Garraty, John A. 1957. Right-Hand Man: The Life of George W. Perkins
(NY: Harper and Brothers): p. 219 says that Morgan's right hand man
argued that the trusts represented a high order of socialism. What is
the difference between the U. S. Steel Corporation ... and a Department
of Steel as it
- Original Message -
From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Garraty, John A. 1957. Right-Hand Man: The Life of George W. Perkins
(NY: Harper and Brothers): p. 219 says that Morgan's right hand man
argued that the trusts represented a high order of socialism. What is
the difference
PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
-Original Message-
From: Eubulides [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 9:21 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The economy - a new era?
- Original Message -
From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL
Marx represents an important boys in that tradition. He believed that
the rise of the corporate form would provide the basic infrastructure
for a socialist society. This part of his work, of course, conflicted
with the other part that promotes socialism from below.
On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at
Michael Perelman wrote:
Marx represents an important boys in that tradition. He believed that
the rise of the corporate form would provide the basic infrastructure
for a socialist society. This part of his work, of course, conflicted
with the other part that promotes socialism from below.
Not
I was thinking of the architecture of the managerial structure.
On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 01:42:40PM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote:
Michael Perelman wrote:
Marx represents an important boys in that tradition. He believed that
the rise of the corporate form would provide the basic infrastructure
Michael Perelman wrote:
I was thinking of the architecture of the managerial structure.
Do you buy Michael Albert's critique of a coordinator class? Could
you have large enterprises with a flat self-managing structure,
without some sort of managers?
Doug
I've worked in academic institutions and briefly in a corporate
environment. My experience reinforces the what I've read about
management practices. Without necessarily arguing against any
coordinators, I feel certain that management structures today are
designed to maximize control and minimize
On Thursday, February 12, 2004 at 13:59:03 (-0500) Doug Henwood writes:
...
Do you buy Michael Albert's critique of a coordinator class? Could
you have large enterprises with a flat self-managing structure,
without some sort of managers?
Why flat? I mean, if a manager is a coordinator what is
- Original Message -
From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael Perelman wrote:
I was thinking of the architecture of the managerial structure.
Do you buy Michael Albert's critique of a coordinator class? Could
you have large enterprises with a flat self-managing structure,
without
You have to be careful with this. Gorbachev tried it with disastrous
results, of course, however, in highly specific historical context. Workers
voted for management offering more pay when production was declining and
hoarding already pandemic. To paraphrase Sam Huntington, from his
Trilateral
I too would expect GE to go right rather than left, today. But, Thomas
Ferguson in his _The Golden Rule_ showed how in the US the experience was
very different in the 1930s into the post war. GE and capital intensive
industries tended to go New Deal, while the small and labor intensive
businesses
Didn't Engels say that the worst time for a bad government is when it
first tries to do good.
On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 10:12:44PM +0300, Jeff Sommers wrote:
You have to be careful with this. Gorbachev tried it with disastrous
results, of course, however, in highly specific historical context.
Jeff Sommers wrote:
I too would expect GE to go right rather than left, today. But, Thomas
Ferguson in his _The Golden Rule_ showed how in the US the experience was
very different in the 1930s into the post war. GE and capital intensive
industries tended to go New Deal, while the small and labor
Didn't Engels say that the worst time for a bad government is when
it first tries to do good.
Do you remember where Engels says that?
--
Yoshie
* Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/
* Calendars of Events in Columbus:
http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/12/04 03:41PM
Didn't Engels say that the worst time for a bad government is when
it first tries to do good.
Do you remember where Engels says that?
Yoshie
re. engels, didn't he write somewhere (maybe 'socialism: utopian
scientific', guess i could look this up myself)
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
Didn't Engels say that the worst time for a bad government is when
it first tries to do good.
Do you remember where Engels says that?
I thought Tocqueville said something like that - the most vulnerable
time for a bad gov't is when it tries to reform itself. If I'm
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The economy - a new era?
I've worked in academic institutions and briefly in a corporate
environment. My experience reinforces the what I've read about
management practices. Without necessarily
Not really - if shareholders could hire managers,
why not the workers?
Doug
Hey!
