Everything that I read suggests that flexible hours means that employers want
workers to be more flexible.
Richardson_D wrote:
BLS DAILY REPORT, FRIDAY, JUNE 23, 2000:
Flexible hours -- "the most strongly sought, but most elusive workplace
benefit" -- are likely to occupy an
At 15:15 25/06/00 -0700, you wrote:
So I am going to quote from Jim Devine's web pages about the disability of
Asperge's syndrome in order to look deeper into these dogma like ways of being.
Interesting web pages I agree, but I cannot find this one. What is the
title, and which section is it
Eugene Coyle wrote:
I would be very careful about getting close to Albert Bartlett.
He is a key
figure in the zero population and anti-immigrant world.
He turns his interesting arithmetic into an argument for solving
environmental and resource problems by dealing with population
and
Mine,
Of course Bartlett is not a Marxist. That only adds weight to his central
conclusion, which is about thew terminally unsustainable nature of
capitalist crisis and not about population growth (don't get sidetracked
into wasting time on his *opinions* about that; it's his *arguments* about
Jim and Justin have been going back and forth on this. Jim has outlined
his conception of the dialectic method. And Justin has responded to what
he considers the vagueness of that method and prefers a more explicit
exposition and examination of propositions.
Part of the problem in my opinion,
This discussion reminds me why I do not like like discussions of "method";
and please stop suggesting that I am illiterate. Anyway, I've had it; I'm
glad that you get new insights using your "method"; I would nefver criticize
what works to inspire someone. --jks
Greetings Economists,
Chris Burfurd asks what web page I got my quotes from. I would like to
add another correction also. The book I quoted from is called "Sex Between
Men", not just the subject matter. A history of male fucking since WWII.
The web site is,
Why is population growth a non-issue? Exponential population
growth is no more sustainable than exponential energy
consumption if only because, in the long run, exponential
population growth means exponential energy consumption.
Paul Phillips,
Economics,
University of Manitoba
G'day all,
Unlike Justin, I was actually enjoying his run-in with Jim (and Rod's
apposite intervention) - it put me in mind of Heilbroner's *The Nature and
Logic of Capitalism* and one of a hundred quotes therefrom which seem
appropriate here:
"It seems hardly necessary to state again the
At 07:52 AM 06/27/2000 -0400, you wrote:
This discussion reminds me why I do not like like discussions of "method";
and please stop suggesting that I am illiterate.
you are clearly not illiterate (far from it). But you don't grace us with
the benefits of your literacy to back up your arguments,
Forwarded message:
From: "LPDC" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Peltier Statement and a note
Dear friends,
Below is Leonard Peltier's statement for the 25 year memorial and
honoring at Oglala. We will be unable to answer emails until June
29. If you need to communicate with us, please send your
Rob said:
Unlike Justin, I was actually enjoying his run-in with Jim (and Rod's
apposite intervention) . . .
Well, someone should, I guess.
Justin's impatience with debates about methodology might be the product of
living in an intellectual environment where one finds oneself confonted
I propose to work on cutting work and cutting consumption, not get involved
with racist population fanatics.
And by the way, compound interest is an old discovery.
Gene Coyle
Mark Jones wrote:
Eugene Coyle wrote:
I would be very careful about getting close to Albert Bartlett.
He is
Assumptions? Exponential growth?
On population. For most of human history populations have fairly stable. There
have been two periods of very rapid growth. The neolithic revolution and the
industrial revolution. In the rich industrial countries, population growth has
stabilized. Why should it
Mark,
The mainstream environmental movement is almost totally focused on what
you call a "red herring" -- population control. There are major and very well
funded efforts underway to take over the environmental issue. The Sierra Club,
the only large group with any form of member input
The debate over dialectics is inevitable. It does not work mechanistically
or automatically. So, there are no "correct" answers that everybody could
agree upon. It is still superior to the false precision of the neoclassical
approach, but it does have a certain degree of subjectivity involved.
Justin wrote:
Jim, although his own work is more or less pure analytical Marxism as I
conceive it, is allergic to the particular prejudices and approaches of
the former AMs.
