On Feb 10, 2008 5:19 PM, Bill Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, were it true that the water were bad now, one doesn't have to go
far to guess the probable causes, no?
If the water is good, Look! public infrastructure works so well if
done right. If the water is bad well thats the fault of
Dean Baker wrote the following about the Cox and Alm column in the NYT:
*Obligatory Nonsense on Inequality at the NYT*
Every year or so, the NYT feels obligated to print a piece of nonsense
masquerading as economics from W. Michael Cox, the senior Vice-President
of the Dallas Federal Reserve
Dean Baker writes:
You may wonder why the NYT would print columns from someone with such a
consistent reputation for getting things wrong. I guess that is the
price that we pay for having a regular column from Paul Krugman. Too bad
they can't find a conservative who could at least make an
[these guys have never heard of something called borrowing or the
fact that such activity incurs something called debt upon which
something called interest must be paid if something called
bankruptcy or foreclosure is to be avoided.]
The New York Times / February 10, 2008
Op-Ed Contributors
You
I think it's more general. It's the floating, meaningless reference point.
You thought X was bad because it had a level of some number Y.
But you should really redefine X as something else, and the latter
has a level less than Y, so X is really not as bad as you thought,
hence not so bad in
On Feb 10, 2008 8:19 AM, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[these guys have never heard of something called borrowing or the
fact that such activity incurs something called debt upon which
something called interest must be paid if something called
bankruptcy or foreclosure is to be avoided.]
Greetings Economists,
On Feb 10, 2008, at 8:39 AM, Max B. Sawicky wrote:
even though the stuff coming out of the tap is
periodically found to have uncomfortable levels of doo-doo.
Doyle;
My friend Ellen is a water quality engineer with a local water
district. She says you are wrong. Give an
On Feb 10, 2008 9:40 AM, Doyle Saylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greetings Economists,
On Feb 10, 2008, at 8:39 AM, Max B. Sawicky wrote:
even though the stuff coming out of the tap is
periodically found to have uncomfortable levels of doo-doo.
Doyle;
My friend Ellen is a water quality
Sorry... forgot to put my tongue in cheek before I posted.
I was being sarcastadonic.
On Feb 10, 2008 10:18 AM, Doyle Saylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greetings Economists,
On Feb 10, 2008, at 9:43 AM, Leigh Meyers wrote:
Just add more chlorine.
Doyle;
Adding agricultural runoff, or
Greetings Economists,
On Feb 10, 2008, at 10:39 AM, Jim Devine wrote:
do we really grow rice in California?
Doyle;
http://www.calrice.org/
Oh Yes Indeedy.
Doyle
do we really grow rice in California? (I may have reported this, but
I'm not convinced it's true.)
Doyle Saylor wrote:
Why grow rice in California?
--
Jim Devine / Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. (Go your own
way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
According to the article the The top fifth of American households
earned an average of $149,963 a year in 2006 they spent $69,863 on
food, clothing, shelter, utilities, transportation, health care and
other categories of consumption. The rest of their income went largely
to taxes and
Jim Devine wrote:
do we really grow rice in California? (I may have reported this, but
I'm not convinced it's true.)
Yep. I've seen two or three articles over the years describing
rice-growing in California, irrigating with government-subsidized water.
Quite a racket.
Carrol
Doyle Saylor
Greetings Economists,
On Feb 10, 2008, at 10:26 AM, Leigh Meyers wrote:
I was being sarcastadonic.
I was playing the opportunistic raptor consumer of the lumbering
sarcastadonic. Yummy tender free range sarcastdonics. How satisfying
to kill them, grind them up and spread their remains back
On Feb 10, 2008, at 10:39 AM, Jim Devine wrote:
do we really grow rice in California? (I may have reported this, but
I'm not convinced it's true.)
Those of us who live in the Sierra foothills suffer the smoke from the
burning of the rice fields in the Sacramento Valley every summer.
The
Max wrote:
I think it's more general. It's the floating, meaningless reference point.
You thought X was bad because it had a level of some number Y.
But you should really redefine X as something else, and the latter
has a level less than Y, so X is really not as bad as you thought,
hence not so
Rice is the biggest crop in Butte County. Much of the soil is a lava cap with
almost
no topsoil. It was only used for grazing until Japanese immigrants realized it
was
good for rice. They lost the land while they were interned. When I first came
here,
the rice burning was such that there
Untangling Cox and Alm takes more energy than I have.
EPI has done work on this.
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_inequality_inequality
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_viewpoints_econ_oppty_and_poverty
Stephen E Philion wrote:
Max wrote:
I think it's more general.
Max sayeth:
Anyway, Cox was going on about how much better
off we are these days because we have innovations like
many varieties
of bottled water, even though the stuff coming out of
the tap is
periodically found to have uncomfortable levels of
doo-doo.
Surely there are standards for tap
Doyle Saylor wrote:
Greetings Economists,
On Feb 10, 2008, at 8:39 AM, Max B. Sawicky wrote:
even though the stuff coming out of the tap is
periodically found to have uncomfortable levels of doo-doo.
Doyle;
My friend Ellen is a water quality engineer with a local water
district. She says
On Feb 10, 2008, at 7:56 PM, Bill Lear wrote:
On Sunday, February 10, 2008 at 19:48:49 (-0500) Max B. Sawicky
writes:
...
Don't read this until after dinner.
http://www.eserc.stonybrook.edu/cen514/info/NYC/WaterSupply.html
New York City’s water, in the past, has won many awards for it’s
On Sunday, February 10, 2008 at 19:48:49 (-0500) Max B. Sawicky writes:
...
Don't read this until after dinner.
http://www.eserc.stonybrook.edu/cen514/info/NYC/WaterSupply.html
New York City?s water, in the past, has won many awards for it?s taste,
and has long been toasted as the champagne of
On Sunday, February 10, 2008 at 20:04:42 (-0500) Doug Henwood writes:
On Feb 10, 2008, at 7:56 PM, Bill Lear wrote:
On Sunday, February 10, 2008 at 19:48:49 (-0500) Max B. Sawicky
writes:
...
Don't read this until after dinner.
Greetings Economists,
On Feb 10, 2008, at 4:48 PM, Max B. Sawicky wrote:
Don't read this until after dinner.
Doyle;
:-)
I grew up in Texas where fluoride was a perennial question mark about
safe to drink water. You found one reference which is a dandy,
questioning New York drinking water,
I think the essence of the Cox and Alm article is that income inequality
doesn't matter that much because income doesn't matter that much. As
evidence they make the argument that consumption is a lot more equal
than income and it is really consumption that matters.
If this is really true then I
Yes, after savage neoliberal attacks on public infrastructure designed
to achieve just such an outcome, one should not be surprised.
Bill
Which was my point, in the first place.
Idiots celebrate bottled water that ascends on the back of
disinvestment in public amenities.
26 matches
Mail list logo
