how many
Title: how many How many members of the Bush Administration are needed to replace a light bulb? The answer is seven: 1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be replaced. 2. One to attack and question the patriotism of anyone who has questions about the light bulb. 3. One to blame the previous administration for the need of a new light bulb. 4. One to arrange the invasion of a country rumored to have a secret stockpile of light bulbs. 5. One to get together with Vice President Cheney and figure out how to pay Haliburton Industries one million dollars for a light bulb. 6. One to arrange a photo-op session showing Bush changing the light bulb while dressed in a flight suit and wrapped in an American flag. 7. And, finally, one to explain to Bush the difference between screwing a light bulb and screwing the country.
Re: How many history books cite Winnie as War Criminal?
Of course, Churchill isn't cited as the war criminal and racist that he was because (1) his last stint as PM involved a war against a generally-accepted bad guy; and (2) he won. Blair Bush may not win, while it's possible that they could become generally accepted as bad guys. -- Jimmy D. From: k hanly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] History Forgave Churchill, Why Not Blair and Bush? by Mickey Z.
Re: How many history books cite Winnie as War Criminal?
Devine, James wrote: Of course, Churchill isn't cited as the war criminal and racist that he was because (1) his last stint as PM involved a war against a generally-accepted bad guy; and (2) he won. Blair Bush may not win, while it's possible that they could become generally accepted as bad guys. -- Jimmy D. And since Bush Blair's crimes so vividly echo the particular ones of Churchill, the net result may be that Churchill's fame takes a turn for the worse also. He may yet be remembered more for his use of poison gas in Iraq than from his role in the Great Patriotic War. Carrol
Re: How many history books cite Winnie as War Criminal?
Jimmy D. wrote: Of course, Churchill isn't cited as the war criminal and racist that he was because (1) his last stint as PM involved a war against a generally-accepted bad guy; and (2) he won. Blair Bush may not win, while it's possible that they could become generally accepted as bad guys. It's not quite accurate to say that Churchill won WW II, is it? Kolko's The Politics of War comes closer to the truth both about who defeated the Nazis and about Churchill's role than the conventionally accepted mythology. Ted
Re: How many history books cite Winnie as War Criminal?
Jimmy D wrote: Of course, Churchill isn't cited as the war criminal and racist that he was because (1) his last stint as PM involved a war against a generally-accepted bad guy; and (2) he won. Blair Bush may not win, while it's possible that they could become generally accepted as bad guys. Teddy W writes: It's not quite accurate to say that Churchill won WW II, is it? Kolko's The Politics of War comes closer to the truth both about who defeated the Nazis and about Churchill's role than the conventionally accepted mythology. --- by he won I obviously meant he was on the winning side which is the opposite of he was on the losing side. From Winnie the C's perspective, it was a Pyrric victory, since he couldn't preserve the Empire. The idea of winning a war is obviously too simple. Did Vietnam win or lose the war against the US invaders? both. JD
How many history books cite Winnie as War Criminal?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6171.htm History Forgave Churchill, Why Not Blair and Bush? by Mickey Z. 19 July 2003 dissidentvoice.org -- On July 17, 2003, U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair addressed a joint meeting of the U.S. House and Senate. The subject of WMD, of course, was on the front burner. If we are wrong, then we will have destroyed a threat that was at its least responsible for inhuman carnage and suffering,'' Blair said. I am confident history will forgive.'' Blair's confidence is justified. History has forgiven U.K. leaders for plenty. How else, for example, could U.S. News and World Report have dubbed Winston Churchill The Last Hero in a 2000 cover story? In that article, Churchill was said to believe in liberty, the rule of law, and the rights of the individual. As Sir Winston himself declared: History will be kind to me for I intend to write it. This is precisely why so few of us ever discuss Churchill as a war criminal or racist. In 1910, in the capacity of Home Secretary, he put forth a proposal to sterilize roughly 100,000 mental degenerates and dispatch several thousand others to state-run labor camps. These actions were to take place in the name of saving the British race from inevitable decline as its inferior members bred. History has forgiven Churchill for his role in the Allied invasion of the Soviet Union in 1917. England's Minister for War and Air during the