Kenneth Campbell writes:
How about West and East Germany? Can't complain about
different historical development.
I think most might agree that there is a very different historical
development between the parts of Germany that were east and west. Check
it out. Pretty main stream.
And,
Kenneth Campbell writes
But I will take the bait. Show me what you have learned about eastern
Germany and why that section of that country would be a tad less able
to produce cars. (You can do it!)
The issue is not whether East Germany, or any other socialist economy, was less able
to
Charles Brown writes:
Why is your personal opinion relevant? I mean, I am sure I can find
somebody
(Melvin P.?) who apparently highly values going 100. Therefore, your
opinion
is cancelled out. Now what do we do?
^
CB: Well, it's like why vote ? Your vote is only one in millions.
Regarding the Pinto, cost/benefit analysis, etc., what exactly is the issue? I mean,
we know with certainty that a certain number of people are going to die each year from
auto accidents. We also know that if we reduced the speed limit to 5 m.p.h. required
all passengers to wear helmets,
Michael Perelman writes:
David, the problem with the Pinto is that the government does not
adequately regulate safety -- not even to the extent of making relevant
information available -- so the regulation is left to the lawsuits -- a
very inefficient way of doing things.
A few bucks for a
Charles Brown writes:
Myself, I think the benefit of reducing the speed limit substantially (
maybe not to 5 miles per hour), and more safety features of the type you
mention would be worth it in the lives and injuries saved, and the cost
would not be astronomical given what would be saved.
Kenneth Campbell writes:
[...] safety is not an absolute value that takes
precedence overy everything else. That is evidenced
by how people actually live their lives, and that
fact must be taken into consideration when determining
appropriate rules.
This is the heart of it.
To use your
Kenneth Campbell rides to the rescue of Charles Brown:
Why do you assume such facts for a socialist society?
Note that Charles uses his language with purpose. There do not seem to
be a lot of wasted words. There is the statement and for a long time
in that last sentence -- and it means
Ted Winslow writes:
Is Marx making an empirical point?
Yes. It's an empirical claim about the psychology dominant in
capitalism. The idea of greed' as an irrational passion is ancient.
As Marx points out in Capital, it can be found in Aristotle.
Aristotle opposes Oeconomic to
Regarding greed and capitalism, a couple of questions based upon the quotations from
Mr. Winslow:
Is Marx making an empirical point? Based upon observation, capitalists are motivated
by greed? Or is it a definitional point -- under capitalism, capitalists by
definition are motivated by
Mr. Sartesian writes:
I am very careful before calling someone a hack. Somebody who makes purely
ethereal distinctions in order to obscure the ugly reality in order to
justify the continuation of that reality is a hack.
Obviously nothing. This is not about simple common sense, as if there
Prof. Devine writes:
individual prices can't be explained or predicted using Marx's labor theory of value
(more accurately, the law of value). Regular micro will do (though not the Chicago
variant). It's a monopoly situation, where the sellers try to get as much of the
consumer
surplus as
Charles Brown writes:
Sowell paints a picture of himself as having a rather shallow grasp of
Marxism, if the narrow experience he describes really changed his mind. I'm
pretty sure that there is no principle in Marxism that says that capitalists
won't lay people off in response to minimum
Mr. Sartesian writes:
As long as we understand each other.
Anybody who obscures the real source of poverty and immiseration and then argues
that better
is worse is a hack.
Don't know if that describes you personally.
It probably does. Do you mind if I use it for my epitaph? Here
Regarding Sowell's transformation, the problem here is one of email communication
confusion and I have contributed. In the Salon interview, the question to Sowell was
So you were a Lefty once. Sowell responded Through the decade of my 20s, I was a
Marxist. The interviewer then asked What
Prof. Devine writes:
The hired folks (the crew, etc.) probably produced more value than they received in
wages, so Marxian exploitation was going on: surplus-value was likely produced
(though I don't know the details of the case). SG are super-star members of the
working class, so they
Melvin P. writes:
On affirmative action he would be run out of the podium and forced to understand the real meaning of traditional American justice. The poor would most certainly string him up and I would not object.
As Godwin's Law approaches, I am done with the thread.
David
Kenneth Campbell writes:
Don't be silly. You are supposedly a lawyer.
The refusal to perform negated the contract. But not the contractual
duties owed to those expected to aid in the performance.
The pathetic spat between the actual performers (in your little
hypothetical) does not negate
Kenneth Campbell writes:
I don't think I misunderstand your question. I was talking about the
value of the crew.
But please inform me of my errors, I am open to instruction, at any age.
