Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/27/00 01:26PM
At 04:40 PM 4/26/00 -0400, you wrote:
... Galbraith endorsed technocracy, no ? The private corporations have
technocrats/bureaucrats too, yet they claim liberal capitalism means some
kind of anti-bureaucratic democracy.
it's a "democracy" that
At 04:40 PM 4/26/00 -0400, you wrote:
... Galbraith endorsed technocracy, no ? The private corporations have
technocrats/bureaucrats too, yet they claim liberal capitalism means some
kind of anti-bureaucratic democracy.
it's a "democracy" that follows the one dollar/one vote principle.
John
So, how is this liberal model, closer to the fact of the last seventy years in
capitalist countries more democratic than the models used in socialist countries ?
"Technocracy " is bureaucracy. Galbraith endorsed technocracy, no ? The private
corporations have technocrats/bureaucrats too, yet
P. Krugman from yesterday's NY TIMES: Real experts [such as Krugman
himself], you see, tend to have views that are not entirely one-sided. For
example, Columbia's Jagdish Bhagwati, a staunch free-trader, is also very
critical of unrestricted flows of short-term capital. Right or not, this
Jim Devine wrote:
P. Krugman from yesterday's NY TIMES: Real experts [such as Krugman
himself], you see, tend to have views that are not entirely
one-sided. For example, Columbia's Jagdish Bhagwati, a staunch
free-trader, is also very critical of unrestricted flows of
short-term capital.
I don't see any originality in Krugman's argument. The same story written
in pseudo economic terms. What a news! As a free marketeer, he suddenly
discovers that the "Economic Policy Institute find some trade
liberalizaton it favors. But it almost never happens". Bingo! capitalism
has never
Quick. Where's my heart medicine?!!
Looks like a blatant, predatory exercise of
market power in the intellectual marketplace.
Where's the DoJ when you need them?
You left out the best part, really the only
element offered in support of his argument
that academics are compelled to be objective,
At 01:06 PM 4/24/00 -0400, you wrote:
I don't see any originality in Krugman's argument.
there's no originality in his argument. He proved himself to be original
and clever a few years ago, so he doesn't have to be so any more. Instead,
he can be a pundit.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
i did *not* mean by "originality" "creativity" or "cleverness". I meant
that Krugman "repeats" his free market dogma... the "unoriginality" he
rediscovered before he became a pundit!
Mine
Miner wrote: At 01:06 PM 4/24/00 -0400, you wrote:
I don't see any originality in Krugman's argument.
At 02:30 PM 4/24/00 -0400, you wrote:
i did *not* mean by "originality" "creativity" or "cleverness". I meant
that Krugman "repeats" his free market dogma... the "unoriginality" he
rediscovered before he became a pundit!
I think that it's unfair to dub PK a practitioner of "free market
At 02:30 PM 4/24/00 -0400, you wrote:
i did *not* mean by "originality" "creativity" or "cleverness". I
meant
that Krugman "repeats" his free market dogma... the "unoriginality" he
rediscovered before he became a pundit!
I think that it's unfair to dub PK a practitioner of "free market
I wrote:
I think that it's unfair to dub PK a practitioner of "free market dogma,"
since he's a technocratic type.
Mine writes:
Unfairness? I am not quite sure. Almost all the technocrats I am aware
of are "closet" free marketeers, either preaching "state regulated
capitalism" to make sure
Technocrats in power in a post-capitalist country can
also set themselves up as a new ruling class, as in the old USSR.
True, but now. In the past, USSR was a socialist economy, neither a "state
commanded capitalism" nor a "free market capitalism it was "state
socialist"..
Mine,Aysen
Jim
At 05:00 PM 4/24/00 -0400, you wrote:
Technocrats in power in a post-capitalist country can
also set themselves up as a new ruling class, as in the old USSR.
True, but now. In the past, USSR was a socialist economy, neither a "state
commanded capitalism" nor a "free market capitalism it
-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:18324] Re: Re: Krugman attacks the EPI! (fwd)
At 02:30 PM 4/24/00 -0400, you wrote:
i did *not* mean by "originality" "creativity" or "cleverness". I
meant
that Krugman "repeats" his fre
At 05:00 PM 4/24/00 -0400, you wrote:
Technocrats in power in a post-capitalist country can
also set themselves up as a new ruling class, as in the old USSR.
True, but now. In the past, USSR was a socialist economy, neither a
"state
commanded capitalism" nor a "free market capitalism it
At 06:11 PM 4/24/00 -0400, you wrote:
I am somewhat confused by the term technocrat. Is it used to mean one who
uses power, or representative of a adherent of Technocracy's technological
social design.
yeah, but nowadays, as I understand it, a "technocrat" is simply an
"expert" who makes
Jim:
Quite apart from all these political questions, I'm wondering how you think
Krugman's arrogance plays? Do you think it comes off as authoritative or
off-putting to non-lefties? It is interesting to me that the Times should feel
compelled to muscle up with two dismissive columnists--Krugman
Joel asks:
Quite apart from all these political questions, I'm wondering how you
think Krugman's arrogance plays? Do you think it comes off as
authoritative or off-putting to non-lefties? It is interesting to me that
the Times should feel compelled to muscle up with two dismissive
ake concesssions for
"free ticket", they "reimpose" authoritarianism on those systems to be
able to better liberalize their trade regimes.
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:53:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
20 matches
Mail list logo