Je ne suis pas un Marxiste analytique. (I'm sorry if my grammar is bad.
It's been more than 30 years since high school
At 12:17 AM 6/28/00 +1000, you wrote:
That leaves what I take to be the true dialectician, who is never wrong,
because s/he's always content with the useless (by natural scientific
standards of proof and prediction).
a dialectician might never be wrong in terms of abstract theory, but when
that
Eugene Coyle wrote:
Don't you see that Bartlett is defending Capitalism?
Gene,
There are 2 kinds of people: those who understand the problem and those who
are part of it. Bartlett understands the problem. If you read what he says,
he says inter alia that 'there is no population problem:
Rod Hay wrote:
population growth has
stabilized. Why should it not in other areas of the world.
On energy. Why do we have to assume a static energy technology?
For practical
purposes, the amount of energy available is infinite.
Rod, this only shows that you don't understand the problem.
Mark, rarely has anybody included so many ad hominems in one post.
Perhaps this is a record. Please. We are keeping that sort of discussion
off this list.
On another note, I don't understand why you are disagreeing with Gene.
Isn't it true that you and I consume many more resources than the
My old undergraduate economics advisor, William Nordhaus, presented a model
back in the early 1970s (when I knew him) in which the growth of the
economy encouraged high prices of the main resources used as energy
sources, which then induced the search for new supplies, for new energy
sources,
Mark, rarely has anybody included so many ad hominems in one post.
Perhaps this is a record. Please. We are keeping that sort of discussion
off this list.
On another note, I don't understand why you are disagreeing with Gene.
Isn't it true that you and I consume many more resources than the
Population growth may be a problem in one place but not in another. Hereabouts the
problem is not population growth but population decline. Where 60 years ago there
was a large family on every quarter section or so now there is a small family
every 2 or 3 sections. Hog density is increasing
BLS DAILY REPORT, MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2000
If the national economy continues to moderate its growth rate over the rest
of this year, employers could see some relief from chronic labor shortages
dominating virtually each region, say private and government analysts across
the country who were
Mark Jones wrote:
Doug is a political voyeur, who reported
on Seattle, DC, etc, and then came back and reported equally well on
Tulipomania, the latest silly headlines, Zizek's latest silly 'text' etc,
instead of doing what he should and could do, ie, show commitment and start
ORGANISING.
I
Paul Phillips asked,
Why is population growth a non-issue? Exponential population
growth is no more sustainable than exponential energy
consumption if only because, in the long run, exponential
population growth means exponential energy consumption.
The answer lies in misleading pronoun
Nordhaus assumed that there would always be an available "backstop"
technology. I think that he had nukes in mind at the time.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901
Mark Jones wrote:
Mine,
Of course Bartlett is not a Marxist. That only adds weight to his
central
conclusion, which is about thew terminally unsustainable nature of
capitalist crisis and not about population growth (don't get
sidetracked
into wasting time on his *opinions* about that; it's
How often do the poor become rich? The environment would be helped if the very
poor became better off -- so they did not have to poach or to destroy hillsides
to survive.
How many poor Haitian peasants do you think will become wealthy next year?
Brad De Long wrote:
Mark, rarely has anybody
At 11:42 AM 6/27/00 -0700, you wrote:
Nordhaus assumed that there would always be an available "backstop"
technology. I think that he had nukes in mind at the time.
yeah, he assumed that nuclear power was a good thing. This suggests that he
should have taken externalities into account.
Jim
From a Marxist piont of view, Steven Rosenthal comrade responds to
defenders of over-population thesis, one them being, I may include,
_Bartlett._..
Mine
- I agree with most of what Andy and Mine have said during the debate
about population. The problems of the world today are due to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/27/00 02:42PM
Doug says:
I think I'm not bad as a reporter and an analyst. I know I'm a
crappy organizer. I can't even organize my own life, much less a
political group, and far much less a revolution.
