How on earth does this support your stuff about separating the grain from the
livestock being a metabolic rift and unorganic?This guy suggests that we should
not feed livestock grain at all. He suggests we got hooked on grain fed beef. The
implication is that there is nothing natural nor organic
The other point that should be made is that OPEC has considerable control over the
price
and amount of oil sold worldwide. Many interpret NAFTA as requiring that water be
exported
to the US and MExico only at the same price as it is sold in Canada and except in
special
circumstances we would
Yes. Jevons did. So does this make Mark a neo-classical :)
Cheers, Ken Hanly
Doug Henwood wrote:
Mark Jones wrote:
Carrol, it's not a question of insults. The self-evident fact is that none
of these people are capable of arguing for the positions they take, or
didn't you notice? The
What has this to do with your ignoring the benefits. It confirms my view.
Sending an article that after irrelevant forays into SHells predation in Nigeria
and how nasty the new capitalists in Russia are shows the disastrous results of
one dam on one tribe. It fails even to mention whether there
Scanning the debate on game theory last month, I was not sure how much a
historical materialist perspective came through. I mean by this, locating
game theory in the current stage of development of the means of production.
It seems to me that game theory is one of a number of theories which
Doug Henwood wrote:
Speaking of neoclassicals, didn't Jevons worry about Britain running
out of coal?
And Jevons was right.
Today the British coal industry has all-but disappeared
and can never again, under any circumstances, be the energetics-base for
large-scale capitalist production.
Giving enemies a name is a sinister business, I agree. It is akin to
witchcraft, but then economics IS witchcraft. But sometimes it is
no more than pulling a bearskin off a
shaman and revealing a poor trembling actor inside
(I do not mean Doug of course).
A hundred years ago, bitter battles
- Original Message -
From: "Harald Agerley" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "ENVTECSOC - csf" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "ENVINF-L"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; "ELAN - csf" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "ecol-econ"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; "ECOFEM . CSF" [EMAIL PROTECTED];
"BIOREGIONAL - CSF" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "EP - CSF"
[EMAIL
--- Sponsor's Message --
**WIN A TRIP to HAWAII** Every time you send a FREE ZingCard
through July 26, you are automatically entered in our
drawing for a Hawaiian Summer get-away. Start Sending Now!
http://click.topica.com/qibz8SnrbAjwjxa/ZingAd2
Ken Hanly wrote:
How does it follow from this example that dams
have no benefits or that you do not ignore the benefits?
Ken, according to the US DoE the contribution of new hydropower planned or
commissioned by US utilities under green power marketing initiatives is 0.0%
of the total (which
This reading of current American politics is absolutely breath-taking in its
misjudgments. This is the U.S. in the year 2000, not Russia in 1902; we may have
turned the corner after 25 years gravitating right, but we are not in anything
remotely resembling a pre-revolutionary situation; and
Ken wrote:
I don't get it. What would it be like not to separate livestock from grain?
Have the livestock wandering through your grain fields? What system of
agriculture ever suggested that. Maybe I am being flippant, but what you say
makes absolutely no sense to me.
It just amazes me how
(From "Farming for Profit in a Hungry World", 1977)
"Capitalist production, by collecting the population in great centres, and
causing an ever increasing preponderance of town population.., disturbs the
circulation of matter between man and the soil; i.e., prevents the return
to the soil of its
Fair point, Charles. I guess my strategy was to start with
conventional wisdom and wratchet it left. Sorry, won't do that again!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/29/00 08:25PM
With a nod and a wink, Thabo Mbeki stood by
him, alone amongst respected world leaders.
CB: Who are some of the other
Ken Hanly wrote:
I don't get it. What would it be like not to separate livestock from grain?
Have the livestock wandering through your grain fields? What system of
agriculture ever suggested that. Maybe I am being flippant, but what you say
makes absolutely no sense to me. Livestock are
Carrol:
Lou makes no effort to outline a route from present conditions to ideally
desirable locations, and this blank in his arguments allows him to leap
back and forth depending on what kind of criticism he is responding to.
Such an effort would be pointless. If there was a revolution in the
G'day Michael,
Let me suggest that I suspect that the crisis in water will hit before the
energy crisis. For many, it already has.