time, Churchill described the mission as seeking to strangle at its birth the Bolshevik state. In 1929, he wrote: Were [the Allies] at war with Soviet Russia? Certainly not; but they shot Soviet Russians at sight. They stood as invaders on Russian soil. They armed the enemies of the Soviet Government. They blockaded its ports, and sunk its battleships. They earnestly desired and schemed its downfall. Two years later, Churchill was secretary of state at the war office when the Royal Air Force asked him for permission to use chemical weapons against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment. Winston promptly consented (Yes, Churchill's gassing of Kurds pre-dated Hussein's by nearly 70 years). I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes, he explained, a policy he espoused yet again in July 1944 when he asked his chiefs of staff to consider using poison gas on the Germans or any other method of warfare we have hitherto refrained from using. Unlike in 1919, his proposal was denied...not that history would not have forgiven him anyway. In language later appropriated by the Israelis, Winston Churchill had this to say about the Palestinians in 1937: I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place. When not scheming a Bolshevik downfall, gassing the uncivilized, or comparing Palestinians to dogs, Churchill found time to write soulmate Benito Mussolini. In January 1927, Sir Winston gushed to Il Duce, if I had been an Italian, I am sure I would have been entirely with you from the beginning to the end of your victorious struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism. Even after the advent of WWII, Churchill found room in his heart for the Italian dictator, explaining to Parliament in 1940:I do not deny that he is a very great man but he became a criminal when he attacked England. Mussolini's criminality aside, Churchill certainly took note of Axis tactics...cavalierly observing that everyone was bombing civilians. It's simply a question of fashion, he explained, similar to that of whether short or long dresses are in. Sir Winston must have been a slave to fashion because he soon ordered a fire-bombing raid on Hamburg in July 1943 that killed at least 48,000 civilians, after which he enlisted the aid of British scientists to cook up a new kind of weather for larger German city. In his wartime memoirs, Winston Churchill forgave himself for the countless civilians slaughtered in Dresden. We made a heavy raid in the latter month on Dresden, he wrote benignly, then a centre of communication of Germany's Eastern Front. Surely the Nazis were hiding WMD there, right? Mickey Z. is the author of The Murdering of My Years: Artists and Activists Making Ends Meet ( www.murderingofmyyears.com ) and an editor at Wide Angle ( www.wideangleny.com). He can be reached at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Mad cow served to how many in CA?
Recalled beef was served at Nevada County eateries By Jon Ortiz -- Bee Staff Writer Published 2:15 a.m. PST Saturday, January 17, 2004 Get weekday updates of Sacramento Bee headlines and breaking news. Sign up here. Three weeks after federal officials issued a recall of beef linked to a mad cow report, news that three restaurants in Nevada County had received the meat trickled out from local health authorities. County officials did not release the names of the restaurants or their locations but said the health risk was low. The beef was served before the U.S. Department of Agriculture recalled 10,000 pounds of hamburger on Dec. 24. Federal authorities reported two days earlier that the nation's first case of mad cow disease had surfaced in a Holstein cow from a dairy in Mabton, Wash. The California Department of Food and Agriculture notified counties that received potentially tainted beef on Jan. 2. While an agreement with federal authorities prohibits state officials from releasing recall information, the counties can break the deal if they feel there's an imminent threat to public health. Revealing the information could cost them access to future recall notices, though. None of the counties has so far released names without permission from the businesses involved. Nevada County Health Officer Ken Culter has known since Jan. 2 that three restaurants in his jurisdiction received beef processed at the plant in Moses Lake, Wash., but didn't disseminate the information until Wednesday. He released it then, he said, only because other county offices had received calls from local residents. Federal officials classified the risk of infection as low, Culter said, and he wanted to be certain that other retail outlets had not sold the beef. There was a lot of recalled meat, and the chance that the meat would make anyone ill is extremely remote, Culter said. Consumer advocates responded angrily. These folks are more interested in public relations than telling people what they have a right to know, said Michael