I suspect that the same holds true for (nearly?) all of us who
Be very careful. The population of the rich grows in two ways: (i)
the rich have lots of children, and (ii) the poor become rich...
do you know that african american women are sterilized at a significantly
higher rate than white women? (according to our sociologist friend,
Andy Austin, 3-4
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/27/00 03:32PM
Hi Charles:
CB: Excuse the immodesty, but we just organized the hell out of the
BRC Organizing Conference in Detroit.
Congratulations! A great job!
___
CB: Thanks, Yoshie. Seems to me you had a hand in the OSU strike support.
Yes, and I thought it was the rich get richer and the poor get children.
CB
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/27/00 02:44PM
How often do the poor become rich? The environment would be helped if the very
poor became better off -- so they did not have to poach or to destroy hillsides
to survive.
How many
I wasn't honestly aware of any ad hominems, you know I hate that sort of
thing, but if you say so, then it is so, and I'm already falling on my
sword, Maximus Michaelimus.
As for Gene, I'm afraid he misunderstood Bartlett completely, and obviously
misunderstands the issue too.
Mark Jones
Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
Michaelus Perelmanus wrote:
How often do the poor become rich? The environment would be
helped if the very
poor became better off --
Michael, this is really and truly the looniest thing I've read all day, no,
all week.
Marcus Minimus
Jim Devine wrote:
what's wrong with the
Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy
crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time
It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are the
alternatives to fossil? (don't please
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/27/00 04:30PM
Jim Devine wrote:
what's wrong with the
Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy
crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time
It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are the
Yes, Mark, I am "twitching" my ass on a "library stool" because some
magical person mentioned that population growth rate "must drop to zero"
and made himself clear that the _US government_ should adjust its
population accordingly. Yes, I am still twitching my ass because the same
magical person
Mark Jones wrote:
Jim Devine wrote:
what's wrong with the
Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy
crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time
It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are the
alternatives to fossil?
Jim Devine wrote:
what's wrong with the
Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy
crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time
It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are the
alternatives to fossil? (don't please
Michael Perelman wrote:
extreme poverty makes people take environmentally damaging actions.
But nothing compared to us car-driving, air-conditioned people.
You sound like the World Bank here, blaming deforestation on poor
indigenes rather than rapacious corporate loggers. Do you really mean
Jim Devine wrote:
what's wrong with the
Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy
crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time
It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are the
alternatives to fossil? (don't please
I haven't jumped into pen-le in a while, but this question spurs
me to point out that the problem with the Nordhaus theory is
that, right or wrong, it is irrelevant to the fundamental energy
problem facing us today, which is global warming, not
high fuel prices. And if there are no alternatives
It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are
the
alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc,
because they are not alternatives)
Can we do a Julian Simon-style bet? What's your timeframe, and what
exactly are you expecting? Of course, if
Rod writes:
Gasoline is still the cheapest liquid you can buy. What is it in the US,
about $2.00 a gallon? Try to buy any other liquid for the same price.
You're right. The graphs that indicate the real price of gasoline (nominal
price/consumer price index in the US) indicate that prices are
Mark Jones wrote:
Rod Hay wrote:
population growth has
stabilized. Why should it not in other areas of the world.
On energy. Why do we have to assume a static energy technology?
For practical
purposes, the amount of energy available is infinite.
Rod, this only shows that you
What's the difference between Nordhaus' theory and Freshman NC econ --
"the market will solve the problem"?
Gene Coyle
Michael Perelman wrote:
Nordhaus assumed that there would always be an available "backstop"
technology. I think that he had nukes in mind at the time.
--
Michael
Doug says:
I think I'm not bad as a reporter and an analyst. I know I'm a
crappy organizer. I can't even organize my own life, much less a
political group, and far much less a revolution.
I suspect that the same holds true for (nearly?) all of us who post
on left e-lists. :)
Yoshie
Hi Charles:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/27/00 02:42PM
Doug says:
I think I'm not bad as a reporter and an analyst. I know I'm a
crappy organizer. I can't even organize my own life, much less a
political group, and far much less a revolution.
