The air crash of flight TWA 800 on July 17, and the subsequent
bomb explosion in Atlanta ten days later have provided an
opportunity for the most terrorist states in the world,
especially U.S. imperialism, to take further measures to deprive
the people of their rights under the hoax of
promising a ruthless crackdown...
"he'll sign a bill if it involves
lining the poor up against a wall and shooting them." No doubt Clinton
would haggle a bit over the caliber of bullet to be used...
This cocky, violence-laden, callous rhetoric (from the commentator that
Doug
Nathan Newman wrote:
Well, Clinton does suck, today erasing whatever small good he had done to
this point for the working poor. By throwing large numbers of people into
the workforce, he not only screws the non-working poor, he'll drive down
wages. This is a horrific bill.
All quite
At 6:59 AM 8/1/96, Trond Andresen wrote:
This cocky, violence-laden, callous rhetoric (from the commentator that
Doug quotes) is foreign to Scandinavian newspapers. You won't find this
type of language from political commentators _anywhere_ on the spectrum
in Norway, and I suspect, most of
I disagree with most of what Herb Gintis says these days. And,
I think Herb badly needs a refresher course in manners.
But three points:
1) Herb is ultimately motivated by a desire to discover a way
to make society more meaningful and just (and, of course,
more "efficient"). Because of that, I
On Thu, 1 Aug 1996, Max B. Sawicky wrote:
Clinton did announce that he would introduce legislation to restore
welfare benefits to legal immigrants and reverse the provisions in the
bill cutting back food stamps. That has to be a top priority.
The measures you cite are indeed noxious,
1. Gil alleges that: But this much is certainly true:
the basis and relevance of Marx's distinction between labor
power and labor lies in its implications for the strategic
nature of class conflict in production, not in its role in
explaining surplus value when commodity prices are assumed
Nathan Newman wrote:
On Thu, 1 Aug 1996, Max B. Sawicky wrote:
Clinton did announce that he would introduce legislation to restore
welfare benefits to legal immigrants and reverse the provisions in the
bill cutting back food stamps. That has to be a top priority.
The measures
I'd like to second
But three points:
1) Herb is ultimately motivated by a desire to discover a way
to make society more meaningful and just (and, of course,
more "efficient"). Because of that, I consider Herb to be
on "my team." Just like Herb, IF I came to believe that markets
were the
In the midst of the welfare melodrama, let's not overlook the fact that the
McMuffin administration is also at war with public housing: its goal is to
destroy 100,000 units over the next few years and hand vouchers to the
displaced. This is part of a strategy of "spatial deconcentration," whose
Dear Pen-l'ers,
It might be useful for someone to dig up the open letter which Bowles
and Gintis sent to Clinton in 1992. I found it to be pretty pathetic.
I wonder what they think of it now that Clinton has been in office
and acted as if he were a reactionary Republican? Bowles and Gintis
To Trond:
The state of violence in the US is seen by
charges that the Olympic bomber may have been one
of the security guards looking for glory. And the
response to this is to increase the police state.
In a police state, the only criminals are the
police.
Barkley Rosser
A colleague and I are sending the following op-ed piece to the Hartford
Courant. Any comments or suggestions from PENrs before I send it off?
The Welfare "Reform" Bill: Surgery with an Axe
Why are people on welfare?
The theory behind Congress's "reform" bill, which eliminates
It should be clear that as long as 45% of
the US population thinks that either foreign aid
or welfare ("as we know it"!) is the largest item
in the federal budget, then we are going to be
subject to demagogic Jesse Helms/Bill Clinton,
racist and chauvinist policies that screw the poor.
I haven't been followng all the discussion about Gintis and Lingua
Franca, but nevertheless feel it necessary to make a comment about Michael
Yates' posting. Somehow he moves from a critique of Gintis, to an attack on
the whole left group at U-Mass Amherst. In part, Michael's attack
Gil Skillman seems offended that Jim Devine warns us that
his rejection of the classical surplus approach to value
and distribtuion implies that the source of profits must
be some form of "scarcity rent." If the source of profits
is not a surplus extracted from workers in the production
process,
Michael Y. writes, among other things,
. Sometimes I have to laugh at the idea of a bunch of radicals
in Amherst. Amherst? Not exactly a center of working class ferment.
