OK Paul, I stand rebuked. I didn't say that you were arguing in favor of
privatization, but the praise of shock therapy bothered me.
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 07:17:58PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Michael,
>
> I am disappointed in you. Apparently only US politics is
> acceptable to this list? We have just had days of multiple posts on
> the politics of Milken's jail sentence, the political beliefs of Alan,
> the politics of California power, ad nauseum -- nothing about
> anything accept American politics. And then when a short theme
> about Eastern European political economy comes on you suggest
> we should not talk about it. It is distracting you from your navel
> gazing at American politics. No wonder Pen-l attracts almost no-
> one from outside the US and has become almost irrelevant to
> contemporary left economics discussion.
>
> And who said we were advocating privatization. That your
> mistaken interpretation not mine. But we can't talk about what is
> better for the workers, worker ownership and corporatist income's
> policies, or IMF crush the workers? No, we must get back to a
> discussion of the reasons for the collapse of the already pathetic
> US labour movement. After all, only the US is important!
>
> Paul Phillips,
> Economics,
> University of Manitoba
>
> Date sent: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:15:55 -0800
> From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:7331] Re: holy trinity/Yugoslavia in transition
> Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > Barkley, et. al. I don't think that Yugoslavian politics is that relevant to
> > our list.
> >
> > In addition, I can't see how a progressive economists list could be advocating
> > privatization as a development technique.
> >
> > "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote:
> >
>
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