I suspect that the same holds true for (nearly?) all
At 02:40 PM 6/27/00 -0700, you wrote:
What's the difference between Nordhaus' theory and Freshman NC econ --
"the market will solve the problem"?
it fits with freshman NC, though I think Nordhaus was being Schumpeterian
-- and was open to the idea of the gov't helping the market. But then
Mark Jones wrote:
As for Gene, I'm afraid he misunderstood Bartlett completely, and obviously
misunderstands the issue too.
I understand Barlett very well. I've heard him speak. The seminars or
workshops, or whatever they are, are funded and used to incite racism among the
well-off
There is no shortage of energy!
Nor of any other resource.
The environmental problem we have to solve is how to get rid of our
garbage without fouling our environment to such an extent that it is
inhospitable for human life.
Rod
I agree that waste management is an urgent problem, but the
In an earlier round on this issue on the marxism list, Lou finally
deigned
to give some recognition to my pounding away on the political point --
but I think his response was simply ridiculous: he claimed that before
anything could be done an ideological struggle had to be wage within
marxism to
Mark Jones' alleged raising of the overpopulation question leads us once
again into a discussion of the Marxist critique of Malthus. I would refer
PEN-L'ers to Michael Perelman's "Marx's Crises Theory: Scarcity, Labor and
Finance", specifically chapter two on "Marx, Malthus, and the Concept of
At 06:31 27/06/00 -0700, you wrote:
Greetings Economists,
Chris Burfurd asks what web page I got my quotes from. I would like to
add another correction also. The book I quoted from is called "Sex Between
Men", not just the subject matter. A history of male fucking since WWII.
The web
Or is the central question to do with that self-institutionalising
dissenting movement? Human agency - the self-conscious drive to become the
subject of our history, if you like. I have no idea why these movements pop
up when they do - and why they don't when they don't. Neither the
Interesting to see Patrick Bond tonight in a heavily clipped interview on
BBC 2 Newsnight about the Zimbabwe elections. Patrick was suggesting, if I
got the point correctly, that Morgan Tsvangirai was boxing Mugabe in by
offering some sort of compromise with the implicit risk in the background
I forget who Simon's bet was with (Paul Erlich?), but it is undeniable that
better technology and higher relative prices can increase reserves of
non-renewable resources faster than they are depleted through the
outragious rate of consumption in rich countries.
For example, according to a
Here is an interesting article showing the added costs of
private-public partnerships
Cheers, ken hanly
The Globe and Mail Tuesday,
June 27, 2000
THE HIDDEN EXPENSES OF PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
By John Loxley
Brian Neysmith's paean to public-private
Bill Burgess wrote:
Sent: 28 June 2000 00:58
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:20785] Re: Re: energy crises
I forget who Simon's bet was with (Paul Erlich?), but it is
undeniable that
better technology and higher relative prices can increase reserves of
non-renewable resources
Max, I'm not sure it *would* take to shake your sang-froid, the point I was
making was the opposite, ie, despite fatuous assertions to the contrary,
which shows that if you sractch some pen-lers, you find a Samuelson or an
Adelman ('resources are infinite.. the planet has no need of them... oil
For once, I agree with Doug, who is right: it took you exaclty five minutes
in this debate, to begin YOURSELF to start blaming the (over-breeding?)
poor in neocolonial countries.
How are the new Nike's BTW?
Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
-Original Message-
From:
Jim, much as I like you (I do, as a tireless intellectual, of a certain
sort) I don't really give a damn whether you believe me (now) or not. You
soon will do, in any case. But don't take my word, check it out yourself. PV
is not a substitute for oil. There is no substitute for oil. Anyone who
At last, some wisdom. Yes, we are fucked. And yes, without linking the
future of fossil to to the future of greenhouse, it's impossible to make
sense of anything. We "socialists" better get our skates on. Altho actually
it's most likely already too late, so continue with your reveries and
general
What we are talking about here is the rate at which fossil fuels accumulate
under the earth and ocean-shelves. It is very slow indeed, and therefore of
no practical importance. For humankind, once the fossil carbon in the mantle
NOW is bnurnt, that's IT. It took 500m years to accumulate and we've
It would have been sensible to focus on the real issue, instead of allowing
yourself to get sidetracked by the irrelevancies of population-control. No
doubt middle class white fanatics in the US are capable of nuking the whole
planet rather than give up what they've got, but the fact is that they
Louis Proyect wrote:
The problem today is that we have not carried out the kind of work that
Marx did in V. 3 for the ecological crisis of today. Within Marxism, there
are four schools of thought that are contending with each other:
This is the part of your post which provoked the "Pish"
Carrol:
This is the part of your post which provoked the "Pish" in my pen-l post. The
problem posed by the four alleged "schools of thought" is not theoretical but
practical, and your belief that any such theoretical work can be or needs to
be carried out is as silly as Doug's frequent demand for
No doubt I am deluded or ignorant or stupid or some other appropriate boo word
but I fail to see how
the statement that extreme poverty makes people do environmentally damaging
actions implies
that Michael is blaming the poor for the energy crisis or any specific
environmental damages. You don't
Max, I'm not sure it *would* take to shake your
sang-froid, the point I was
making was the opposite, ie, despite fatuous assertions to
the contrary,
You're doing a good job.
This is all a scenario for political disaster, I might note.
By the time the shit hits the fan, it's too late to do
Bill Burgess wrote:
Sent: 28 June 2000 00:58
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:20785] Re: Re: energy crises
I forget who Simon's bet was with (Paul Erlich?), but it is
undeniable that
better technology and higher relative prices can increase reserves of
non-renewable
Be very careful. The population of the rich grows in two ways: (i)
the rich have lots of children, and (ii) the poor become rich...
do you know that african american women are sterilized at a significantly
higher rate than white women? (according to our sociologist friend,
Andy Austin, 3-4
One of the possible ways to make an eco-socialist message palatable to the
scientists/engineers currently under capital's thumb$$'s is to show that a
significant change in the property rights/class structure would vastly
accelerate trends that capital pays them to analyze but not communicate to
Louis Proyect wrote:
THIS IS WRONG, CARROL. IT IS NOT "PRACTICAL". IT IS "THEORETICAL". LET ME
REPEAT IT WITH EMPHASIS: IT IS A THEORETICAL QUESTION. IT HAS TO DO WITH
Lou, I followed with great interest the debate you and Mark had with
Jim Heartfield some years ago and you convinced me
Louis Proyect wrote:
Mark Jones' alleged raising of the overpopulation question leads us once
again into a discussion of the Marxist critique of Malthus. I would refer
PEN-L'ers to Michael Perelman's "Marx's Crises Theory: Scarcity, Labor and
Finance", specifically chapter two on "Marx,
(Final chapter of "Spectres of Capitalism")
Pure Economics, or the Contemporary Worlds Witchcraft
In all the universities of the contemporary world an odd sort of subject is
taught called economic science, or simply economics, as one might say
"physics." It would take as its field of study the
Some opponents of GM seeds claim that there is no reduced
pesticide use with GM crops. For example Shiva makes this
claim as does John Warnock in a recent Dimension article.
Here are a few studies collected by Doug Powell. Powell is
pro-GM seeds but nevertheless gives some useful data. THe
Just to be clear, I was not referring to the accumulated natural production
over millions of years (see below), but to the 'proven reserves' that are a
function of current technology and priceand world politics.
If Mark rejects the 'official' estimates of (rising) oil reserves I quoted,
Why is it that when ever the price of gasoline goes up a few cents, we
hear Chicken Little screaming "Energy Crisis"?
Gasoline is still the cheapest liquid you can buy. What is it in the US,
about $2.00 a gallon? Try to buy any other liquid for the same price.
There is no shortage of
I am always appreciative of superlatives. If you had merely said, it was
stupid, I would be hurt. I was merely trying to make 2 points. 1. The the
rich to whom Brad referred were rarely from the ranks of the poor. 2. That
extreme poverty makes people take environmentally damaging actions.
Michael! how can you say this? I am not saying you mean it, but isn't it a
racist common sense that, for example, Mexicans damage the environment
more so regulary than white people, or let's say, from a capitalist point
of view, working classes are less responsible towards environment than the
84 matches
Mail list logo