Hanson, spokesman for Consumers Union in Washington, D.C. Culter, however, said he wanted more information. We were investigating to see if there was any meat that could be recalled from grocery stores, he said. There wasn't. He added that all the beef had been served to customers before the county or the restaurants received notice of the recall. Hanson, however, said that consumers who ate the beef should be allowed to determine the information's importance. This really shows why we need the USDA to have mandatory recall authority and why disclosure of these situations has to be made immediately, he said. Unlike all other food products, meat and beef recalls are voluntary. So, federal officials do not force retailers or restaurants to identify themselves. After receiving information from meat processors and distributors, the USDA shares details with states and municipalities that have agreed to keep them secret. The companies view their customer lists as proprietary, and Congress has declined to give USDA authority to require disclosure. Nevada County's announcement makes it the ninth California county to say it received beef from the Washington plant. Cutler said no public health interest would be served by disclosing the names of the restaurants. If I thought the information was useful to safeguard health, we'd release it, he said. But at this point, we are abiding by the agreement between the state and the USDA. Mad cow disease, known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy, is caused by a microscopic rogue protein called a prion that eats holes in the animal's brain and spinal cord. Humans who eat beef containing brain or spinal tissue from an infected cow can develop a fatal, brain-wasting illness, new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Consuming a single prion is enough to trigger the disease, but those exposed might not know for 10 years. That's apparently how long it takes the disease to manifest itself in humans. In cattle, it takes 30 months. The notice that three restaurants in Nevada County served beef from the Washington plant comes after an announcement that three restaurants in South Lake Tahoe also served it. The meat was likely served as legions of skiers hit the snowy slopes of the Truckee-Tahoe area just before Christmas break. Lynn Saunders, president and chief executive officer of the Truckee Chamber of Commerce, said news of the recalled beef shouldn't have any impact on local businesses. Any beef that was here a month ago is long gone by now, Saunders said. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the meat that is here now. Dick Howell, owner of OB's Pub Restaurant in Truckee, said that he did not receive any of the Washington beef but that he was concerned the secrecy surrounding the recall would affect his business anyway. We're all being painted guilty by association, he said. On the south side of Lake Tahoe, area resorts reported no reaction to the mad cow story and anticipated none.
Re: Re: Re: Bush Militarism- How many Divisionsare there in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/22/02 13:52 PM 2) Carrol: I have been aware of a proposed conflict presidential power between the 'cowboys' (Texan based oil) the 'yankees' (northern based financial based capital). Is this outlandish inconsistent with facts? Hari former sdser/new leftist turned conspiracy theorist carl oglesby may have been first to use cowboy/yankee concept/terminology in his early 70s book 'the cowboy and yankee war'... distinction probably more relevant at that time re. some differences between 'frostbelt' and 'sunbelt' capital... significantly, however, u.s. foreign policy never changed much regardless of whether 'liberal' yankees or 'conservative' cowboys won elections... still, notion of 'plural elite' has some merit, conservative-elite thinker/poli sci guy thomas dye, who seems to be one of few still using yankee/cowboy framework, has added third faction that he calls 'techno-elite' to describe likes of gates (guess likes of ben jerry don't yet rate)... of course, power-elite is not necessarily same as ruling class (right-wing variant of former and its 'liberal eastern establishment' of left-leaning intellectuals, government bureaucrats, media, 'rockefeller interests', etc.)... ruling class differences - between domestic and transnational capital, for example - revolve around how best to stifle class conflict in order to maintain existing system... 'debates' rarely consider interests of working people... certainly, restraints upon ruling class exists, a no small part of which is what they think they can get way with, but also (somewhat ironically, perhaps) co-optation/ legitimation of representative' government... michael hoover
RE: Re: Re: Re: Bush Militarism- How many Divisionsare there in
