>
> It would be refreshing if Cheney did. While the powers that be are
> "Machiavellian" in a pejorative sense, they seldom speak as candidly
> as Machiavelli did.
>
> Yoshie
===
At least not in "public."
Ian
Ian writes to Jim:
> > one thing would be hypocrisy. We can emphasize the contradiction between
>> the US power elite's rhetoric and its practice. Since they have so much
>> power, any claim that we're being "moralistic" is nonsense.
>
>Hypocrisy is a moral/judgmental concept. Imag
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/12/world/12MISS.html
May 12, 2001
Talks Don't Calm Foes of Antimissile Plan
By PATRICK E. TYLER
MOSCOW, May 11 - After a week of consultations with allies and former adversaries,
the Bush administration has failed to overcome deep concerns over whether its
proposa
The letter by Engels to Schmidt is presumably on the internet.This is
one of a number of late letters by Engels often quoted about the determining
nature of the economic base, but well worth reading for the subtlety of the
way the argument is worked through. I would be interested i
> Bush has the effrontery to claim he is setting an example by agreeing to
> the US giving a mere $200m to a global AIDS fund.
>
>
>
> At 27/04/01, Louis Proyect wrote: [Re: Global AIDS "war chest"]
>
> >With such a staggering economic/medical crisis, it
> >is totally obscene for somebody like
Bush has the effrontery to claim he is setting an example by agreeing to
the US giving a mere $200m to a global AIDS fund.
At 27/04/01, Louis Proyect wrote: [Re: Global AIDS "war chest"]
>With such a staggering economic/medical crisis, it
>is totally obscene for somebody like Clinton or Blair
At 11/05/01 17:28 -0700, you wrote:
Jim Devine writes:
--
right, the law is "relatively autonomous" from capitalism,
i.e., what
serves the long-term (class) interests of capital. A law which
serves
capital in one era can hurt capital in another.
--
I agree with your general point, David, but you can overdo it. Underlying
the general thrust of the law are power relations that are if not wholly
independent of the law, at least explanatorily prior to it. I am now reading
Peter Linebaugh's The Many Headed Hydra, which discusses, among other
Dear Penners,
Most of us are U.S. based and very much interested in hearing from progressive
economists based elsewhere. It is thus exciting that Pedro Paez has just joined
us. Pedro lives and works in Ecuador, is trained in Marxist theories of
economic development, and is particularly well-pla
> NYT
>
> May 11, 2001
>
> Floyd Norris: An Exaggerated Productivity Boom May Soon Be a Bust
>
> By FLOYD NORRIS
>
> [P]roductivity is not what it was cracked up to be. And therein lies one of the
>great fallacies of the recent boom and bubble.
>
> Productivity at least as measured by th
[Thanks to Marxism list subscriber Jim Farmelant for bringing my (our)
attention to this commemoration of Sebastiano Timpanaro by Perry Anderson
in the May 10, 2001 London Review of Books. The article is far too long and
too resistant to scanner processing to post in its entirety, but these
conclu
> I need clarification. The argument is repeatedly made on this list that
> there is no such thing as a "free market" and "private property" because the
> market and property is defined by the laws that regulate the market and
> property. If so, how can capitalism be autonomous from the law? Is
JD
> of course it isn't. My example was only a way of explaining my meaning of
> "moralism" with an extreme case.
===
Ok
IM/JD
> >Is it not an ethical judgment that
> >you are making here, or perhaps a meta-ethical one?
>
> I don't know, since I don't know your meaning.
For a d
Enough Said
Paul Phillips,
Economics,
University of Manitoba
Former Yugoslavia: The name of the game is OIL!
By Karen Talbot
The Bush administration, with its spectacular connections to oil and
energy corporations, is telling the U.S. people they need more oil,
gas and nuclear power
Jim Devine writes:
--
right, the law is "relatively autonomous" from capitalism, i.e., what
serves the long-term (class) interests of capital. A law which serves
capital in one era can hurt capital in another.
--
I need clarification. The
At 12:06 AM 05/12/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>In his famous letter to Schmidt of 27 October 1890, Engels also describes
>how the law becomes a new and relatively independent sphere which has to
>try to be internally coherent. Engels argues it is rare that a code of
>law is the "blunt, unmitigated,
In his famous letter to Schmidt of 27 October 1890, Engels also describes
how the law becomes a new and relatively independent sphere which has to
try to be internally coherent. Engels argues it is rare that a code of law
is the "blunt, unmitigated, unadulterated expression of the domination o
I wrote:
> > Rather, the point is that my colleague jumped in with moral issues -- i.e.,
> > that we can't say that just because the U.S. engaged in bloody
> > counterinsurgency in Vietnam that it's okay for Milosevic to do so (two
> > wrongs don't make a right) -- before I could finish my analysi
JD>>
> Rather, the point is that my colleague jumped in with moral issues -- i.e.,
> that we can't say that just because the U.S. engaged in bloody
> counterinsurgency in Vietnam that it's okay for Milosevic to do so (two
> wrongs don't make a right) -- before I could finish my analysis. He want
On Friday, May 11, 2001 at 13:52:35 (-0700) Michael Perelman writes:
>Davis is lucky to get such profound advise.
