In reply to Michael Perelman:
Good, David. You can see exactly where we disagree on a fundamental issue
where debate becomes all but impossible.
I will make two modifications to your statement. First, to label us
utopian and your position is implicitly practical
...
Second, of course you are utopian and I am practical -- why dispute it?
You, and other utopians, want to remake man. You assume perfection is
possible. ...
Part of a real dialog with others is accurately reflecting their
beliefs: these statements above are false. We want to remake social
At 07:08 AM 4/26/01 -0500, you wrote:
Perfection of man is neither possible nor is its pursuit desirable.
Of course, what's meant by perfection depends on one's point of view. In
the social Darwinist perspective, perfection seems to mean that each of us
is an aggressive competitor, fighting
--- David Shemano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is why I love American society -- both Michael Perelman and
rapacious investment bankers can find their place and lead their lives
primarily as they see fit.
David Shemano
This is probably the most absurd claim I have heard on this list.
Sabri Oncu writes:
--
That is why I love American society -- both Michael Perelman and
rapacious investment bankers can find their place and lead their lives
primarily as they see fit.
David Shemano
This is probably the most absurd claim I have heard on this list. I
Finally, I never said, and very specifically did not say, that every person
living in the United States leads lives as they see fit. As you point out,
that would be an absurd claim. However, what makes the United States a
good society in my eyes is that there is room for Michael Perelman
David, debate is impossible once you reach fundamental questions about human
nature.
David Shemano wrote:
I disagree that the acknowledgment of fundamental issues means that debate
is almost impossible.
Second, of course you are utopian and I am practical -- why dispute it?
You, and other
David,
Will it help if I quote the first line of the paragraph: You must make
everything which is yours _salable_. Marx's point is in part that political
economy describes an economic system and a social reality where everything
is for sale, including things that we thing would be horrible
Justin Schwartz writes:
--
David,
Will it help if I quote the first line of the paragraph: You must make
everything which is yours _salable_. Marx's point is in part that political
economy describes an economic system and a social reality where everything
is for sale,
David,
Although Marx is speaking in the formal mode, about political economy, his
main target is in the material mode, the society where everything is for
sale, that political economy describes. Marx doubts that political economy
is neutral as opposed apologetic for that society, and actively
The key word in what David says below is we. Yes, the complaint that I
and others have is that it does not satisfy desires very effectively.
You, David, might enjoy looking at Marx's brief discussion in the 1st vol.
of Capital on the Fetishism of Commodities.
I went to a bicycle shop yesterday.
In reply to Justin Schwartz and Michael Perelman:
I think we are discussing something fundamental, and inherently interesting
to me. What you are both saying, if I may paraphrase, is that human
interaction based upon voluntary exchange is not ennobling. (Let us leave
aside, for the moment,
woman is better off contracting with the brothel
than in her other choice.
CHeers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: David Shemano [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 8:28 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:10792] RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Exporting rubbish
How can you just focus on voluntary exchange and set aside inequality?
In fact if power relationships are too unequal the voluntary should even be
in scare quotes.
Consider the following:
1) A person voluntarily pays a ransom and in exchange is set free by
kidnappers. (The person
David Shemano writes: I think we are discussing something fundamental, and inherently
interesting to me. What you are both saying, if I may paraphrase, is that human
interaction based upon voluntary exchange is not ennobling. (Let us leave aside, for
the
moment, inequality, and just focus on
David,
I must have missed your post, so I reply only to the bit quoted below. If it
is incomplete, you can add on. I do not think that voluntary exchange is
ennobling, but I also have nothing against it under conditions of rough
equality. I don't think that it's realistic to expect people to
I wish you would just make your points in concise form rather than questions
whose bearing on what I wrote is unclear.
But here goes:
Question 1 So the condemnation of exploitation is that it is
inefficient?
Where in my text do I either say or imply that exploitation is inefficient?
I wish you would just make your points in concise form rather than questions
whose bearing on what I wrote is unclear.
But here goes:
Question 1 So the condemnation of exploitation is that it is
inefficient?
Where in my text do I either say or imply that exploitation is inefficient?
Or
The problem is not so much with their choice as
with the conditions that make them accept that choice.
There are two problems. The first problem is the conditions that make
them accept that choice.
The second problem is made up of those who work hard to make their
options smaller, and their
The social welfare costs are *not* proportional to forgone earnings.
Really? Isn't this exactly how economists think? Isn't this exactly
how they do cost-benefit analysis?
{Change in Social Welfare} = {Change in Real per Capita GDP} - {Terms
Associated with Increased Inequality (Where
The wretched refuse of your teeming shores, it says on the base of the
Statute of Liberty. Course, these days, they can't come in. --jks
From: John Henry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:10552] Re: Exporting rubbish
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001
Brad DeLong wrote:
1) The measurements of the costs of health impairing
pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased
morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given
amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the
country with
Brad Delong:
Points (2) and (3), by contrast, seem to me to be correct. World
social welfare would rise if we moved polluting industries out of the
Los Angeles basin to someplace poorer with cleaner air.
Lawrence Summers.
Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
In my view, point 1 is where Lant Pritchett (the author of the memo)
screwed up. The social welfare costs are *not* proportional to
forgone earnings.
Points (2) and (3), by contrast, seem to me to be correct. World
social welfare would rise if we moved polluting industries out of the
Los
Didn't the Brazilian environment minister write that it was insane? It
was, but it makes perfectly good sense within conventional economics. So
does the infamous cancer alley in Louisiana. Poor people cannot afford to
pay, so it makes sense to keep the affluent areas more pristine.
E. J.
Didn't the Brazilian environment minister write that it was insane? It
was, but it makes perfectly good sense within conventional economics. S
Do I obey economic laws if I extract money by offering my body for sale, by
surrendering it to another's lust? . . . . Am I not acting in keeping
Justin Schwartz writes:
-
Didn't the Brazilian environment minister write that it was insane? It
was, but it makes perfectly good sense within conventional economics. S
Do I obey economic laws if I extract money by offering my body for sale, by
--- David Shemano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Justin Schwartz writes:
Do I obey economic laws if I extract money by offering my body for sale, by
surrendering it to another's lust? . . . . Am I not acting in keeping with
political economy if I sell my friend to the Moroccans? . . . . The
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 2:56 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:10578] Re: Exporting rubbish
Maybe George Bush wrote that part of the memo..I assume the meaning is that
air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low in POLLUTANTS
Do I obey economic laws if I extract money by offering my body for sale, by
surrendering it to another's lust? . . . . Am I not acting in keeping with
political economy if I sell my friend to the Moroccans? . . . . The
political economist replies to me, You do not transgress _my_ laws, but see
30 matches
Mail list logo