Title: RE: [PEN-L:30598] Re: Re: Re: Bush Militarism- How many Divisionsare there in agreeing with Michael H., The pluralist theory of competing factions makes sense -- once it's realized that the process of competition is weighted to benefit those with the most wealth or similar economic resources. C. Wright Mills made the distinction between the ruling class and the power elite. Not using his definitions' terminology (since I can't find my copy of the book), the former refers to that segment of the societal structure that is served by the mode of production. On the other hand, the power elite refers to those (currently) with the most political power, for making collective decisions for society as a whole. (The power elite is more of an empirical concept than the ruling class, too.) Obviously, the ruling class is represented in the power elite, along with military interest groups and the like. Different elements of the ruling class compete to get represented in the power elite. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Michael Hoover [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 6:25 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:30598] Re: Re: Re: Bush Militarism- How many Divisionsare there in [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/22/02 13:52 PM 2) Carrol: I have been aware of a proposed conflict presidential power between the 'cowboys' (Texan based oil) the 'yankees' (northern based financial based capital). Is this outlandish inconsistent with facts? Hari former sdser/new leftist turned conspiracy theorist carl oglesby may have been first to use cowboy/yankee concept/terminology in his early 70s book 'the cowboy and yankee war'... distinction probably more relevant at that time re. some differences between 'frostbelt' and 'sunbelt' capital... significantly, however, u.s. foreign policy never changed much regardless of whether 'liberal' yankees or 'conservative' cowboys won elections... still, notion of 'plural elite' has some merit, conservative-elite thinker/poli sci guy thomas dye, who seems to be one of few still using yankee/cowboy framework, has added third faction that he calls 'techno-elite' to describe likes of gates (guess likes of ben jerry don't yet rate)... of course, power-elite is not necessarily same as ruling class (right-wing variant of former and its 'liberal eastern establishment' of left-leaning intellectuals, government bureaucrats, media, 'rockefeller interests', etc.)... ruling class differences - between domestic and transnational capital, for example - revolve around how best to stifle class conflict in order to maintain existing system... 'debates' rarely consider interests of working people... certainly, restraints upon ruling class exists, a no small part of which is what they think they can get way with, but also (somewhat ironically, perhaps) co-optation/ legitimation of representative' government... michael hoover
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush Militarism- How many Divisionsare there
Thanks Michael Hoover. The analysis I first read (re sectional interests the Yankees vs the Cowboys) did indeed invoke Ogelsby. It was in a work by W.B.Bland in an issue of Communist League from the 70's; discussed matters of the USA politics - from the Kennedy assassination - through to Watergate - in terms of power blocks within the USA ruling class. Points arising: YOU WROTE: 1) former sdser/new leftist turned conspiracy theorist carl oglesby may have been first to use cowboy/yankee concept/terminology in his early 70s book 'the cowboy and yankee war'... distinction probably more relevant at that time re. some differences between 'frostbelt' and 'sunbelt' capital... significantly, however, u.s. foreign policy never changed much regardless of whether 'liberal' yankees or 'conservative' cowboys won elections... REPLY: Well - well the direction of US foreign policy need not necessarily change. All I am suggesting is that within the context of an overall agreement to screw the workers/peasants fo the USA/the world - there may be cause to disagree on some matters within the ruling class. I am trying to understand why there can be a lobby within the US ruling circles that might at this present juncture contradict the general agreement ot launch war. Now while I agree with the other Michael P - that this si pretty muted opposition (Michael Pereleman says it is none) there si some. Why? Who (which sectional class interest) gains? 2) You wrote: ruling class differences - between domestic and transitional capital, for example - revolve around how best to stifle class conflict in order to maintain existing system... 'debates' rarely consider interests of working people... certainly, restraints upon ruling class exists, a no small part of which is what they think they can get way with, but also (somewhat ironically, perhaps) co-optation/ legitimation of representative' government... REPLY: No disagreement! Thanks again. I will check out Thomas Dye. Cheers! Hari
Bush Militarism- How many Divisions are there in the capitalist class?
