The Atkinson book is hardly radical, but it is a good firm rebuttal of the
rush to judgment about welfare state outcomes.
Joel Blau
Michael Perelman wrote:
I thought that you might find this interesting. I assume that football
would make an even greater contribution to development.
At 13:06 06/05/00 -0400,
Mine Doyran
wrote:
Chris Burford wrote:
It is a fine gesture by Charles to commemorate the anniversary of Marx's
birth, to reprint the second and third part of "The Three Sources and
Three
Component Parts of Marxism".
I agree.
We come at this from different
Yes, it is firm but very limited. It mostly makes a few neo-keynsian points.
Joel Blau wrote:
The Atkinson book is hardly radical, but it is a good firm rebuttal of the
rush to judgment about welfare state outcomes.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico,
The spirit of Mayday is beginning to take hold in the United States.
Several towns and cities have begun to hold regular events to celebrate
the day. This year I was invited to participate in the celebration in
Troy, New York, a famous early industrial city along the Hudson river
north
[To a very large extent, the work of John Bellamy Foster and Paul Burkett
has been dedicated to re-establishing the ties between Marxism and ecology,
which had existed during Marx's own career as demonstrated by his concern
with the problem of soil fertility. So when Marxists of earlier
The Telegraph (UK)
Sunday May 7, 2000
China's recession adds pressure for workers' rights
By Damien Mcelroy in Beijing
CHINA returns to work today after an unprecedented week-long national
holiday ordered by a Communist leadership alarmed at escalating violent
protests and strikes among a
Title: Re: [PEN-L:18559] Re: Re: Re: Re: Capital dreams
Greetings Economists,
Carrol Cox wrote out a simple query in response to observing Michael Perelman's typing program,
Carrol,
Michael, I'd be interested in your experiences with voice
recognition software. How well it works might
At 06:27 PM 05/05/2000 -0500, you wrote:
Re balance of payments etc. In the '60s and '70s, there
would always be a distinction made between balance of
trade (which was positive for U.S.) and balance of payments
(which was negative). Is that distinction no longer of
any importance? And was it
At 07:45 PM 05/07/2000 -0700, Jim Devine wrote:
At 06:27 PM 05/05/2000 -0500, you wrote:
Re balance of payments etc. In the '60s and '70s, there
would always be a distinction made between balance of
trade (which was positive for U.S.) and balance of payments
(which was negative). Is that
Milton Friedman saw the balance of payments deficit early on as an opportunity
to eliminate fixed exchange rates, which he saw as a form of government
control.
Friedman, Milton. 1968. "A Proposal for Resolving thee U.S. Balance of Payments
Problem: Confidential Memorandum to President-elect
http://www.jhu.edu/~soc/pcid/papers/7
Program In Comparative International Development
Department of Sociology
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD. 21218 USA
Working Paper #7
A
The controversy emerges in the second part with Marx and Wallerstein,
which seems pretty unfair. Wallerstein replies in the _Review_ "Frank
proves the European miracle"..
Mine
PREFACE to REORIENT :
GLOBAL ECON0MY IN THE ASIAN AGE
http://fbc.binghamton.edu/commentr.htm
Immanuel Wallerstein
Comment No. 39, May 1, 2000
"The United States as Nuclear Champion"
Somewhere back in ancient time, in the 1970's, the United States and the
Soviet Union agreed
13 matches
Mail list logo
