"One man deserves the credit,
One man deserves the fame,
And Nicolai Ivanovich
Chossudovsky is his name!
(Hey!)"
(First one to trace this gets a free drink at my
expense at the AEA meetings.)
Sawicky parody on Tom Lehrer, parody on Danny Kaye/Sylivia Fine
("Stanislavsky").
Rosenberg, Bill wrote:
Mind you, despite all this, Michel Chossudovsky has written some
outstanding analyses - I can think of a couple on Africa and
Yugoslavia. So I'm not conceding that Choss is a Lobachevsky
by any means (unless it was the real Lobachevsky).
Hear hear. In a land of 30%
Doug Henwood:
What does it mean to say that capitalism is in "ok shape"? It means that a
polarizing system of exploitation is reproducing itself pretty
successfully. The creation of poverty alongside of wealth is an ancient
feature of this charming economic form. I didn't think I had to make
Patrick Bond wrote:
The socio-political fallout of some yuppie NY banker's
flick of a finger on the keyboard can be terrifying. In SA, a 25%
currency crash during a six-week period in 1996 compelled the ANC
leadership to formally junk its soc-dem development programme and
replace it with a
In response to the exchange between Tom, Doug and Max, there
is recent evidence from Canada that they are both right.
Yesterday the Canadian Council on Welfare issued its
report on child poverty in Canada in which my home province,
Manitoba, was third on the list after New Brunswick and
Quoth Valis:
Quoth Tom re Max:
The disruption and the socialization of the losses are not random processes.
Life goes on more or less for some people and just less for others. While
Chossudovsky may have been hyperventilating, Max's and Doug's sanguine
comments about the "low rate
And another thing.
Are you saying that _I_ sympathize with Chossudovsky's politics or excuse
failures in logic and careless use of data? Or are you just setting up a
bogus dichotomy as a platform to pontificate from? I simply was pointing out
that Doug and Max were citing low unemployment
Doug Henwood wrote,
Are you waxing deconstructive here, Tom? Being anti-apocalyptic requies an
(unacknowledge) dependency on the notion of apocalypse? If so, what is the
unnarativizable other?
The answer to the first question is, "yes". As for the second, I wouldn't
say that the dependency is
Max Sawicky wrote,
Henceforth, the names of Walker and Chossudovsky
will be forever intertwined, their ethnic
contrast notwithstanding, though there may be
some truth to the rumor that Chossudovsky's real
name was Lodge and he changed it to make it as a
radical economist. By the same
Tom Walker wrote:
I will say, however, that pooh-poohing the apocalypse can be as much of a
pose as apocalypticism itself. It might even be interesting to ask whether
apocalyptic pooh-poohing isn't itself just a variation on the theme of
apocalypse. In other words, Sawicky's rhetorical labelling
On Fri, 28 Nov 1997, Doug Henwood wrote:
It's magic: lower incomes + higher labour force participation = a lower rate
of unemployment. This precisely confirms the right-wing nostrum that there
is no such thing as involuntary unemployment. At a low enough wage, there is
a job for everyone who
Tom Walker wrote:
There's nothing fishy about the *numbers* -- they measure what they're
intended to measure. There is something fishy about the *relevance* of those
numbers in terms of the lives of working people. A family in which one adult
is working full time and earning enough to support
Quoth Tom re Max:
If the bubble breaks,
there is some disruption and often some socialization of the losses,
but life more or less goes on. Where's the apocalypse?
The disruption and the socialization of the losses are not random processes.
Life goes on more or less for some people
Colin Danby wrote,
No, increased labor force participation by itself will raise the
unemployment rate not lower it. Look up the definition of
unemployment.
Colin, I'm not impressed with this facile hair splitting. Why don't _you_ go
look up the definition of solipsism. You might have
Tom W on Doug:
A family in which
two adults have to be working full time to earn a similar level of income
contributes twice as many participants to the labour force and thus
"improves" the employment picture.
It's magic: lower incomes + higher labour force participation = a lower rate
of
Doug Henwood wrote,
I know it's sometimes thrilling to mount a moral high horse and declaim,
but I was responding specifically to the assertions in the original
histrionic document that there was something fishy about U.S. employment
numbers.
There's nothing fishy about the *numbers* -- they
valis wrote:
Quoth Tom re Max:
If the bubble breaks,
there is some disruption and often some socialization of the losses,
but life more or less goes on. Where's the apocalypse?
The disruption and the socialization of the losses are not random processes.
Life goes on more or less for
17 matches
Mail list logo
