoretical treatment of surplus value and its surface appearances as profit and interest, he intended his analysis to be as stringently institution-free as any (neo)classicist might desire, taking as given only the defining elements of the capitalist mode of production--and those, only in their purest, hypothetically most fully developed form This is missing my point (and Rob's, I think), though I didn't explain it in the exchange cited above. That is, Marx viewed _capitalism itself_ as a human-made (artificial) institution, just as feudalism and ancient slavery were, rather than being simply reducible to what people want (tastes), technology (including transactions costs, uncertainty), and natural forces. (I'd argue that markets are institutions, too, but that's another discussion.) As an institution, capitalism has taken on a life of its own, transforming our tastes and needs, the technologies, and indeed nature -- and reproducing itself as a social system over time (so far). It's a societal structure that was no individual or group's conscious creation (i.e., the folks who organized the primited accumulation described at the end of volume I weren't looking to create what we call capitalism). Instead, it creates certain kinds of individuals and groups, as positions in its social structure, along with their tastes and ideologies. As an institution, it's also historically limited, especially since there are class antagonisms, crisis tendencies, etc. at the center of its laws of motion. Human-made institutions can and do fall apart to be replaced by new ones. Thus he writes in the _Resultate_ [Results of the Immediate Process of Production]: Classical economics regards the versatility of labour-power and the fluidity of capital as axiomatic, and it is right to do so, since this is the tendency of capitalist production which ruthlessly enforces its will despite obstacles which are in any case largely of its own making. At all events, in order to portray the laws of political economy in their purity we are ignoring these sources of friction... [K.I, Appendix, Penguin ed., p.1014] Correspondingly, in the final footnote of Ch. 5, Marx indicates his intent to observe the phenomenon of the formation of capital on the basis of the exchange of commodities in its purity... [K.I. p269] And similarly in K.III he says Important as the study of frictions of this kind [i.e., those which inhibit the equalization of wages and working hours across production sectors] is for any specialist work on wages, they are still accidental and inessential as far as the general investigation of capitalist production is concerned and can therefore be ignored. In a general analysis of the present kind, it is assumed throughout that actual conditions correspond to their concept, or, and this amounts to the same thing, actual conditions are depicted only in so far as they express their own general type. All of this refers to what might be called microeconomic institutions. Marx also mostly ignores many institutions specific to English capitalism of his day (though he spends a lot of time in volume III talking about the Bank of England). He's trying to talk about pure capitalism (without confounding institutions) but capitalism _per se_ is still an institution in his view, a macro institution. So far as I know, only this self-consciously and stringently *non*-institutionalist aspect of Marx's analysis has ever been investigated in neoclassical terms. I see nothing wrong with the use of neoclassical tools as long as one is quite conscious of the clear limitations of those tools and puts any micro-analysis in the macro-context of capitalism that Marx explained so well. (When people are unconscious of these issues, they tend to end up with a mish-mosh like Roemer's.) Indeed, I'm in the process of working on a a simple 'neoclassical' model of Marxian exploitation. Note that I said reduce in my sentence above. The problem isn't the neoclassical tools (since, after all, supply demand diagrams (for example) do help us answer a lot of questions) as much as _excluing_ the Marxian dialectical heuristic from one's consciousness. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http:/bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. -- Richard Feynman.