Have you forgotten the recent disastrous results of
shareholders hiring managers? The end result was the
corporate scandals and systemic lies of the past
decade. Not that what was going on was exactly
My interpretation of the rise of the corporate form is
that Marx thought it might encourage workers to see
that they were already doing all the work to keep
society going (the capitalists being by then totally
divorced of any productive function) and doing it
co:operatively so why not do it for
Didn't Engels say that the worst time for a bad government is when
it first tries to do good.
Do you remember where Engels says that?
I do. In Die Bauernkrieg im Deutschland. Published in Neue Rheinische
Zeitung.
The worst thing that can befall a leader of an extreme party is to be
compelled
Michael Perelman wrote:
That was the big fight during the New Deal. One wing of the Democratic
Party called for trust busting; the other, for organizing the potential of
larger economic formations.
Both sides have anti-progressive consequences.
Of course they do, without progressive
The relationship between large corporations and the distribution of
income is not predetermined. Generally, small employers pay much lower
salaries than large employers. Wal-Mart is the exception, but may
represent a future trend.
Large corporations may be easier to orgahe technological
Michael Perelman wrote:
In short, we don't have good answers -- only opinions -- on the question
of industrial concentration.
Surely it'd be possible to correlate Herfindahls Ginis, no? Hasn't
someone done this?
Doug
areas and smaller cities.
Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: Eubulides [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: The economy - a new era?
- Original Message -
From: David B. Shemano [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If airline
Julio Huato wrote:
Why would concentration be more propitious for progressive politics?
I can think of several reasons. Less competition means less pressure
on wages (though this would be partly offset by higher prices in
noncompetitive markets). Large firms are easier to organize,
regulate, and
I know only of some older studies on the relationship between income
distribution and concentration. I believe that they only looked at
manufacturing concentration at the time and left out many of the other
variables that were important because concentration itself was a
response to the business
The other reason is that more concentration make it easier to organize
labor...they're all in one or a few places. I remember reading somewhere
famous that the mammoth factories of early 20th century Russia made it
easier to organize the workers. Today, I guess it would make strikes
more
Lenin applauded large factories for just that reason.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 09:44:13AM -0800, joanna bujes wrote:
The other reason is that more concentration make it easier to organize
labor...they're all in one or a few places. I remember reading somewhere
famous that the mammoth factories
negotiations are the likely vehicle with which to do this.
Joel Blau
Original Message:
-
From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:47:38 -0800
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The economy - a new era?
Lenin applauded large factories for just that reason
I started this thread but Doug Henwood's initial response turned it
into the question of whether high concentration or its opposite should
be preferred.
That's like asking if you prefer weightlessness or gravity. What
difference does it make what you prefer if you live under the force of
-L] The economy - a new era?
Lenin applauded large factories for just that reason.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 09:44:13AM -0800, joanna bujes wrote:
The other reason is that more concentration make it easier to
organize
labor...they're all in one or a few places. I remember reading
somewhere
Marvin Gandall wrote:
This is true, but I think the classical socialist movement favoured
concentration for mostly economic rather than political reasons -- ie.,
like bourgeois economics, Marxists and social democrats saw
concentration as historically progressive because it yielded economies
of
Jim Stanford in his book Paper Boom discusses this issue at great
length including a lot of empirical data demonstrating the superior
economic and 'political' position of large firms vs small business.
Small business tends to gravitate to a demagogic, right-wing populist
position, often tinged
Jim Stanford in his book Paper Boom discusses this issue at great
length including a lot of empirical data demonstrating the superior
economic and 'political' position of large firms vs small business.
Small business tends to gravitate to a demagogic, right-wing populist
position, often tinged
Wasn't it Jimmy Carter who did a number on airlines and trucking?
Anybody remember Alfred Kahn?
mbs
-Original Message-
From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Eugene Coyle
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 6:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The economy - a new era
Teddy Kennedy? Ralph Nader?
On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 06:57:49PM -0500, Max B. Sawicky wrote:
Wasn't it Jimmy Carter who did a number on airlines and trucking?
Anybody remember Alfred Kahn?
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
Alfred Kahn has a new book out -- I'm told, haven't seen it. He's
still boasting about the success of airline deregulation. Guess he
hasn't been keeping up. He was a director of People Express, oops,
that went bankrupt. But so did 400 plus other airlines -- some
multiple times. And they keep
Eugene Coyle wrote:
Alfred Kahn has a new book out -- I'm told, haven't seen it. He's
still boasting about the success of airline deregulation.