I have probably missed this due to recent absence, but what do list members think re the apparent divisions in the ruling class regarding assulting Iraq? i) Are these real divisions - or merely 'willpower'? Or do they represent mroe objective capitalist class divisions? ii) If the latter - What do they represent? iii) What prognosis is there for either wing? Thx, Hari
Re: Bush Militarism- How many Divisions are there in the capitalist class?
I don't see much division, except how to market the war. Disgusting sight. On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 09:36:34AM -0400, Hari Kumar wrote: I have probably missed this due to recent absence, but what do list members think re the apparent divisions in the ruling class regarding assulting Iraq? i) Are these real divisions - or merely 'willpower'? Or do they represent mroe objective capitalist class divisions? ii) If the latter - What do they represent? iii) What prognosis is there for either wing? Thx, Hari -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bush Militarism- How many Divisions are there in thecapitalist class?
They are more or less sharp _differences of opinion_. They are not in any politically significant sense _divisions_. There is no set terminology here, probably because there is no very strong tradition of theory and practice around ruling-class unity/division. And I think there is a reason for that: divisions in the ruling class occur only under heavy pressure from the working-class. Divisions on the international level, such as those that led to the world wars, are another thing. I don't think the latter have permanently disappeared -- i.e. I don't believe in the theory of super imperialism or Hardt/Negri's Empire, but that is still a pretty vague area. I think predicting the outcome (prognosis) of such differences of opinion on policy among the ruling class lies in the area of contingency and crystal-ball gazing. As Mao said, Marxists have no crystal ball. Carrol Hari Kumar wrote: I have probably missed this due to recent absence, but what do list members think re the apparent divisions in the ruling class regarding assulting Iraq? i) Are these real divisions - or merely 'willpower'? Or do they represent mroe objective capitalist class divisions? ii) If the latter - What do they represent? iii) What prognosis is there for either wing? Thx, Hari
Re: Re: Bush Militarism- How many Divisions are there in
Michael P said There are none. Carrol Said: "They are not in any politically significant sense _divisions_. ...And I think there is a reason for that: divisions in the ruling class occur only under heavy pressure from the working-class. Divisions on the international level, such as those that led to the world wars, are another thing. I don't think the latter have permanently disappeared .I think predicting the outcome (prognosis) of such differences of opinion on policy among the ruling class lies in the area of contingency and crystal-ball gazing. As Mao said, Marxists have no crystal ball." REPLY: 1) I do not think Michael - that it can be denied that there has been some domestic restraints on Bush. Mild maybe - but I think it would be erroneous to ignore them. Disgusting sight in general? Sure. But how is it so different about so much of USA history in its days of Imperial Arrogance? I agree the degree of nausea that Bush arouses is extremely marked to say the least. 2) Carrol: I have been aware of a proposed conflict presidential power between the 'cowboys' (Texan based oil) the 'yankees' (northern based financial based capital). Is this outlandish inconsistent with facts? 3) If there are indeed even minor wedges between groups of capitalists, we should be willing to recognise them - just in case there is only a marginal possibility of using them. 4) I do not know how anyone could deny current day international differences between imperialists. I know there was to--forth on this one between Chris Burford Proyect, but divisions between EU imperialists USA-UK imperialists on a host of matters since Bosnia have emerged - including now Iraq. 5) As to the Chairman's pontifications- he was surely being highly disingenuous - judging from many of his other pronouncements. In any case let us leave Mao aside. I am absolutely sure you are not suggesting that Marxists make no plans following the careful analysis of history the balance of forces - or..perhaps I err? Hari
Re: Re: Re: Bush Militarism- How many Divisions are there in
The restraints on Bush have been a suggestion that he get approval of congress and the UN before beginning the war. Going to the UN is expensive, because he has to bribe others to go along with it. I am not sure if some of the debate was not orchestrated in the first place. Once Bush agreed to go along with the Powell line, all major resistance collapsed. There was only a prior hint that the victory might bring some unwelcome consequences as instability in the Middle East. But then it turns out that Bush (i.e. Perle et al) wanted to refashion the Middle East all along. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush Militarism- How many Divisions are there in the capitalist class?
