Do you see our greeting, Karl? I hope not. Some sort of palpable
survival into this, our most painfully material of times, would invalidate
both you and the ground of your assumptions. How could we separate your
brand of millennium from those of the churches? How could you, even?
Marxism alwa
To Bill Burgess:
How do you define the capitalist pecking order? Does being capitalist
and having a large GDP make you high up in the order? Is it influence on
international capitalist development or policy. Surely neither NEw Zealand
nor Canada can claim much more than being able to peck
I had written that:
> > The data in front of me, which does not include portfolio investment
> > (it is taken from the UN World Investment Directory) yeilds an inward
> > FDI/GDP ratio of about 7.8% and outward FDI/GDP of 5.6% in 1992 for New
> > Zealand, i.e. considerably less than Canada's 19.5
Where does this fit into globalization?
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 21:37:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Peter Kwiek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: friends <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
On Sat, 3 May 1997, Michael Perelman wrote:
> Tavis, I suspect that we have to sort our two different trends. First,
> the economy as a whole has grown, so we might expect from extrapolation,
> a growth in production and non-production workers.
Right. The point is that the production work
Reading Bill Rosenberg's interesting comments suggests that there are
two broad categories of arguments here. One is the traditional issue of
macro openness and costs of balance-of-payments adjustment. The other
is a set of questions around foreign ownership of capitalist firms.
BOP ADJUSTMENT:
Today's Los Angeles Times has a long piece criticizing NZ's reading
methodology -- whole language v. phonics. The article says that employers
are complaining that they can't get literate workers.
Periodically groups like the NZ Business Roundtable have
advocated privatizing public education or
Rosenberg, Bill wrote:
>This is an absolutely essential point that I was going to make
>myself. Even the progressive view from the heights of capitalist
>economies is different from those lower in the food chain! I think
>almost everyone in New Zealand would agree that the changes of the
>last 13
On Sun, 4 May 1997, Rosenberg, Bill wrote:
>
> and the New Zealand figures are for the legal definition of
> "overseas company" - i.e. more than 24.9% foreign. Some of those are
> arguably not foreign-controlled (e.g. 58% of shares of companies
> listed on the NZ Stock Exchange are foreign owned)
Bill Burgess wrote
> Just to clarify: the figures I quoted for Canada were for foreign
> **control** (ownership of more than one half of voting equity or its
> equivalent (or one-third if this voting block is more than the next two
> ownership block combined). These figures do **not** capture **p
10 matches
Mail list logo
