There's Aronowitz's *False Promises*
On Sun, 19 Nov 1995, Harry M. Cleaver wrote:
Two questions:
1. Does anyone know a good reference/discription/analysis of the conflict
over speedup at the Lordstown plant of Ford(?) that led to widespread
sabotage by young workers. This was back in
Richard: Get a hold of several articles by Jane Gravelle of the
Congressional Research Service for a theoretical case that consumption
taxes *reduce* efficiency. I don't have the cites but remember reading
them back in 1990, and I think I remember the punch line. I believe that the
offset to
If you want the straight micro theory critically considered, you can do
much worse than to go with 2 pen-lers. For undergraduates, Peter Dorman
has a manuscript coming out imminently, I think, that is superb. For
graduate micro there is Hahnel and Albert's *Quiet Revolution in Welfare
Well Lotus, I saw your reply to Barney. The latter wouldn't be, would he,
the esteemed purple dinosaur and chanteur? What I want to know is, who
is this Stallin' character and why doesn't he just get on with it? As for
Troutsky, the whole thing smells fishy. And what was so gosh-darned
Barro writes praising his pal in today's WSJ. He recounts an anecdote
evidently meant to support his high opinion of Lucas. Before having his
1972 article published in the JET, it was rejected by the AER for being
"too mathematical". Lucas fired off an angry letter to the editor, asking
him
Sorry if this point has already been made--I deleted some of this
thread inadvertently. The same day that piece of crap from the Cato
people appeared in the WSJ, they carried a good piece from their token
human being, Albert Hunt, about the outrageous cuts in the earned income
tax credit. If
A friend not on the list is looking for data on public ownership of
industry for a comparative systems course she is teaching. Please respond
privately to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks
Kevin Quinn
On Mon, 1 May 1995 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are we having (Islamic) fun(damentalism) yet?
:-)
Yes! This reminds me of my puzzlement when I didn't find all of the
bastard Keynesians shipping off to Tehran in the late 70's to help
construct the "IS-LMic Republic"!
to
psychoanalyze the practically rational h.e. --Kevin Quinn
On Fri, 21 Apr 1995, Jim Devine wrote:
Has anyone remarked that homo economicus is either autistic or
psychopathic?
sincerely,
Jim Devine
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles
Evan: Try Hicks (Sir John) Essays in Monetary Theory and also
Leijonhufvud (Axel) in his Information and Coordination on what he calls
the pre-Keynesian "Art of Central Banking" tradition.
On Tue, 28 Mar 1995, Evan Jones - 448 - 3063 wrote:
Are there any experts out there on nineteenth
Re: the popiate of the people. I've always thought anti-clericalism and
leftism were mutually implicating, myself, and love quoting the last
priest/last king thing that Justin mentioned. Recently, though, I've had
2nd thoughts about associating *religion* with compensation, due to having
just
I think we need more evidence on this: e.g., in DC, where there are
height restrictions on buildings, are interest rates lower?
Kevin Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
men" of
the industry, so Wall Street could peddle a nice risk-free instrument
with a clear conscience. --Thanks for the warning!
On Thu, 19 Jan 1995, John E. Parsons wrote:
On Thursday, Jan 19, Kevin Quinn wrote...
Speaking of rationality, did people catch the WSJ article on Ro
This is in response to Robin's comments on rationality.
I agree with Robin that institutions shape the selves whose lives
they structure, and in this context that the instrumentally rational agents
that people rational choice models tend to be produced by the universal
reign of markets. I
This is just a bibliographic footnote to the rationality discussion. For
those interested, as I was/am, in Jim Devine's suggestion that
Aristotelian phronesis is an alternative to rational choice theory worth
considering, there are several contemporary philosophers to check out.
Martha
I agree completely with what Jim says below. There are always some
substantive constraints on the interpretation of preferences being
employed, and the economist, whether neo-classical or analytically
marxist, typically denies this, maintaining that they are only employing
innocuous formal
Broome and others have pointed out, very much as Jim argues, that it's
always possible to redefine options in ways that can save the rationality
hypothesis, even in the face of the aporia Peter mentions below. In order
therefore for the hypothesis to "have any bite", as Broome puts it, there
On Thu, 22 Dec 1994, Jim Devine wrote:
I agree that Marxism is not enough. If we had a seance, Marx
would probably agree.
Happy Secular-Humanist Winter Festival!
Could someone look into the possibility Jim broaches here! At the
next URPE meeting, couldn't there be a session titled:
Isn't most of this the interest earnings on the government securities in
its portfolio? So except for earnings on discount loans, we're talking
about one hand of the government paying the other hand and then getting
it back at the end of the year?
On Sun, 11 Dec 1994, Helene Jorgensen wrote:
I agree. It's important to see, though, that the taxes paid by the Fed are
more than offset by interest payments going the other way--the "more
than" serving as operating funds and for the odd ice-sculpture--so that
the Fed is in this respect, as a "taxpayer", in a class of its own. (This
20 matches
Mail list logo