In a time when radicals are having a very hard time finding and keeping
jobs in academia, this comment seems
It seems to me that you might want to put in at least some reference to
the Fed's NAIRU policy -- i.e. it is the government and its policies that
have impoverished so many. These are the casualties of a war on
inflation. The government has been demanding that some 6% of us remain
unemployed
Edwin D. writes:
Gil Skillman seems offended that Jim Devine warns us that
his rejection of the classical surplus approach to value
and distribtuion implies that the source of profits must
be some form of "scarcity rent."
This doubly misrepresents what I said.
Nowhere in the passage Jim cites
in response to gil skillman:
again, i'm sorry for suggesting that colleges in small towns are no
places for radicals to be. however, i do not sem lot af working
class activism coming froo a lot of professors claiming to be radical.
but no doubt many of these teach in factory towns and big
Date sent: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 13:17:05 -0700 (PDT)
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:[PEN-L:5477] Re: progress in economics
Gil Skillman seems offended that Jim Devine warns us that
his rejection of the classical surplus approach to value
Well, now we know the difference between Bob Dole and Bill Clinton.
Dole opposes welfare because he's a corporate hack who'll back any
program to push wages down. Clinton opposes welfare because he
thinks this will help his chances for reelection.
This is a good point. We make reference to the need to reduce unemployment,
but the NAIRU policy combined with welfare work requirements creates a
ludicrous Catch-22 for the poor. Thanks, Gil
It seems to me that you might want to put in at least some reference to
the Fed's NAIRU policy --
I remember being quite taken with a letter written by a
post-Keynesian economics professor (Paul Davidson?) which
appeared in the NY Times last year. It took the form of a
little thought experiment that went something roughly like
this. You abolish welfare, thus forcing more
Just to amend slightly my last post on this subject. I
think in the letter it was suggested that the process of
unemployment reduction would be hastened at each stage by
the unemployed voluntarily accepting lower wages than the
prevailing rates. Of course, since this would reduce
Jim C. writes:
I for one would miss open dialogue. I find Jim Devine's missives to
be well thought out and well-grounded in heterodox theory and absent
of caricatures of "mainstream" theory. When I met Gil Skillman
recently in Vancouver at the HES Conference my impression was that he
is a
I was going to ignore Eric's post: he's stating his opinion, I disagree,
but really, who cares? However, now that it's been seconded, I will briefly
express my different take. I do not want to get into a discussion about
this but just to register that there is disagreement.
I was at UMass
Dear Gil S:
I apologise for thinking you were "offended" when you
were only "surprised," and for saying you "demanded"
something when you only "requested" it. I guess I
was affected by the tone of your remarks more than
was appropriate. I hope you don't mind too much
if I don't agree with your
When discussing youth violence it is important to examine
the question of the law. The bourgeoisie at this time is
promoting lawlessness. It's the most lawless class, and will, at
a certain stage, destroy their own legal state. They do terrible
things outside the law and against the law. It
At 2:23 PM 8/1/96, Gil Skillman wrote:
Nowhere in the passage Jim cites do I advocate "rejection of the classical
surplus approach to value and distribution," which is by the way not
inconsistent with the interpretation of profit as a form of scarcity rent.
How can this be? Scarcity rents have
At 4:44 PM 8/1/96, Doug Henwood wrote:
Scarcity rents have something to do with the distribution
of scarce profits
Sorry, that should have been *cash* profits. Profits are always too scarce
for capital.
Doug
--
Doug Henwood
Left Business Observer
250 W 85 St
New York NY 10024-3217
USA
Doug Henwood wrote:
The modeling of social life as a set of simulataneous [sic]
equations is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Doug
--
Doug Henwood
Left Business Observer
250 W 85 St
New York NY 10024-3217
USA
+1-212-874-4020 voice
+1-212-874-3137 fax
email:
Of course, the "Science Wars" are all the rage right now, with "real"
scientists disagreeing precisely over the points in contention here (as
below). So saying that economists have to be "scientists" or that "a
scientific approach is needed" is to say exactly nothing, since all agree
that science
33 matches
Mail list logo
