Oh, I have followed this thread a bit, sorry, there is so much email.
Melvin makes a fabulous analysis because he points out the opening of a
positive space in which opposition to capital can occupy, both in theory and
in reality. He has identified fertile ground on which an alternative economy
ca
On 10/10/2002 1:54 AM, "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thiago Oppermann:
>> Wouldn't the quality of unemployment also be relevant? A rate of 1% where
> the
>> unemployed end up indentured to credit companies might be a lot worse than
> 5%
>> if they are free to enjoy productive une
Doug is only gone temoporarily.I don't think attacking him or Liza is
appropriate here. I wish that Doug had not brought up Cooper. I agree
with Lou that the policing does no good.
On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 01:58:02PM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote:
>
> >Look at the shit Marc Cooper takes fro
27;"
Subject: [PEN-L:31088] RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: employment
Date sent: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 12:05:55 -0700
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I wrote:
> > > Paul, can you name a participant of pen-l who is fixated on
> > a single number
>
Did I say that you were insensitive and did not concern yourself
with the context of the unemployment rate? -- a rate which I use
every day in my labour and economic problems classes, btw. Nor
was I responding to either Doug or Jim's posts but to Sabri's
lament. Every month when the U rate i
Title: RE: [PEN-L:31084] Re: RE: Re: Re: employment
I wrote:
> > Paul, can you name a participant of pen-l who is fixated on
> a single number
> > measuring the reserve army of the unemployed?
Paul responded:
> Well, I sure read a lot this past day on the list about THE
> unemployment rat
>Look at the shit Marc Cooper takes from people busily policing left
>ideological boundaries. There are American leftists - I won't name names,
>for the sake of amity - who spend more time denouncing him and The Nation
>magazine than they do actually engaging with American politics. It's
>sel
Michael Perelman wrote:
>Don't we see the same thing in every anti-war statement? X is a very bad
>person. I don't support X, but .
No, it's not the same. X (= Saddam, Slobo, etc.) generally is a very
bad person. I was at an antiwar demo - a very good, inspiring one -
in NYC just the oth
Don't we see the same thing in every anti-war statement? X is a very bad
person. I don't support X, but .
On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 11:23:05AM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote:
> There's this extremely annoying habit in left discourse (cue to
> Carrol Cox to say that the left doesn't exist) that r
Title: RE: [PEN-L:31048] Re: RE: Re: Re: employment
ravi:
did you hear the one about the two behaviourists who were having sex? at
the end of the steamy session, one of them said to the other "it was
good for you. was it good for me?".
--> no, one would say: "my behavior clearly reinforced
this is only a fraction of a per cent.
Paul Phillips,
Economics,
University of Manitoba
Date sent: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:39:46 -0700
From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:31008] Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: employment
Send r
Title: RE: [PEN-L:31008] Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: employment
Michael Perelman:
> I don't think that there is a contradiction between Doug and
> Lou. There are criticism's about the method of calculating unemployment -- the
> discouraged workers being excluded.
The BLS c
Michael Perelman wrote:
>I don't think that there is a contradiction between Doug and Lou. There
>are criticism's about the method of calculating unemployment -- the
>discouraged workers being excluded. But such matters are transparent, not
>the result of skulduggery.
>
>On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at
I don't think that there is a contradiction between Doug and Lou. There
are criticism's about the method of calculating unemployment -- the
discouraged workers being excluded. But such matters are transparent, not
the result of skulduggery.
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 05:21:30PM -0400, Louis Proyec
14 matches
Mail list logo