The labor/value thing is larger than micro economy, no? When you squish
it into some smaller question,
The wonders of the internet. Here is Sowell explaining his shift away from Marxism:
http://www.salon.com/books/int/1999/11/10/sowell/index1.html
David Shemano
Doug Henwood writes (and others agree)
What made you turn around?
What began to change my mind was working in the summer of 1960 as an intern
in the federal government, studying minimum-wage laws in Puerto Rico. It was
painfully clear that as they pushed up minimum wage levels, which they
Mr. Sartesian writes:
It, the rise in wages, is not incompatible with increasing unemployment, but
neither is it incompatible with rising employment. Sowell, or whoever wants
to argue this point from the right, makes a superficial cause and effect
between wage rates and employment levels,
Daniel Davies writes:
David, I cannot help noticing that you have written close to 1000 words
about what a fantastic chap Thomas Sowell is, and not a single word about
the actual (IMO lousy) boilerplate free trade hackwork that was forwarded to
the list. This also, is a form of argumentum ad
Jim Devine writes:
Also, I don't know if Sowell is a careerist or not. I also wasn't saying that
conservatives
are wrong, though that's true. (Thanks for bringing that issue up!) They often
don't
believe in their own rhetoric. The leaders, such as Karl Rove, are quite cynical.
On the
Charles Brown writes:
The answer , in general, is right where it seems to be. With very rare
exceptions (if Moore is really one), the right , not the left will get gigs
like Sowell's because of the right has money and the left doesn't, natch,
obviously. Why do you think Sowell switched ?
Charles Brown writes:
Hey , on an old thread, I haven't seen you since Enron. What to you think
about bookcooking on Wall Street,now ?
What do I think about it? I am against it.
Look, fraud is illegal in a capitalist economy. There is a certain percentage of the
population that is going to
In defense of David Shemano, Michael Perelman writes:
David is a conservative. He speaks English with a right wing dialect, but he does
so
with humor (not snottiness). We can disagree with him. I usually do, but we can
still be polite.
I don't see him as a red meat class warrior, but as
Laurence Shute writes:
"I agree with both: Jim's analysis of Sowell's article was great. And some of Sowell's early stuff was quite good. For example, "Marx's 'Increasing Misery' Doctrine," American Economic Review, March 1960, pp. 111-120. I think I recall that Sowell had trouble finding a
Michael Perelman writes:
Some of Sowell's early stuff on Say's law was pretty good. Then he became more of
a
right wing hack. Reagan tried to get him to be Sec. of Education. Now his most
appears as a syndicated right wing ideologue.
Why is he a hack? The man turns out a book every year
Michael Perelman writes:
David, I just finished with a conference on the history of economic thought in
Toronto. Maybe 40% of the scholars here follow Hayek. Another 35% are monetarists
-- rough estimates. I have a great deal of respect for virtually every one of them.
I would not call any
Michael Perelman requests:
David, could you tell us more about this case, please?
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 11:39:22AM -0700, David B. Shemano wrote:
Regarding corporations, everybody should be happy to know that the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals held this week that a corporation can sue
James Devine writes:
can a corporation have a gender, too? or rather, can a corporation have sex?
Absolutely, what do you think a corporate merger is? One corporation propositions the
other corporation. The do mutual due diligence to find out if they like each other.
There is a closing
What is the general theory that psychopathology is rewarded and encouraged by the
structure of corporations in capitalist society? As opposed to what? Why more so
than other structures, such as rising through the ranks of the Communist Party in the
Soviet Union (or any political party for
Justin writes:
Who said limited liability was limited to torts? The
corporate forms protects its investors against all
liabilities -- contractual, tort, property, civil
rights and other statutory -- even criminal to a
point, bankruptcy, etc.
Yes, but it is only with respect to
So many things to say.
The only argument offered why the corporation is more than a sum of contracts is
limited tort liability. But as I said, that assumes that there is some inherent LAW
that says the principal employer should be strictly liable for the torts of the agent,
and that is simply
Mr. Bendien cited lyrics by Alice Cooper. I thought I would point out that Alice is a
born-again Christian with conservative views. Further evidence for my theory that all
Rock-and-Roll stars are libertarians. Here is an interview with him where he
describes his investment strategy:
James Devine writes:
all Rock-and-Roll stars are libertarians
is Bono? Bob Geldof? Jello Biafra?
OK, all American Rock-and-Roll stars are libertarians. Jello Biafra did an album with
Mojo Nixon, is for drug legalization and is liked by a lot of libertarians for that
and other reasons, so,
Michael Perelman writes:
David, are you really a Jello-libertarian or a Cato libertarian? I
doubt if Jello is concerned about the liberty of Exxon-Mobil.