No doubt the same kind of advice as when he pontificated that there
are "too many policy decisions in the realm of politics and too few in
the realm of technocracy." ["Is Government T
Davis is lucky to get such profound advise.
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 11:06:16AM -0700, Jim Devine wrote:
> Don't Write Off Davis Energy Plan
>
> By ALAN BLINDER
>
>
> Alan Blinder, a Professor of Economics at Princeton University, Was Vice
> Chairman of the Federal Reserve From 1994-96. he Is
Brad, we should discontinue this. I would be willing to see some of the
Serbians at war crimes tribunals, but what about anybody from NATO? What
about Hitchens call for Kissinger? I did not give a defense of
atrocities, but I have never seen you call for even handed treatment of
all war crimina
At 12:16 PM 5/11/01 -0700, you wrote:
>> In
>>the former case, marketization seems to have dramatically improved the
>>rate of growth in living standards over the previous 20 years; in the
>>latter case, improvement on average looks closer to flat, with several
>>dramatic cases of reversal; and
Brad DeLong:
>Dominican Rep. 5.8%
As I have stated repeatedly, these GDP figures, stripped of historical and
social context, are utterly useless. There are one million Dominicans in
the USA and 8.2 million in their homeland. No other country in this
hemisphere has a higher emigration rate to the
>If, for the purposes of argument, we assume all the growth data are
>accurate and properly indicative, and restrict ourselves to the last 20
>years, the neoliberal argument seems to fare much better if one takes
>China and India as the rule, and Africa and Latin America as the
>exception, where t
Don't Write Off Davis Energy Plan
. . . The governor's plan,
while not perfect, has the three elements. It also avoids the wackier
suggestions from both the right and the left. . . .
Not to worry. In 1991 or so, Blinder was writing that
proposals to increase public spending in the face of th
Eugene Coyle wrote:
> I liked one sentence in it, though. "Two decades ago, supporters of the
>status quo predicted that deregulation would result in higher airfares, poorer
>quality service, and a deterioration of safety."
>
> Well, 2 of those 3 predictions were right and I would argue
>The CATO author cites studies showing the airfares are much lower than
they
>would have been under regulation. The Brookings studies do some clever
things
>to get their results of lower fares but I find them at the level of hoax.
>
>I do enjoy flying cheaply, though. I'm in the category
>Why would one ever want *not* to count people rather than countries? Why
>would one ever want to *not* use PPP? We are interested in what's
>happening to people, aren't we? And people don't eat exchange rates: they
>use their income as a source of purchasing power over goods and services.
on
L.A. TIMES/May 11, 2001/Op-Ed
(http://www.latimes.com/news/comment/20010511/t39703.html)
Don't Write Off Davis Energy Plan
By ALAN BLINDER
Might Californians finally be seeing a dim light at the end of the energy
tunnel? This spring and summer will be difficult times unless every
No time left to go on with China's internal windfall, just enough to
consider the less complicated subject of silver and the obvious
benefits China enjoyed from its import but which P refuses to
recognize. He says that Europe was fortunate that China was
increasingly adopting silver as a stor
I took a look at the CATO paper David Shemano cites below. It is a polemic,
using bits of things to make points -- .
I liked one sentence in it, though. "Two decades ago, supporters of the
status quo predicted that deregulation would result in higher airfares, poorer
quality service, and a
>Brad, it would be fine, except for the selectivity. Why do "enemies" of
>the U.S. imperialists get so much attention? I have to run in a minute,
>so I must be brief. What serbia did was a fraction of the harm
>Clinton/Bush did to the children of Iraq. I know that you don't support
>that polic
>This article gives a nice summary of some of the issues in
>measuring inequality.
>
>Wade, Robert. 2001. "Winners and Losers." The Economist (28
>April).
>Global inequality is worsening as the distribution of income
>becomes more unequal.
>The answer to what is happening to world income distribut
At 05:19 PM 5/11/01 +, you wrote:
>Jim, I agree that it doesn't make sense to focus organizing activity on
>the crimes of governments we can't much affect--although AMnesty Intnatl
>shows that in individual cases, btw, you can make more difference than you
>would think. But that doesn't mea
Brad, it would be fine, except for the selectivity. Why do "enemies" of
the U.S. imperialists get so much attention? I have to run in a minute,
so I must be brief. What serbia did was a fraction of the harm
Clinton/Bush did to the children of Iraq. I know that you don't support
that policy.
One last quickie before bed.
I see all this concerted bull (in both senses) palaver in the media hasn't
done a thing for the equity markets (they're a bit down). Could it be that
the punters' preoccupation with the Fed's next step has occasioned the thought
that more than ever depends on Greensp
>From Harvey Rosenfield's FTCR daily newsletter on
developments in the California energy crisis. Back
issues are available at
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/utilities/st/
When will this crisis come to a head?