I think I agree with you. And farming is THE focus here, I think. After
all, farming is responsible for 70% of global water use, and fully one
quarter of the
Doug writes:
I don't think capitalism will collapse, though anything is possible. The
more likely end to capitalism, if there ever is one, is through political
organization and expropriation of the expropriators. I think there are a
lot of people who are now using ecological crisis as a
Louis Proyect wrote:
The political fight that keeps cropping up on these lists is whether Haiti
is the future of the world or something like the Asian Tigers as depicted
in those advertising supplements in the NY Times: "Invest in Taiwan. Invest
in the future." With pictures of smiling people in
Those are the only two choices, Haiti or Taiwan? I'd thought the
world was much richer in possibility than that dispiriting binary.
Doug
I was excluding the possibility of socialism. But surely you are aware
that within the options available on the capitalist menu, these are what's
available
Producing grain and livestock on the same farm will introduce some problems. There
is land in the west that is suited to pasture but to no other agricultural use. If
you require that grain growing and pasture be together you are taking this land
out of agricultural use.
Rod
Carrol Cox wrote:
[Preliminary: I would accept Jim Devine's post, "capitalist collapse
-- socialism?" as a general statement of parameters for socialist
debate at this time.]
Doug Henwood wrote:
Louis Proyect wrote:
The political fight that keeps cropping up on these lists is whether Haiti
is the future of
M A Jones wrote:
Today the person we should mostly be attacking politically is
Ralph Nader.
Nader's neither a saint nor a revolutionary, but if you think this,
you've got a very weird set of priorities. He's more deserving of
attack than Bill Clinton, the CEO of the world bourgeoisie? Than
Rod Hay wrote:
Producing grain and livestock on the same farm will introduce some problems. There
is land in the west that is suited to pasture but to no other agricultural use. If
you require that grain growing and pasture be together you are taking this land
out of agricultural use.
Jim Devine writes:
Given the world-wide competitive effort by capitalists and their
governments to push wages down relative to labor productivity, it's quite
possible that capitalism will collapse, in the sense that it did in the
1930s. But such a collapse eventually creates forces that
Michael and Rob are right to emphasise the importance of water and no-one
who has made a study of the fate of the Ogallala aquifer can fail to be
impressed by the profligacy with which modern capitalism uses up our common
birthright. But study of the relative issues does suggest that energy
Joel Blau wrote:
This reading of current American politics is absolutely
breath-taking in its
misjudgments. This is the U.S. in the year 2000, not Russia in
1902; we may have
turned the corner after 25 years gravitating right, but we are
not in anything
remotely resembling a
M A Jones wrote:
Doug Henwood wrote:
Speaking of neoclassicals, didn't Jevons worry about Britain running
out of coal?
And Jevons was right.
Today the British coal industry has all-but disappeared
and can never again, under any circumstances, be the energetics-base for
large-scale
M A Jones wrote:
A hundred years ago, bitter battles were fought between those who claimed
the
mantle of Marxist leadership (Kautsky, Bernstein etc) and those who from the
margins of the movement (Luxemburg, Lenin) bitterly denounced them as
impostors, bourgeois politicians and above
Doug Henwood wrote:
Britain may have lost its
industrial dominance, and fallen relative to Germany and the US, but
British per capita incomes are over nine times higher than what they
were in 1870. But perhaps that ninefold increase is just the last
burst of brightness before the lights
Doug Henwood wrote:
Nader's neither a saint nor a revolutionary, but if you think this,
you've got a very weird set of priorities. He's more deserving of
attack than Bill Clinton, the CEO of the world bourgeoisie? Than Tony
Blair, Bill's loyal manservant? Than Bill Gates, tarnished populist
Re transitions. Even with socialist revolution by 2002 there will be a long
period of time before ecologically rational economies can be built
because of population pressures.
Does this mean that our ultimate goal is to get human population down
to one billion? I can see how we can stabilize
My post does not claim that "It is raining" is a tautology. It claims that "It is
raining or it is not raining" is a tautology. Of course "It is
raining" is not a tautology but dependent for its truth upon weather conditions.
Reread my post. A tautology cannot be false but the "cannot" is
a
Brad De Long wrote:
Does this mean that our ultimate goal is to get human population
down to one billion? I can see how we can stabilize world population
at 10 billion (maybe). I can't see how to get it down to one
billion...
Our resident Club of Rome is extremely discreet on the population
Carrol Cox wrote:
If you want a historical parallel to now it has to be prior to
the formation
of the second international. It is ridiculous to compare the
present to the
period of the crisis of the 2d international. (And the Second Congress
of the RSDLP would be a ridiculous parallel
Brad De Long wrote:
Does this mean that our ultimate goal is to get human population
down to one billion? I can see how we can stabilize world
population at 10 billion (maybe). I can't see how to get it down to
one billion...
