Re: Re: Re: Marshall/Martial Plan
True. They might still have the receipts for U.S weaponry bought by the govt. of SH. Re: Re: Marshall/Martial Plan by Michael Perelman 22 February 2003 Part of the denazification was to bring Nazis to the US to help in the Cold War. I doubt that we will bring too many of SH's people here. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: Re: Re: Marshall/Martial Plan
H..Dont be too sure. If any bioweapons scientists rat on Hussein or make up stories they can be assured of employment in US labs and that they will not be harassed by inspectors.. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 10:35 AM Subject: [PEN-L:34968] Re: Re: Marshall/Martial Plan Part of the denazification was to bring Nazis to the US to help in the Cold War. I doubt that we will bring too many of SH's people here. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Marshall
As far as dialectics and Marshall are concerned. In a sense there is a dialectic in Marshall. He is one of the few economists of his time who took seriously the interaction of supply and demand. Most of his contemporaries tried to reduce everything to subjective utility evaluations. And if supply was considered it was a static given upon which demand acted. Marshall's conceptions of SD are better than what shows up in textbooks, in the sense that he distinguishes between the market period, the short run, etc. But as I understand him (as a total amateur in the histothought biz), S and D start being completely separate from each other and then interact. In a dialectical perspective, they would be seen as parts of a unified system, internally related. I guess that's the perspective of general equilibrium, but of course, GE rejects dynamics of any real-world sort. BTW, pen-l's Brad DeLong has an op-ed piece in the Opinion section of today's L.A. TIMES on anti-trust Microsoft (at http://www.latimes.com/print/opinion/2409/t33200.html, a web-address that will expire soon). I don't know enough about those subjects to comment. The first two paragraphs follow: Is Big Bad? Antitrust law must constantly adapt to the changing nature of monopoly. But the economic effects of monopoly are shifting as well. Consider Microsoft. By J. BRADFORD DE LONG BERKELEY--Monday, Federal Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson found as a matter of law that Microsoft had violated the 110-year-old Sherman Antitrust Act. He will now begin the process of determining what remedy will be granted to repair the damage done by this illegal restraint of trade. It may be that this decision, shocking to the high-tech sector's stock-market valuation as it was, will wind up as a footnote. For, five years ago, Microsoft, with its dominance of desktop operating systems and productivity applications, was at the heart of America's high-tech economy. But today, because of the remarkable rate of change, the heart of the high-tech economy is the network. It is at least arguable that the key is now in the hands of physical-network companies like ATT, data-delivery companies like Akamai Technologies, database companies like Oracle, Internet-access providers like America Online and the communities of open-source programmers who maintain and develop the Linux operating system and the Apache Web server. So what happens to Microsoft, specifically, is no longer as critical. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine/JDevine.html
Re: Re: Re: Marshall
As far as Marshall's politics are concerned. He was firmly in the British liberal tradition of charity towards his social inferiors. And resented it when workers spoke for themselves. As far as dialectics and Marshall are concerned. In a sense there is a dialectic in Marshall. He is one of the few economists of his time who took seriously the interaction of supply and demand. Most of his contemporaries tried to reduce everything to subjective utility evaluations. And if supply was considered it was a static given upon which demand acted. Rod Michael Perelman wrote: Jim Devine understands what Marshall was about. Yes, he wanted labor to improve, but improvement meant becoming more middle-class. Keynes, Marshall, and Smith all had a similar vision of labor becoming assimilated into the middle-class. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: Re: Marshall
Michael has urged looking at the Greek meaning of economic to understand the meaning of political economy. We should also look at the Greek root of politics. It derives from polis. And doesn't necessarily carry the meanings inherent in the modern word political. Rod -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