So long as the Gov. has access to billions of dollars
of taxpayer money (see bond
Jim, I agree that it doesn't make sense to focus organizing activity on the
crimes of governments we can't much affect--although AMnesty Intnatl shows
that in individual cases, btw, you can make more difference than you would
think. But that doesn't mean that critical facilities show go into co
G'day Ken,
> Deregulation surely does not minimize transportation costs for smaller communities
>and to distant communities. For them deregulation is often a disaster. Before
>deregulation many smaller cities had to be served as the price airlines had to pay
>for lucrative routes. Now these ci
Christian Gregory wrote:
>Hope of what, exactly? Dereg is supposed to bring lower prices and more
>competition. But neither of these has happened. I suppose this goes with
>being an ideologue, but why is this kind of competition good if even the
>things that boosters say are good about it don't c
G'day Brad,
> Why should pointing out that there are apologists for the
> would-be-genocidal neo-fascists of Serbia cause "trouble"? It seems
> to me that people need to hear *more* about "ethnic
> cleansing"--whether by the Serbian government, the Croatian
> government, Kosovar Albanian guerrill
[Thanks to Colin Danby for bringing to my attention that Jacques Soustelle,
author of a sensitive book on the Aztecs, was much less sensitive when it
came to the people of Algeria. He became, despite his earlier leftwing
associations, a leader of the terrorist, quasi-fascist OAS.]
The Washington
Michael Perelman:
Ricardo, I know of nothing to say that China had an ecological
advantage. Almost all of its good land is on a narrow strip along the
coast. Most of its land had to be "manufactured" into rice paddies.
The interior is mostly desert or mountain.
-
You're right and that'
[was: Re: [PEN-L:11382] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Economic Terrorism---Michel
Chossudovsky]
Brad wrote:
>Why should pointing out that there are apologists for the
>would-be-genocidal neo-fascists of Serbia cause "trouble"? It seems to me
>that people need to hear *more* about "ethnic cleansing"--whe
P effectively smothers this whole question re the impact of
evironmental factors in China's land productivity. One may think the
ecological superiority of wet-rice is too obvious to be hidden
completely. But P is excellent, and the only occasion he refers to
the ecological fertility of wet-ri
>Why should pointing out that there are apologists for the
>would-be-genocidal neo-fascists of Serbia cause "trouble"? It seems
>to me that people need to hear *more* about "ethnic
>cleansing"--whether by the Serbian government, the Croatian
>government, Kosovar Albanian guerrillas, or others-
>RE Brad's
>> It is a
>> perfect illustration of how
>> monopolistically competitive markets
>> with entry do not produce
>> anything like the social optimum...
>
>It is also a clear example of how firms, seeking
>to make profits, shape market structure: market
>structure is often endogenousl
>You are correct. This is absolutely flame bait. We do not need
>this here. We
>have been over this many times. Please do not even bother refuting this
>message. Why would you even bother to put something on that you
>know is almost
>certain to cause trouble?
>
>Michael Pugliese wrote:
>
>>
In an article dated Fall 2000, Ellen R. McGrattan and Edward C. Prescott write:
"Some stock market analysts have argued that corporate equity is currently
overvalued. But such an argument requires a point of reference: overvalued
relative to what? In this study, we use as our reference point th
[corrected & amended -- see the end.]
In response to David's questions ..., Louis Proyect writes:
This is a very interesting theory you have. Whatever the
government does, by definition, is in the long-term class interests of
industry/business/bourgeois/guys who wear tophats/play golf, even if t
I had always thought that the existence of public housing, transportation
and health in many European countries made wage comparisons difficult.
"William S. Lear" wrote:
> Suppose Mr. Boss pays $1 million in taxes, much of which goes to
> support "infrastructure" projects, such as transportation
Ricardo, I know of nothing to say that China had an ecological advantage.
Almost all of its good land is on a narrow strip along the coast. Most of
its land had to be "manufactured" into rice paddies.
The interior is mostly desert or mountain.
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 11:10:12AM -0300, Ricardo
. . . Questions:
1) Are these reasonable "multipliers" and/or is this the right
term to use?
mbs: not sure what this means.
2) Has anyone written about this in accessible form? Anyone
written about this with good empirical data?
mbs: there is tons of research on the dist
Wittgenstein once commented that the most important truths are
usually right in front of you. The land productivity differential
between Europe and China was basically a function of their
environmental resource endowments. Explaining this will
demonstrate it was China which enjoyed the greate
Suppose Mr. Boss pays $1 million in taxes, much of which goes to
support "infrastructure" projects, such as transportation systems,
health care, etc.
Since much of what he pays taxes for really is a way to socialize
costs he would otherwise have to pay out in wages, this is in some
respects a ver
56 matches
Mail list logo