In this phase of U.S. "cowboy" imperialism, the problem is that the spoils of war are clearly being discussed and those segments of capital within the U.S. that do not stand to receive substantial financial windfalls are feigning opposition to the Bush doctrine. The key negotiations are over how those segments of capital will be pacified besides tax cuts, gutted labor standards/protections, tariffs, etc. Afterall, war mobilization during a period of rising budget deficits limits the available "generalized" spoils and will lead to greater public scruitiny of federal spending largesse. Bush has made it clear that access is available at the right price and the rewards will be granted at a later date. The reality of globalization, however, means that the benefits of war within the American ruling class is more difficult to calculate and, with a Bush Administration at risk for re-election, some segments of capital are concerned that their payoff may not materialize in two or three years.Robert D. Manning [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Hari Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pen-l <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [PEN-L:30446] Bush Militarism- How many Divisions are there in the capitalist class? Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 09:36:34 -0400 I have probably missed this due to recent absence, but what do list members think re the apparent divisions in the ruling class regarding assulting Iraq? i) Are these real divisions - or merely 'willpower'? Or do they represent mroe objective capitalist class divisions? ii) If the latter - What do they represent? iii) What prognosis is there for either wing? Thx, Hari Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here
Re: how many?
Brad De Long wrote: Does this mean that our ultimate goal is to get human population down to one billion? I can see how we can stabilize world population at 10 billion (maybe). I can't see how to get it down to one billion... Our resident Club of Rome is extremely discreet on the population question, unlike NPG or Dave Foreman. What's the number guys? How many people can the earth support? Doug And with what social institutions? Brad DeLong, wondering if any of his descendants will break down doors on night raids for the Fertility Police...
how many?
Brad De Long wrote: Does this mean that our ultimate goal is to get human population down to one billion? I can see how we can stabilize world population at 10 billion (maybe). I can't see how to get it down to one billion... Our resident Club of Rome is extremely discreet on the population question, unlike NPG or Dave Foreman. What's the number guys? How many people can the earth support? Doug
Re: how many?
Brad De Long wrote: Does this mean that our ultimate goal is to get human population down to one billion? I can see how we can stabilize world population at 10 billion (maybe). I can't see how to get it down to one billion... Our resident Club of Rome is extremely discreet on the population question, unlike NPG or Dave Foreman. What's the number guys? How many people can the earth support? Doug Being a lit-critter, not a bean-counter, I have no idea, but now that you mention it, I'm curious. Suppose everyone on earth is to live (at least) at the level of Brad's living standard (including occasional visits to restaurants comparable to Chez Panisse), since the working class deserve nothing less than that. How many Brads can the earth support? Or how many Brads can capitalism support? Yoshie
RE: how many?
Doug Henwood wrote: Our resident Club of Rome is extremely discreet on the population question, unlike NPG or Dave Foreman. What's the number guys? How many people can the earth support? We have been discussing not population, but energy, which the resident Simonists are extremely discreet about. One could say ''I'm confident that socialism + human ingenuity will solve all the problems". But in fact no-one knows what the earth's carrying capacity will be because no-one knows what state the biosphere will be in. Why speculate? The only certainty is that the longer we sit around while Rome burns, the more global warming we'll get and the less endowed with energy we'll be. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
Re: Re: how many?
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Being a lit-critter, not a bean-counter, I have no idea, but now that you mention it, I'm curious. Suppose everyone on earth is to live (at least) at the level of Brad's living standard (including occasional visits to restaurants comparable to Chez Panisse), since the working class deserve nothing less than that. How many Brads can the earth support? Or how many Brads can capitalism support? On a world scale, there's not much difference between you Brad. Someone with an income of $25,000 is richer than 98% of the world's population; even the bottom decile of USers have incomes higher than 2/3 of the world's population. And the correlation between income resource use is pretty high. Doug
Re: Re: how many?
