Jim Devine wrote:
> if there's no _reason_ for the exponential increases, they're worth
> forgetting.
Well, the increases in oil and energy consumption are matters of fact, of
history. The problem is (a) explain and (b) propose effective policies
against.
Albert Bartlett seemed to assume that t
Mark Jones alludes to a so-called upswing in world economy after 1931.
This seems somewhat of an absurdity . It is mainly in the world capitalist
crisis in the 30s
--especially deep in those capitals severely sanctioned/restricted by
the winning imperialists
of WW1 -- and also following t
I wrote:
> > Maybe. I'd like to see an argument, involving evidence and logic. Something
> > more than Malthus-style references to "inevitable" geometric increases in
> > demand facing "inevitable' arithmetic increases in supply.
M. Jones writes:
>I haven't deployed that kind of argument. The clo
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 wit
>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 bal
[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 lin
>
> 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 a
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, wi
[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 su
>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
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
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 a
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 sub
13 matches
Mail list logo