Our resident Club of Rome is extremely discreet on the population
Doug Henwood wrote:
Our resident Club of Rome is extremely discreet on the population
question, unlike NPG or Dave Foreman. What's the number guys? How
many people can the earth support?
We have been discussing not population, but energy, which the resident
Simonists are extremely discreet
Jones mostly ignores what I was talking about, but hey, it's Saturday
morning and I can't do the work I want to do, so what the heck.
I wrote: Given the world-wide competitive effort by capitalists and
their governments to push wages down relative to labor productivity, it's
quite possible
Yes Ken. I misread your post. Sorry. An inconvenient line break. And a too quick
reading and provocation at your claim that my post was mostly wrong.
Your example is in fact the same example that Carnap uses in his Introduction to
Symbolic Logic. And yes, most tautologies cannot be recognised
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
Being a lit-critter, not a bean-counter, I have no idea, but now
that you mention it, I'm curious. Suppose everyone on earth is to
live (at least) at the level of Brad's living standard (including
occasional visits to restaurants comparable to Chez Panisse), since
Mark Jones wrote:
This is a half-truth. All historical
analogies break down when inspected close up but I'm not sure that average
German workers were any more receptive to Luxemburg/Lenin's ideas
than are their modern counterparts receptive to our ideas.
I'll accept this. It's even
I'm not a gentleman farmer. I am a retired philosopher. I live in a farming community
and my coffee klatch has farmers and retired farmers in it. I also am surrounded by
farms. When I read Lou's posts they sometimes just make no sense to me.
If Lou is only saying that it is a good idea to
Yoshie hit the real question.
Gene Coyle
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
Brad De Long wrote:
Does this mean that our ultimate goal is to get human population
down to one billion? I can see how we can stabilize world
population at 10 billion (maybe). I can't see how to get it down to
one
Doug, you ignore the demonstration effect. What a Chez Panisse patron
does becomes the goal of the rest of us. The environment
can only be saved by stopping the rich from consuming more. And more.
And more. And more. And more. (copy phrase 9,000 times.)
Gene Coyle
Doug Henwood wrote:
Ken:
I pointed out that this already happens in certain stages of the cattle
raising
operation. I am not sure Lou has a clue what the process even is and that
is why I
described it. When livestock are in the pasture their shit is recycled. I
assume this
meets the criteria of Lou's organic bond or
Pastures are not typically plowed, certainly native pastures are not. Rod's point is
that much land is not suitable for growing cereal crops and so ought not to be plowed
up
but it could still be used for pasture.. You respond that pastures ought not be plowed
up and so should be taken out of
Ken Hanly wrote:
Pastures are not typically plowed, certainly native pastures are not. Rod's point is
that much land is not suitable for growing cereal crops and so ought not to be
plowed up
but it could still be used for pasture.., etc etc,
Damn it. Does *every* post in this cluster of
Eugene Coyle wrote:
Doug, you ignore the demonstration effect. What a Chez Panisse patron
does becomes the goal of the rest of us. The environment
can only be saved by stopping the rich from consuming more. And more.
And more. And more. And more.
This is blame-shifting. It's like blaming
Jim Devine writes:
Given the world-wide competitive effort by capitalists and their
governments to push wages down relative to labor productivity, it's
quite
possible that capitalism will collapse, in the sense that it did in the
1930s. But such a collapse eventually creates forces that
Doug Henwood wrote:
Eugene Coyle wrote:
Doug, you ignore the demonstration effect. What a Chez Panisse patron
does becomes the goal of the rest of us. The environment
can only be saved by stopping the rich from consuming more. And more.
And more. And more. And more.
This is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Devine writes:
Given the world-wide competitive effort by capitalists and their
governments to push wages down relative to labor productivity, it's
quite
possible that capitalism will collapse, in the sense that it did in the
1930s. But such a collapse
Carrol, look! please! I have been following the discussions with
amazement here! "Eco-fascism" is a mistakenly directed ad hominem-- an
unfortunate mischarecterization, to justify the eco-fascism of capitalism
and the demands of the mainstream environmental movement. Association of
socialist
Jim Devine wrote:
Though a lot of this seems acceptable to me, what do you mean by "capital
scarcity"? In many industries there is excess capacity these days (on a
world scale).
This is the most fascinating issue of all: the coexistence of surplus
capital in particular phases/locations, with
It is not blame shifting. I am saying that Capitalism has us emulating the
rich -- anybody richer than ourselves, regardless
of whatever level we are at as individuals. And the people in the 89th
percentile are driven to live like those in the 90th.