Long ago - 10, 12 years - I did a piece on the general experience of
dereg. That's when I discovered that the airfares subindex of the CPI
had been
I thought the use-value-based adjustments in price index calculations
are relatively new idea --if they are effectively incorporated ever. Is
that what you meant Doug when you referred to the CPI increase due to,
for example more stops? When did they start this?
Doug Henwood wrote:
Eugene Coyle
ertugrul ahmet tonak wrote:
I thought the use-value-based adjustments in price index calculations
are relatively new idea --if they are effectively incorporated ever. Is
that what you meant Doug when you referred to the CPI increase due to,
for example more stops? When did they start this?
No,
Long ago - 10, 12 years - I did a piece on the general experience of
dereg. That's when I discovered that the airfares subindex of the CPI
had been increasing far faster than the overall CPI, mainly because
of quality declines (e.g., tighter purchase restrictions, more
stops). Kahn had been
propose nationalization and a single
airline owned by the federal government?
David Shemano
--- Original Message---
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 2/10/2004 1:12PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The economy - a new era?
Eugene Coyle wrote:
Alfred Kahn has a new
- Original Message -
From: David B. Shemano [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If airline deregulation was not a success, in your view, what do you
propose to reregulate? Do you propose to go back to the pre-1978 era,
where industry capture was an art form and the CAB actively prevented
new entrants
David B. Shemano wrote:
If airline deregulation was not a success, in your view, what do you
propose to reregulate? Do you propose to go back to the pre-1978
era, where industry capture was an art form and the CAB actively
prevented new entrants and price competition in the name of the
public
Doug Henwood writes:
I think the burden of proof is on you to show that dereg was a
success. The industry is on the verge of going into cumulative loss
once again (i.e., all losses in its history exceeding all profits).
Scores of airlines have disappeared. Fare increases outpaced
inflation
With the hub and spoke system, prices in some places -- Chico -- have soared. It
cost more to fly 90 miles to san francisco than from SF to New York.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Has the US economy entered a new era?
It seems to me that the US Department of Justice, along with other
relevant agencies, has lost interest in enforcing antitrust laws.
I think we are back to the 1880s and 1890s, where Trusts and pools
will rationalize capacity for the good of all?
Banks
competitive in global markets, but I suspect it's just crony
capitalism.
Peter Hollings
-Original Message-
From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eugene Coyle
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 5:14 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L] The economy - a new era?
Has the US
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
-Original Message-
From: Eugene Coyle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 2:14 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L] The economy - a new era?
Has the US economy entered a new era?
It seems to me
So are progressive economists for competition? Doesn't a high
degree of concentration make social democratic politics easier?
Doug
That was the big fight during the New Deal. One wing of the Democratic
Party called for trust busting; the other, for organizing the potential
of larger economic formations.
Both sides have anti-progressive consequences.
On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 06:10:45PM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote:
So are
/~jdevine
-Original Message-
From: Eugene Coyle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 2:14 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L] The economy - a new era?
Has the US economy entered a new era?
It seems to me that the US Department of Justice, along
-Original Message-
From: Eugene Coyle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 2:14 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L] The economy - a new era?
Has the US economy entered a new era?
It seems to me that the US Department of Justice, along with other
relevant agencies, has
Michael Perelman wrote:
That was the big fight during the New Deal. One wing of the Democratic
Party called for trust busting; the other, for organizing the potential
of larger economic formations.
Both sides have anti-progressive consequences.
Of course they do, without progressive
You are right, but which is more open for abuse through powerful
manipulation?
I wish we could have the benefits of the larger formation, without the
negative consequences. Petty capitalism also has many unattractive
features.
On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 06:24:49PM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote:
organization and protectionism
have to bear?
Peter Hollings
-Original Message-
From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael
Perelman
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 6:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The economy - a new era?
Actually, the Reagan years
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
-Original Message-
From: Doug Henwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 3:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The economy - a new era?
Michael Perelman wrote:
That was the big fight during
-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael
Perelman
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 6:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The economy - a new era?
Actually, the Reagan years were more important. The Chicago school,
especially Robert Bork, made the case that antitrust
59 matches
Mail list logo
