Tavis Barr wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2 May 1997, Michael Perelman wrote:
>
> > Yes, indeed. The industrialsts did too much competing for the financial
> > types, so they remade the economy at the turn of the century through
> > trust, cartels and outright monopolies. In many cases, it took a
> > diff
On Fri, 2 May 1997, Rosenberg, Bill wrote (excerpts only):
> Sid Schniad's and Doug Henwood's figures on speculation
> and foreign investment in the world economy, and Bill
> Burgess's on Canada were interesting. I'd always had the
> impression Canada was more neo-colonised than New
> Zealand. Ho
On Fri, 2 May 1997, Anthony P D'Costa wrote:
> But price fixing still possible even if competition has increased. steel
> supplies are not that elastic. After getting rid of obsolete capacity the
> overall supply situation is somewhat belanced but around the world demand
> is increasing and pe
On Fri, 2 May 1997, Michael Perelman wrote:
> Yes, indeed. The industrialsts did too much competing for the financial
> types, so they remade the economy at the turn of the century through
> trust, cartels and outright monopolies. In many cases, it took a
> different mentality to succeed at
Michael Perelman wrote:
> I want to thank everyone involved in this debate. It may be unique in
> the history of pen-l, since I see us moving toward an agreement. Let
> me pose a few questions.
>
> 1) We probably have to distinguish between the colonial, semi-colonial
> (Latin American, eg),
Financial, economic, and sociological experts recently pondered
the question of the level of wealth in Canada and its ownership.
According to Dalhousie University Economist Lars Osberg, just 1
percent of the Canadian population owns almost one third of the
country's wealth. That is, at least $735
>Colin Danby wrote:
>
>>In fact many of these transactions are
>>arbitrage, which is inherently non-speculative.
>
>How do you mean this?
>
>Doug
Arbitrage (as I'm sure you know) involves buying something in one market
and simultaneously selling it in another to take advantage of price
difference
I want to thank everyone involved in this debate. It may be unique in
the history of pen-l, since I see us moving toward an agreement. Let
me pose a few questions.
1) We probably have to distinguish between the colonial, semi-colonial
(Latin American, eg), small independent (New Zealand, eg) a
Colin Danby wrote:
>In fact many of these transactions are
>arbitrage, which is inherently non-speculative.
How do you mean this?
Doug
Michael sent the following, and I'm not sure but am assuming it is a reply
to my post (pen-l 9831) There's a double negative in Michael's last
sentence so whether we are agreeing or disagreeing itsn't perfectly clear.
But I guess it is a disagreement.
When I took my orals, the Departmen
Dear Professor Levy,
There can be a breakdown of the economy but without revolutionary action,
breakdown can serve as the conditions for the renewal of capital
accumulation. Though this is the ABC's of Marx's theory of the trade cycle
(discussed for example by John Weeks in *Capital and Exploitat
Colin Danby asked:
"Why are changes in the composition of trade important?"
I was surprised that there were no comments on the forwarded post about the
increasing R and D-intensity (however this is quantified) of US exports.
"At the last ASSA meetings this issue came up, with the globalization
This globalization dispute is not getting any simpler. I hope I'll be
forgiven a long post in an effort to sort out the questions.
The underlying issue seems to be whether the freedom of action of local
or national governments has been abridged by foreign or transnational
actors, in some new and
> Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 16:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Norman Solomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>
At 06:40 PM 5/2/97 -0700, Anthony P D'Costa wrote:
>This financial and industrial distiction is somewhat simplistic, even
>though the verdict appears to be the former for US Steel. True US Steel
>was dominant but there were other big players. True USS led oligopoly was
>more effective in price s
I, for one, Tony, would like an explanation of the technical vs. the
effects part of the change. I would also be interested in some evidence
to back up these blanket assertions.
Cheers,
Sid Shniad
>
> There is a misunderstanding of what the "technical" part of the change is
> and "effects" of
rakesh bhandari wrote:
> The Marxist position, as developed by Paul Mattick in his several writings,
> is not against such improvements for the working class; the argument is
> that while such solutions may provide temporary relief, they will not
> eliminate the trade cycle and the eventual break
rakesh bhandari wrote:
>It seems to me that Doug is forced to minimize the importance of
>globalization not so much because of the evidence but because he remains
>wedded to the Keynesian idea of a closed economy whose authorities have
>potentially complete control over its economic destiny (if
It seems to me that Doug is forced to minimize the importance of
globalization not so much because of the evidence but because he remains
wedded to the Keynesian idea of a closed economy whose authorities have
potentially complete control over its economic destiny (if only that had
the political
Treacy: It will be hell, if the rate gets to zero and they will have to
be given raises. Competition for workers and monopolies for
capitalists!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] copyrighted
On Fri, 2 May 1997, John Pool wrote:
> There's an old joke about the professor who always gave the same
Ed,
Where can I access your article on globalisation that was in a z
magazine which Louis Proyect took an extract from.
Karl
Hi, hope no one minds, but I forwarded Doug's critique of E
KARL CARLILE: Below is are some comments of David Yaffe's on the
extract of Herman's piece on globalisation which he said I may
forward to the mailing lists.
DAVID YAFFE: I think Herman's view is a harsh reading of Meiksins
Wood's position but does contain an element of truth. The problem is
that
22 matches
Mail list logo