I'm not saying that the rich consume all
Louis Proyect wrote:
American Marxists have always been ambivalent about electoral formations
arising to the left of the Democrats and Republicans. On one hand they
would view such third parties as a necessary alternative to the two-party
system; on the other, they inevitably regard them as
I agree with Mark here. JD sounds like a reformist who does not want to
see the ongoing crisis of capitalism. The keynesian demand side policies
of the 1930s and the class alliences it formed in order to manage the
economy did not solve the fundamental conflicts between the capitalist and
Perhaps many of you are aware of the sharp spikes in the price of electricty
in the US,
particularly just now in the Pacific Northwest and California.
Prices have risen to $600 -$900 per megawatt hour in the Northwest and
to $750 (limited by a regulatory ceiling) in California. To translate,
OK. I was responding to the whole set of statements not just yours. I just meant to
clarify what's what from my understanding of the issues. You are
correct in your critique of Carrol.
Rod Hay wrote:
Yes Ken. I misread your post. Sorry. An inconvenient line break. And a too quick
reading and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
true, which is why capitalism is a crisis driven model. I don't see how
you contradict my argument here. Capitalism may survive but it does not
eliminate the possibility of crisis in the long run, and
Of course. That is not the argument. Look at the subject line
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
Being a lit-critter, not a bean-counter, I have no idea, but now
that you mention it, I'm curious. Suppose everyone on earth is to
live (at least) at the level of Brad's living standard (including
occasional visits to restaurants comparable to Chez Panisse), since
Brad De Long wrote:
Brad DeLong, wondering if any of his descendants will break down
doors on night raids for the Fertility Police...
This everyone knows -- when living standards rise, birthrates fall unless
artificially pumped up in some way. So there will be no need for
fertility
So now we are talking about organic farming. Earlier it was the organic bond
between grain and livestock, later the folly of feeding grain to livestock period
and finally the folly of producing protein through beef rather than plants. It is
clear Louis the vegetarian opposed to feeding grain to
Lou is actually arguing the same thing in his posts on the Nader campaign.
I'm suggesting that we consider very carefully the possibility that Mark and
Lou (and you) are, in these threads, violating the principles Lou is arguing
for in that post. To cite Mao again, Marxists have no crystal ball
Most farmers have limited land and they cannot just keep exhausting
pastures and moving them to new pastures. Ranchers limit the number of
cattle in a
pasture. Pasture can be fallowed or renewed by planting forage grasses.
Cheers, Ken Hanly.
David Wright Hamilton, a biologist at the
Louis Proyect wrote:
Carrol, this is to inform you that you have gone over the quota of
mentioning my name in a post. As you know, you are limited to mentioning my
name no more than 1,000 times in a year and you have reached your quota in
early July.
:-) I have more fun arguing with
I just attended a talk by Phil Mirowski. He says that game theory did not
exist except at RAND, where von Neuman convinced the boys that it would be
useful for military strategies.
Chris Burford wrote:
Scanning the debate on game theory last month, I was not sure how much a
historical
Mark, I mentioned water, which I do think is likely to lead to many local
military flare-ups in the near future, to suggest that we cannot speak with much
authority about the exact nature of the future. Someone posted something --
maybe it was you -- about scientists having no inkling of the
Relying on my admitted poor memory, game theory was considered something a
novelty until about 1980, when interest started to grow. It became somewhat
standard in graduate courses about 1990, and is now routinely taught at the
undergraduate level. The reasons probably are both internal to game
It was all about figuring out how to buy weapons that don't exist.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think that I a going to have to ubsub people for bad behavior. I will
probably not be on line for a while. My messages might not come to me in
the order they are sent.
I will unsub the next person who behaves in an agressive fashion. I will
continue to do so until people become less
On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 10:51:40PM +0100, Mark Jones wrote:
Just like telling
people to abandon all doubt "commit their heart and soul", fall glumly
silent, and then give their all for some dubious creep like Ralph Nader, in
fact.
Or Ken
Lou,
Turning to the question of beef, pork, chicken, etc. We absolutely need to
drastically reduce their role in our diet. If one acre of soybeans, relying
on 100 gallons of water, can produce the same nutritional value as 100
acres of grazing land, relying on 10,000 gallons of water, then we
I thought I granted that in many parts of the world there are problems of
over-grazing. I even mentioned Mongolia. So add California and other areas. I
don't see how these crisis of overuse of water for cattle shows any global
catastrophe from cattle-raising even when it has very significant
73 matches
Mail list logo