Yoshie hit the real question. Gene Coyle Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Brad De Long wrote: Does this mean that our ultimate goal is to get human population down to one billion? I can see how we can stabilize world population at 10 billion (maybe). I can't see how to get it down to one billion... Our resident Club of Rome is extremely discreet on the population question, unlike NPG or Dave Foreman. What's the number guys? How many people can the earth support? Doug Being a lit-critter, not a bean-counter, I have no idea, but now that you mention it, I'm curious. Suppose everyone on earth is to live (at least) at the level of Brad's living standard (including occasional visits to restaurants comparable to Chez Panisse), since the working class deserve nothing less than that. How many Brads can the earth support? Or how many Brads can capitalism support? Yoshie
Re: Re: Re: how many?
Doug, you ignore the demonstration effect. What a Chez Panisse patron does becomes the goal of the rest of us. The environment can only be saved by stopping the rich from consuming more. And more. And more. And more. And more. (copy phrase 9,000 times.) Gene Coyle Doug Henwood wrote: Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Being a lit-critter, not a bean-counter, I have no idea, but now that you mention it, I'm curious. Suppose everyone on earth is to live (at least) at the level of Brad's living standard (including occasional visits to restaurants comparable to Chez Panisse), since the working class deserve nothing less than that. How many Brads can the earth support? Or how many Brads can capitalism support? On a world scale, there's not much difference between you Brad. Someone with an income of $25,000 is richer than 98% of the world's population; even the bottom decile of USers have incomes higher than 2/3 of the world's population. And the correlation between income resource use is pretty high. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: how many?
Eugene Coyle wrote: Doug, you ignore the demonstration effect. What a Chez Panisse patron does becomes the goal of the rest of us. The environment can only be saved by stopping the rich from consuming more. And more. And more. And more. And more. This is blame-shifting. It's like blaming "corporations" for pollution. If you live in a U.S. suburb and drive a car, your envinromental footprint is probably at the 90th or 95th percentile of the world population. It wouldn't surprise me if someone who lived in Berkeley and walked to Chez Panisse did less environmental damage than someone living in a distant suburb who drives to a McDonald's at the nearest mall. And while Brad may be pretty well off, a Berkeley professor isn't a very accurate embodiment of the U.S. "rich." Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: how many?
Doug Henwood wrote: Eugene Coyle wrote: Doug, you ignore the demonstration effect. What a Chez Panisse patron does becomes the goal of the rest of us. The environment can only be saved by stopping the rich from consuming more. And more. And more. And more. And more. This is blame-shifting. It's like blaming "corporations" for pollution. If you live in a U.S. suburb and drive a car, your envinromental footprint is probably at the 90th or 95th percentile of the world population. It wouldn't surprise me if someone who lived in Berkeley and walked to Chez Panisse did less environmental damage than someone living in a distant suburb who drives to a McDonald's at the nearest mall. I had taken the question not to be who was or was not "to blame" but rather a fairly simple technical question (not simple to answer, but simple to pose): at what standard of living (if conditions are even moderately equalized) can 7 or 10 billion people live? Unless that is reasonably high (and those who lose, if some do, can be reconciled to that loss), then we are seemingly left with Jim Devine's eco-fascism some "stalinist" equivalent. The question of how do we get from here to there is as binding on those who are skeptical of the Proyect/Jones theses as they are on Lou and Mark -- perhaps more binding. Can we all agree that for a considerably long period the world's population is going to hover around 10 billion, and that all non- genocidal programs have to give at least some general answer to the question of how those 10 billion are to be fed, clothed, housed, entertained, etc.? And Doug, you put a lot more emphasis on consciousness than many of us do, so you have to give some attention to Eugene's "demostration effect," which holds whether or not we "blame" anyone. Carrol
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: how many? (fwd)
Carrol, look! please! I have been following the discussions with amazement here! "Eco-fascism" is a mistakenly directed ad hominem-- an unfortunate mischarecterization, to justify the eco-fascism of capitalism and the demands of the mainstream environmental movement. Association of socialist critique of capitalism with stalinism is a liberal sillines: the product of eco-centric mentality. It does not apply to any of the comrades here just because they have said capitalism is an unsustainable system. I find the repititive anology made by a poster on this list unfortunately absurd and sad! let's not use eco-fascism out of context here. we know who eco-fascists are.. thanks, Mine simple to pose): at what standard of living (if conditions are even moderately equalized) can 7 or 10 billion people live? Unless that is reasonably high (and those who lose, if some do, can be reconciled to that loss), then we are seemingly left with Jim Devine's eco-fascism some "stalinist" equivalent. The question of how do we get from here to there is as binding on those who are skeptical of the Proyect/Jones theses as they are on Lou and Mark -- perhaps more binding.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: how many?