I am a Peanut Butter and Jello Libertarian. Actually, I disclaim all labels, except
contrarian. Since this list is against liberty for
, and calling those interlocking series of contracts
a corporation? What is a corporation, but an interlocking series of contracts
between real persons?
David B. Shemano
James Devine writes:
Is this a different David Shemano, who I thought was a lawyer of some sort?
Corporations have _limited liability_ which means that that after a certain point
(the
amount of capital invested by the stock-holders) the state has declared that the
costs of corporate
Eugene Coyle writes:
This interlocking series of contracts has the right of free speech?I think the series of responses Shemano gives in this thread is sillier than neo-classical micro. He describes a total phantasy world, just as the micro theorists do. But the world both try to hide is
Michael Perelman writes:
I got this from the right wing Marginal Revolution web site.
High-income Americans have lost much of their enthusiasm for free trade as they
perceive their own jobs threatened by white-collar workers in China, India and
otonal
trade.
Why is this surprising, or
Since you are talking about union member affinity for the Republican party, how about
considering the fact that a growing percentage of present day union members are
actually government employees. I am willing to bet that they skew significantly more
Democratic than the union members working
Mojo Nixon! The greatest live performer in the history of rock n' roll, and a
libertarian to boot. I could spend all day quoting Mojo Nixon. In fact, whenever I
question my value as a lawyer, I just quote Mojo:
There's a plague on the planet,
and they went to law school.
A bunch of
Louis Proyect writes:
A libertarian? Wow! That leads to an interesting question. How many other
rightwingers made a living as rock-and-rollers? The only one I can think of
is Ted Nugent. Maybe you can include Stereolab as well. They were hanging
around Frank Furedi's cult for a while. Other
Louis Proyect writes:
A desire to make money is not particularly libertarian. I associate
libertarianism with Ayn Rand, von Mises and people like that. Big time
rock-and-roll musicians would as soon get a reputation for boosting Atlas
Shrugged as they would for blaming the Jews on the
Michael Perelman writes:
With the hub and spoke system, prices in some places -- Chico -- have soared. It
cost more to fly 90 miles to san francisco than from SF to New York.
Abstractly, why does this bother you? Why do you want people to get in an airplane to
go 90 miles?
David Shemano
If airline deregulation was not a success, in your view, what do you propose to
reregulate? Do you propose to go back to the pre-1978 era, where industry capture
was an art form and the CAB actively prevented new entrants and price competition in
the name of the public interest? Or do you
Doug Henwood writes:
I think the burden of proof is on you to show that dereg was a
success. The industry is on the verge of going into cumulative loss
once again (i.e., all losses in its history exceeding all profits).
Scores of airlines have disappeared. Fare increases outpaced
inflation
Juriaan Bendien writes:
The car industry is a very important sector of the world economy, it's among
the most important consumer durables there is. I could practically
reconstruct the whole of modern capitalist culture, just through tracing all
the connections involving one motor car.
Doug Henwood writes:
David B. Shemano wrote:
Your daughter is correct. If you read the 10 policy measures set
forth in the Communist Manifesto to a modern liberal, the liberal
would think you are reading from the Democratic Party platform. You
should declare victory and go celebrate
: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 8/26/2003 4:45PM
Subject: Re: Sad Story
David B. Shemano wrote:
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of
land to public purposes.
Rent control (and related tenant protections), real property
taxation, zoning, environmental
Gene Coyle writes:
I wonder, David Shemano, based on your interpretations conflating
liberals with the Communist Manifesto, if you similarly equate Ashcroft
and Bush with facism?
Have you worked out a list for that yet?
Gene Coyle
Of course Bush is a Nazi. See, for instance,
Doug Henwood writes:
That's delusional. An unregulated capitalist economy would quickly
destroy itself. Capital needs the state to discipline and rescue it.
The idea of bourgeois regulation is to preserve the system, not
transform it, which was what ME were all about. I can't believe you
Gil Skillman writes:
By David Shemano's reasoning, not only are taxation, regulation and income
redistribution tantamount to abolition of private property and
centralization of economic power in the hands of the state, (the claim of
his previous post), but these forms are tactically superior
Doug Henwood writes:
For the third time, my serious point, which no one has refuted, let
alone disagreed with, is that the modern liberal sees nothing
fundamentally contentious about the policy prescriptions of the
Communist Manifesto.
And for the nth time, I say you're wrong: the modern
Justin writes:
On a long car trip today, I discussed politics with my
almost-14 year old daughter, and the Clintons came up
as a topic. She said she'd vore for Hilary cause she's
smart. I said I didn't like them because they knew
what was right and did the wrong thing. Like what, she
said.
57 matches
Mail list logo
