Perhaps everyone is now out to exploit anyone they can. However those at the
top of the heap are still the greatest exploiters. They got where they are by
exploiting, and via their sheer power are in a position to move the economy to
their advantage. True, it doesn't always work for them: consider the fate of
Lehman Brothers. I do feel sorry for the middle-class, once unified via
unions, lots of economic and political power, but now essentially fading out of
it. Personally, I don't see how the middle class is stealing from the poor.
However, I do agree that the poor steal from themselves by pushing drugs, loan
sharking, prostitution, etc. How else would many of them, especially the young
on the street, survive?
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Hudson
To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION ; Ray Harrell
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 4:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Nobel Prize -- was Re: [Ottawadissenters] Hey, you
gotta watch dem machines...
At 19:51 01/01/2013, REH wrote:
How is that different from a man who uses his gifts and expertise to steal
from the poor through market cycles?
No, the gifted man, or the rich man or the corporation steals from the
middle-classes or the soi-disants. The latter are the ones who have the money.
They pay over half of all income tax also. The poor are hardly worth stealing
from but, if anybody, it's the middle-class who do so. And among the poor it's
the lowest-but-one rung of the poor (the hard drug pushers, pay-day loan
sharks, burglars, "carers" in state nursing homes, "nurses" in geriatric
hospital wards, etc) who exploit the poorest.
Keith
REH
From: [email protected] [
mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Arthur Cordell
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 1:16 PM
To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION'
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Nobel Prize -- was Re: [Ottawadissenters] Hey,
you gotta watch dem machines...
No I mean like having power in one area and exploiting it in another. E.g.
the policeman who takes an apple from the corner grocer or the president who
exploits an intern or the senator who accepts gifts etc.
From: [email protected] [
mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ray Harrell
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 1:05 AM
To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION'
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Nobel Prize -- was Re: [Ottawadissenters] Hey,
you gotta watch dem machines...
You mean like virtue = wealth production or
You can't be a good businessman and pay taxes or
You owe your loyalty to your shareholders not to the poor of America
or..........
REH
From: [email protected] [
mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Arthur Cordell
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 1:25 PM
To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION'
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Nobel Prize -- was Re: [Ottawadissenters] Hey,
you gotta watch dem machines...
Of course we all have biases. But those who trumpet the truth while
pretending that they are not biased are those that I avoid.
arthur
From: [email protected] [
mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of michael gurstein
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 10:47 AM
To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION'
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Nobel Prize -- was Re: [Ottawadissenters] Hey,
you gotta watch dem machines...
So who isn't "biased".
M
From: [email protected] [
mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Arthur Cordell
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 6:39 AM
To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION'; 'Keith Hudson'
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Nobel Prize -- was Re: [Ottawadissenters] Hey,
you gotta watch dem machines...
I used to read Buckley for the same reason. A very interesting
conservative thinker.
Krugman's biases sometimes get in the way, as did Buckley's. Both
interesting. Both biased.
arthur
From: [email protected] [
mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Weick
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 6:53 AM
To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION; Keith Hudson
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Nobel Prize -- was Re: [Ottawadissenters] Hey,
you gotta watch dem machines...
Not sure of why people on this list are going after Krugman. Personally, I
think he writes a very good, very readable column on a diverse range of topics.
In today's column, he deals with a very relevant topic, the hidden influence
of big money on politics, a very important but largely ignored topic. OK, so
he got the Nobel prize because he pointed something in an academic field that
Henry Ford already knew as a practical person and the Japanese already knew as
well. However, what he said wasn't recognized in the field of economics until
he said it. I did my undergrad work back in the 1950s, and the Ricardian idea
of comparative and absolute advantage is what we had to learn and how we had to
view the economic world. I did a graduate degree in the late 1960s and things
were still very much the same. What Krugman did to get his Nobel was open
economics up and make us see that while Ricardian theory may still apply to
growing grapes and oranges, it may only very partially apply to the modern
industrial and increasingly cybernetic economy, if it applies there at all. I
for one will continue to read Krugman's columns not because he is an economist
but because I find him an interesting liberal thinker.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Hudson
To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION ; Ed Weick
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 3:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Nobel Prize -- was Re: [Ottawadissenters] Hey,
you gotta watch dem machines...
At 16:26 30/12/2012, you wrote:
(EW) Not sure of where all of this is going. Prior to Krugman, the
theory of international trade was based on the Ricardian notion of comparative
advantage. Countries would produce those products in which in which they had
an advantage, given their resources, and then trade with each other. From what
little I know, Krugman brought in the idea that, given a certain level of
technological development, resource advantage didn't really matter very much.
(KH) But that idea didn't need Krugman! Or anyone else for that matter.
The Japanese had been importing resources ('cos they had none of their own) for
decades before Krugman was even born. I believe those who say that Krugman got
a Nobel for the same reason as Paul Samuelson (who only copied Marshall's ideas
of Sale and Demand curves) -- that he was an economist very much in the
public's eye.
(EW) Any advanced country could, and would, produce cars and, given
consumer willingness to buy, these cars would be shipped to markets all over
the world. As others have pointed out, economies of scale were very important
in this. The more cars that could be produced, the lower the unit costs; the
more cars that could be shipped, the lower the costs of shipment.
(KH) And Henry Ford had known that decades before Krugman was born!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