The JULY_AUGUST OF CANADIAN DIMENSION: Please Post
Title: The JULY_AUGUST OF CANADIAN DIMENSION: Please Post Dear friends, Feature articles in the July-August issue include: Responses to the Anti-Semitism and the Pro-Israel Lobby Dispute by Mordecai Briemberg, James Petras and Ed Herman CD focus on Popular Sovereinty Challenging Globalization by Sam Gindin The Quebec Left: Then and Now by Sébastien Bouchard and Bernard Rioux Robt Nault's Ammendments to The Indian Act by Stephanie Boisard Right/Left Polarization: The Ballot Box and the Street by James Petras Some of these articles can be read on our website : www.canadiandimension.mb.ca HOW MUCH DOES A SUBSCRIPTION to CD COST? Not much. A single-year subscription is $24.50 (taxes already covered). We also have a low-income option for $18.50. U.S. subscribers add $10.00. International subscribers add $15.00. HOW DO I SUBSCRIBE? Easy. You can subscribe in one of three ways: 1. Fill out the subscription form on our website: www.canadiandimension.mb.ca 2. Send us an e-mail at [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3. Call our toll-free subscription hotline: 1-800-737-7051. We accept VISA and MasterCard. Or we can simply send you an invoice. -- WHAT IS CANADIAN DIMENSION? Canadian Dimension is a magazine that shows there is an alternative to the corporate agenda and the dictates of the global market; that the vision - and not just one vision - of a better society is still alive. It provides a forum for debate, where socialists, environmentalists and anarchists share approaches to anti-globalization; where activists report their activities in campaigns all corners of Canada; where writers analyse forms of oppression and human-rights issues; where trade unionists report from the front lines; and where the latest books, films, websites, CDs and videos are radically reviewed. WHO WRITES FOR CANADIAN DIMENSION? Canadian Dimension draws on the best writers on the Left, both familiar and fresh. Walden Bello, Greg Albo, Gregory Baum, Varda Burstyn, Vandana Shiva, Michel Chossudovsky, Sam Gindin, Joan Kuyek, Brian Palmer, Leo Panitch, Judy Rebick, Jim Stanford, Jack Warnock and Reg Whitaker write alongside vigorous young writers like Catherine Brown, Samir Gandesha, Anders Hayden and Meg Holden. International coverage not seen elsewhere is provided by David Bacon, Henry Heller, Saul Landau, Eduardo Luro, Ahmar Mustikhan and James Petras. WHY SHOULD I SUBSCRIBE TO CANADIAN DIMENSION? The shape of the next Left will be very different from that of the previous Left, be it social democratic or socialist. Organizing efforts from Seattle to Quebec City have seen new social movements, new social visions, new concepts for organizing economies, new notions of how to fight back, both globally and locally, come into their own. We at Canadian Dimension are taking an active part in this Left renewal with the same radical energy we have displayed since our founding nearly 40 years ago. _ Canadian Dimension Magazine Suite 2B - 91 Albert Street Winnipeg, MB R3B 1G5 Canada tel. 204-957-1519 fax. 204-943-4617 toll-free. 1-800-737-7051 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Russia holds massive military exercises in Caspian
HindustanTimes.com Thursday, August 01, 2002 Russia holds biggest post-Soviet military exercises in Caspian Agence France-Presse Moscow, August 01 Russia on Thursday launched large-scale military exercises in the Caspian Sea which will involve more than 60 warships and 10,000 men, the biggest presence in the area since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The two-week exercises, seen as an attempt by Russia to flex its muscles in the disputed oil-rich region, are divided into two stages: purely theoretical until August 7 and then war games until August 15 involving air, sea and land forces. Some 30 planes and helicopters will also take part in the exercises, which will involve all branches of the Russian military, including 4,000 sailors from the Caspian Fleet. Russian navy commander Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov denied that Russia was demonstrating its military strength but he signalled that Moscow wanted to show it can protect its interests. By planning exercises of the Caspian Fleet we are not trying to demonstrate our strength. But Russia has a strong military potential for tackling its tasks in the Caspian Sea should peaceful means fail, he told the Interfax news agency. Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the war games in April a day after a summit of heads of state from the five Caspian states in Turkmenistan aimed at resolving the partition of the Caspian Sea's oil wealth ended in failure. The Caspian Sea is thought to hold the world's third biggest oil and gas reserves after Russia and the Gulf but exploration is being held up by the dispute over boundaries. Iran, with backing from Turkmenistan, wants the sea to be split five ways, with each country apportioned 20 percent of the Caspian. However, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Russia favour splitting the sea according to the length of the nations' shorelines, which would leave the Islamic republic with the smallest share, about 13 percent. Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan will be participating in the exercises, with Baku sending two ships including a minesweeper and Astana four Su-27 fighter planes, according to Russian defence military sources cited by Interfax. Representatives from Iran and Turkmenistan have been invited as observers. The state news agency RIA Novosti reported that Iran had asked to take part in the exercises but Russia had refused, citing a 1924 treaty between Tehran and the USSR barring all ships other than Soviet from the Caspian. Russian foreign ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko denied that the military exercises were aimed at any another country and insisted that Moscow's aim was to safeguard regional stability. This is not a threat to foreign states, Yakovenko told RIA Novosti, adding that Russia's military presence in the Caspian was an important factor in maintaining regional security and stability. The official pointed to the need to protect the strategic and economically important zone against the global terrorist threat. The highlight of the war games, which are taking place in the northern sector of the Caspian as well as on land in Astrakhan and Dagestan, will be a blockade of some remote isles to flush out suspected terrorists and arms and drugs smugglers. The exercises will also simulate an operation to free an oil platform seized by terrorists, foil an explosion on a railroad bridge over the Volga as well as clean up after an oil spill. © Hindustan Times Ltd. 2002. Reproduction in any form is prohibited without prior permission To send your feedback via web click here or email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The leisure life of a lump of labor lie
At 02:16 PM 8/8/2002 -0700, Gar Lipow wrote: Please be a little less Zen. What is the lump of labor fallacy? Ok no one actually believed it; but what is it that no one actually believed. From P.A. Samuelson W.D. Nordhaus, ECONOMICS, 16th edition, Irwin McGraw-Hill, 1998, p. 239. The Lump-of-Labor Fallacy We close our analysis of wage theory by examining an important fallacy that often motivates labor market policies. Whenever unemployment is high, people often think that the solution lies in spreading existing work more evenly among the labor force. For example, Europe in the 1990s suffered extremely high unemployment, and many labor leaders and politicians suggested that the solution was to reduce the workweek so that the same number of hours would be worked by all the workers. This view -- that the amount of work to be done is fixed -- is called the lump-of-labor fallacy. To begin with, we note the grain of truth in this viewpoint. For a particular group of workers, with special skills and stuck in one region, a reduction in the demand for labor may indeed pose a threat to their incomes. If wages adjust slowly, these workers may face prolonged spells of unemployment. The lump-of-labor fallacy may look quite real to these workers. But from the point of view of the economy as a whole, the lump-of-labor argument implies that there is only so much remunerative work to be done, and this is indeed a fallacy. A careful examination of economic history in different countries shows that an increase in labor suply can be accommodated by higher employment, although that increase may require lower real wages. Similarly, a decrease in the demand for a particular kind of labor because of technological shifts in an industry can be adapted to -- lower relative wages and migration of labor and capital will eventually provide new jobs for the displaced workers. Work is not a lump that must be shared among the potential workers. Labor market adjustments can adapt to shifts in the supply and demand for labor through changes in the real wage and through migrations of labor and capital. Moreover, in the short run, when wages and prices are sticky, the adjustment process can be lubricated by appropriate macroeconomic policies.
Re: Re: models and theory
Anthony D'Costa wrote: Both import substitution industrialization and export oriented industrialization can be seen as national strategies, which are not quite the same thing as models. On hindsight strategies may become models, when theorised and abstracted. Yes, the word strategy would cover a wide range of policies on trade and tariff, monetary and fiscal policy, pubilc sector investments, regulatory framework etc. These are ultimately grounded in relations of production etc. in a given social formation. Ulhas
Re: RE: Re: models and theory
Jim D. wrote: I didn't say that India was pursuing the export-led growth model. My understanding -- based on incomplete info, BTW -- is that after independence the model was import-substitution and that in the last 10 years or so, India was in the process of switching over to export-led growth (without going all the way, since India has such a large internal market). My point was that the economy must have substitutable imports in sufficient magnitude to make import substitution model possible. Further, the debate about the export led and import substitution models focuses on the role of markets in capital accumulation. My question is this: Is it capital accumulation that creates markets or markets that stimulate capital accumulation? I am assuming that the problem is posed from the standpoint, not of individual capital, but of the total capital. Ulhas
Re: The leisure life of the lousy lump of labor lie
