Quoting [email protected]:
Quoting Carrol Cox <[email protected]>:
[email protected] wrote:
Jim D. wrote:
>
Don't you think these are strong arguments? Permanant nationalization
with haircuts is economically just and provides greater stability.
Even some mainstream folks are starting to concede these arguments
(e.g. Buiter).
Don't you think we should be making these arguments as much as we can,
in order to try to influence the public discussion, instead of
conceding the public discussion to the mainstream folks?
You would still have a capitalist organization of work, so what
difference would it make. And the slogan is absurd. NO legislation, not
even any constitutional amendment, is permanent. The very word applied
to any action of the state is a serious lie.
Carrol
Carrol, I also meant to respond to your comment about "permanent".
Yes, perhaps "permanent" is not the best word. It is meant to distinguish
my proposal from the "temporary" nationalization of the mainstream economists.
What would be a better word? "non-temporary"? "long-lasting"?
It is "permanent" at least in the sense of current intentions.
But of course things can change, including laws, in the future.
Fred
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