It is not blame shifting. I am saying that Capitalism has us emulating the rich -- anybody richer than ourselves, regardless of whatever level we are at as individuals. And the people in the 89th percentile are driven to live like those in the 90th. I'm not saying that the rich consume all that much (though we do) -- just that they teach us how we must live, or at least aspire to live. And the person going to McDonald's is trying to upgrade the take-home so they can go to someplace they see their higher income neighbors going to. Gene Coyle Doug Henwood wrote: Eugene Coyle wrote: Doug, you ignore the demonstration effect. What a Chez Panisse patron does becomes the goal of the rest of us. The environment can only be saved by stopping the rich from consuming more. And more. And more. And more. And more. This is blame-shifting. It's like blaming "corporations" for pollution. If you live in a U.S. suburb and drive a car, your envinromental footprint is probably at the 90th or 95th percentile of the world population. It wouldn't surprise me if someone who lived in Berkeley and walked to Chez Panisse did less environmental damage than someone living in a distant suburb who drives to a McDonald's at the nearest mall. And while Brad may be pretty well off, a Berkeley professor isn't a very accurate embodiment of the U.S. "rich." Doug
Re: how many?
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Being a lit-critter, not a bean-counter, I have no idea, but now that you mention it, I'm curious. Suppose everyone on earth is to live (at least) at the level of Brad's living standard (including occasional visits to restaurants comparable to Chez Panisse), since the working class deserve nothing less than that. How many Brads can the earth support? Or how many Brads can capitalism support? On a world scale, there's not much difference between you Brad. Someone with an income of $25,000 is richer than 98% of the world's population; even the bottom decile of USers have incomes higher than 2/3 of the world's population. And the correlation between income resource use is pretty high. Doug The question is, can we all live the lifestyle of a Brad? I consider Brad's living standard, not mine, to be the minimum that a hedonistic socialist should want to settle for if circumstances allowed. Don't we all deserve to live like Brad, not me (for instance, I live with no car, no health insurance, no air-conditioning in summer at home, no fancily labor-intensive meal at a moderately priced French restaurant, no pleasure trip to Italy, etc. and I live in what is called "efficiency")? What is the production cost of a Brad? How much energy does it take to create and maintain Brad in the style to which he is accustomed? Can each and every human being on earth live like Brad? If a Brad is too expensive, what about a Michael Perelman? A Eugene Coyle? A Doug Henwood? A Lou Proyect? How many Lous can the earth support? Or (a different question) how many Lous can capitalism support? Or if it has to come down to that (though that would be tragic), how many Yoshies? Yoshie
Re: Re: how many?
Brad De Long wrote: Brad DeLong, wondering if any of his descendants will break down doors on night raids for the Fertility Police... This everyone knows -- when living standards rise, birthrates fall unless artificially pumped up in some way. So there will be no need for fertility police, regardless of the social institutions in power. The question is how under any system do we support 10 billion or so for quite a few generations and, during that time, raise general living standards so that fertility will gradually fall. If I understand the time limits Mark and Lou are positing, we may not have time -- and then (also regardless of who or what is in power) there may well be a good deal of bloodshed. Carrol P.S. My guess: the baby boom was part of a large social/economic/ political complex at the core of which was driving women back into the home after the war. Deliberate propaganda for this had begun during the war. Every woman's magazine for several years had a full page ad showing a woman in a housedress standing next to a refrigerator designed but not manufactured before the war -- a refrigerator with storage space in the door. The text for the ad: "When my husband comes home I'm going to show him the door."