Thanks, Ben, for further information see my The Lump-of-Labor Case Against Work-Sharing: Populist Fallacy or Marginalist Throwback? in _Working Time: International trends, theory and policy perspectives_, edited by Lonnie Golden and Deb Figart, Routledge, 2001. Or I will send copies of the MS Word file on request. I also have a short piece online, Remembrance of Work Time Standards Lost at http://www.straightgoods.com/item439.asp Gar, I take the comment about being zen as a compliment. At 02:16 PM 8/8/2002 -0700, Gar Lipow wrote: Please be a little less Zen. What is the lump of labor fallacy? Ok no one actually believed it; but what is it that no one actually believed. From P.A. Samuelson W.D. Nordhaus, ECONOMICS, 16th edition, Irwin McGraw-Hill, 1998, p. 239. The Lump-of-Labor Fallacy We close our analysis of wage theory by examining an important fallacy that often motivates labor market policies. Whenever unemployment is high, people often think that the solution lies in spreading existing work more evenly among the labor force. For example, Europe in the 1990s suffered extremely high unemployment, and many labor leaders and politicians suggested that the solution was to reduce the workweek so that the same number of hours would be worked by all the workers. This view -- that the amount of work to be done is fixed -- is called the lump-of-labor fallacy. To begin with, we note the grain of truth in this viewpoint. For a particular group of workers, with special skills and stuck in one region, a reduction in the demand for labor may indeed pose a threat to their incomes. If wages adjust slowly, these workers may face prolonged spells of unemployment. The lump-of-labor fallacy may look quite real to these workers. But from the point of view of the economy as a whole, the lump-of-labor argument implies that there is only so much remunerative work to be done, and this is indeed a fallacy. A careful examination of economic history in different countries shows that an increase in labor suply can be accommodated by higher employment, although that increase may require lower real wages. Similarly, a decrease in the demand for a particular kind of labor because of technological shifts in an industry can be adapted to -- lower relative wages and migration of labor and capital will eventually provide new jobs for the displaced workers. Work is not a lump that must be shared among the potential workers. Labor market adjustments can adapt to shifts in the supply and demand for labor through changes in the real wage and through migrations of labor and capital. Moreover, in the short run, when wages and prices are sticky, the adjustment process can be lubricated by appropriate macroeconomic policies. Tom Walker 604 254 0470
PBS show on Argentina
I just saw that PBS show on Argentina that Lou recommended earlier, The Empty ATM. Quite interesting, especially the Stiglitz interview at the end. One memorable quote from an Argentine: In a land where everyone protests, nothing gets done. Of course, looking at the US, it seems clear that in a land where few protest, nothing productive gets done either. Carl _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Why be zen?
Gar Lipow requested: Please be a little less Zen. Although the characterization of my style as 'zen' is not 100% technically accurate, there is an affinity between how I write and zen. I CAN write in a linear style. Sometimes I have to because I make my living as a writer. But when I was out walking the dog this evening I wondered why much that I want to communicate seemingly can't be communicated linearly. It occured to me that the function of the clear, concise exposition is to make what is being read forgetable. People desire clear messages so they can read them, digest them and forget about them all in one gulp. Get the gist, put it in a drawer and shut the drawer. Then when I got home I glanced at the abstract to a paper on the marriage of time and identity: Kant, Benjamin and the nation-state and my eye fell on this line, The progressive notion of time is seen as dangerous by Benjamin, since it generates forgetfulness and inner impoverishment of the self. Justin said the other day People are motivated by the outrage of felt injustice. Well, what if they forget? What if they live in a temporal frame that has become a machine for forgetting? What if the news they get today has been designed to make them forget the news they got yesterday? Make it clear so I can forget it. I suppose I could do that. I've read lots of books on clear exposition. I've done and taught plain language editing. Watch September 11th carefully. There will be an orgy of remembrance calibrated to make people forget. Please be a little more Zen. Tom Walker 604 254 0470
War Question
I read that Dick Army, Sen. Lugar Hagel are questioning the war. What Dems. have spoken up? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PBS show on Argentina
Now what does productive mean, to poke a hornet's nest? Cheers, Anthony xxx Anthony P. D'Costa, Associate Professor Comparative International Development University of WashingtonCampus Box 358436 1900 Commerce Street Tacoma, WA 98402, USA Phone: (253) 692-4462 Fax : (253) 692-5718 xxx On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Carl Remick wrote: I just saw that PBS show on Argentina that Lou recommended earlier, The Empty ATM. Quite interesting, especially the Stiglitz interview at the end. One memorable quote from an Argentine: In a land where everyone protests, nothing gets done. Of course, looking at the US, it seems clear that in a land where few protest, nothing productive gets done either. Carl _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
